Lenin to Anarchists [Archive]

RaÃºl Duke

25th April 2007, 00:54

1)
not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished.

I don't understand this part well...so I can't answer well.

It seems that Lenin takes Marx's theory of the whitering of the state like if it was a scientific fact. This phrase seems to be converying: "Anarchist's don't know what they are talking about because its a fact (so he states) that the state would whither away once the Vangaurd DOP is set up."

Marx's theory of the whitering away of the state seems to fail, at least when Marxism is introduced the Leninist way, due to real life examples. Socialist countries bureaucracies did not whither away into communism; yet they have lead to capitalism.

However, this might instead be because of the "material conditions": You need an industrialized country to reach communism. So, I really don't know what a leninist vanguard party might achieve in an industrialized country.

The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship.

This is erroneous. Anarchist know very well what they want to replace the state with. Local assemblies, worker's councils, federations, etc are examples of what would replace the state. Basically anarchists want to set up a anti-formal hieararchy direct democracy in the political and economical spheres of society.

The only revolutionary examples of Leninist Vangaurd DOP state (in the countries they succeeded, which mostly aren't considered industrialized) was the industrialization of the agricultural feudal country and leading the feudal country into capitalism.

The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.

??? DO they mean that the former would "train" (i.e. lead) the proletariat to reach communism? This is like saying, the proletariat is too stupid to envision communism and need training, mentorship, etc 24/7. True, people need to know about true communism (so much propaganda against it) yet I think once socialism or just enough revolutionary consciousness is established the proletariat can lead itself to communism without leadership 24/7. Also, how exactly could the present state train the proletariat?

YSR

25th April 2007, 22:54

Originally posted by Lenin
(1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish he state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished.

Never thought I'd have to use the phrase "Marxist mysticism," but this calls for it. What "conditions"? What "withering away"? Marx had theories, he didn't lay down a series of commandments like "Thou shalt let the state wither away by x y and z."

Assuming that everything Marx said or wrote is true is exactly how the "Soviet" Union got in the trouble it did.

Nothing Human Is Alien

25th April 2007, 23:10

Yeah.. that's what it was. :rolleyes:

apathy maybe

25th April 2007, 23:24

My response is, Lenin was wrong. The state can and should be abolished over night and not replaced with another state. Of course, the definition of state is probably different, I'm talking about a minority controlling a majority, which rules out the possibility for there to exist a "proletariat" state in places such as, well Europe and North America at least.

Anarchists have many times explained how they think that society should be run after a revolution, what should happen after the revolution and so on. However, anarchism is not a single ideology, to claim it is, is to show a clear and obvious ignorance.

And to repeat, Lenin was wrong, and you cannot talk of anarchists as if they are a single monolithic bloc. They aren't.

RaÃºl Duke

26th April 2007, 00:26

Never thought I'd have to use the phrase "Marxist mysticism," but this calls for it.

No wonder why I didn't seem to understand 100% what Lenin was refering to...
I mean I found some of his statements quite odd.

Marx had theories, he didn't lay down a series of commandments like "Thou shalt let the state wither away by x y and z."

Assuming that everything Marx said or wrote is true is exactly how the "Soviet" Union got in the trouble it did.

Agreed

Rawthentic

26th April 2007, 02:21

The point is that in class society there must be a state. Thus it is after the proletarian revolution, classes still exist, and the proletariat must build its own revolutionary worker's state to eliminate these antagonisms.

No state, and the working class will be massacred.

OkaCrisis

26th April 2007, 04:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:21 pm
The point is that in class society there must be a state. Thus it is after the proletarian revolution, classes still exist, and the proletariat must build its own revolutionary worker's state to eliminate these antagonisms.

No state, and the working class will be massacred.
By who?

In the only revolution I can envision, all people, everywhere will be armed and fighting to fully crush the 'state apparatus' themselves. AFTER the revolution, I assume that we would mostly still be armed. Anyone participating in the set-up of a new state structure should expect that some (hopefully most) people will be intent on a full revolution, and will only keep on fighting.

Resistance to anti-statism (the development of anarchism) by a 'party' or organization claiming to represent "the workers" (when the goal is the abolishment the 'working class'), wielding the state apparatus in the NAME of them!, reeks of state-capitalism. It reeks of fascim. We all agree that the end goal is no state (well, probably most of the Marxists, C/communists and anarchists). In striving toward that goal, it is outrageuos to simply let another state structure develop out of the ashes the revolution.

Imposition of a state after a revolution has never proven to lead to communism.

Time for a new theory.

Rawthentic

26th April 2007, 05:01

Time for a new theory.
So lets see, build one why don't you?

There are social classes after the revolution, and there will be an angry capitalist class that wants its power back. All this calls for a worker's state.

Period.

26th April 2007, 05:08

By who?

The bourgeoisie? Foreign intervention as well as bourgeois agents within the country. It seems like you think that after the proletariat gains power, everything will be completely peaceful. You don't find anything wrong with that?

In the only revolution I can envision, all people, everywhere will be armed and fighting to fully crush the 'state apparatus' themselves. AFTER the revolution, I assume that we would mostly still be armed. Anyone participating in the set-up of a new state structure should expect that some (hopefully most) people will be intent on a full revolution, and will only keep on fighting.

Why would the proletariat fight against their own creation of their own state?

Resistance to anti-statism (the development of anarchism) by a 'party' or organization claiming to represent "the workers" (when the goal is the abolishment the 'working class'), wielding the state apparatus in the NAME of them!

Could you show me how this is relevant to the thread by quoting who said anything about this?

reeks of state-capitalism. It reeks of fascim. We all agree that the end goal is no state (well, probably most of the Marxists, C/communists and anarchists). In striving toward that goal, it is outrageuos to simply let another state structure develop out of the ashes the revolution.

It's not outrageous at all, if you understand Marxist theory.

Imposition of a state after a revolution has never proven to lead to communism.

Nothing has lead to communism. This argument is shit.

apathy maybe

27th April 2007, 16:39

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 26, 2007 05:08 am

By who?

The bourgeoisie? Foreign intervention as well as bourgeois agents within the country. It seems like you think that after the proletariat gains power, everything will be completely peaceful. You don't find anything wrong with that?
The bourgeoisie will be in no position to do anything more then random acts of terrorism or similar. They are tiny majority, and once they do not control the army or police they will be no threat that requires a state. You do not need a state to defend against foreign enemies, this was shown by the anarchist militias in Catalonia and Aragon during the Spanish Civil War.

Of course there will still be violence after the revolution, but not the sort that requires a state, the source of so much violence, to prevent it.

In the only revolution I can envision, all people, everywhere will be armed and fighting to fully crush the 'state apparatus' themselves. AFTER the revolution, I assume that we would mostly still be armed. Anyone participating in the set-up of a new state structure should expect that some (hopefully most) people will be intent on a full revolution, and will only keep on fighting.

Why would the proletariat fight against their own creation of their own state?
Of course, so much of this discussion is semantical, what is the state? Anarchists don't believe that there can be such a thing as a majority state, and thus the proletariat in those place where it is the majority, cannot form a state. Though certainly people claiming to represent the working class could form a state.

reeks of state-capitalism. It reeks of fascim. We all agree that the end goal is no state (well, probably most of the Marxists, C/communists and anarchists). In striving toward that goal, it is outrageuos to simply let another state structure develop out of the ashes the revolution.

It's not outrageous at all, if you understand Marxist theory.Again, semantics. Different definition of a state. I'm sure you would agree that it would be outrageous for a new state to develop that was controlled by a small minority of the proletariat.

Imposition of a state after a revolution has never proven to lead to communism.

Nothing has lead to communism. This argument is shit.The argument isn't shit, because the imposition of a state after a revolution, has been tried. Tried and failed. But otherwise, yes I agree.

27th April 2007, 16:49

The bourgeoisie will be in no position to do anything more then random acts of terrorism or similar. They are tiny majority, and once they do not control the army or police they will be no threat that requires a state.

Yeah, CIA-funded minority groups have never impacted a profound political change anywhere on earth. :rolleyes:

History is laughing at you.

You do not need a state to defend against foreign enemies, this was shown by the anarchist militias in Catalonia and Aragon during the Spanish Civil War.

Semantics.

The argument isn't shit, because the imposition of a state after a revolution, has been tried. Tried and failed. But otherwise, yes I agree.

Again, semantics.

Nothing Human Is Alien

27th April 2007, 17:10

As always, anarchists misunderstand the state to be some body that exists independent of class.. something that a set of rulers sets up by choice.

The fact is, as long as more than one class exists, a state will arrise out of the contradiction between those classes. The question is not should we have a state, but, who will organize a state to suppress the enemy class/es.

By calling for the destruction of the capitalist state, without the construction of a workers state to keep the deposed capitalists and their imperialist backers from regaining power, anarchists backhandedly support capitalist counter-revolution.

syndicat

29th April 2007, 21:29

CompadeLibertad:
By calling for the destruction of the capitalist state, without the construction of a workers state to keep the deposed capitalists and their imperialist backers from regaining power, anarchists backhandedly support capitalist counter-revolution.

This is a common fallacy of Leninists. The key thing to understand is that there is a distinction between a governance structure or form of government and a state. A state is a particular type of governance structure peculiar to societies based on a dominating and exploiting class.

Governance strucutres have existed historically that were not states. The Iroquois federation is an example, as were the councils of elders and village councils in the communities of southeastern Nigeria in the middle ages. In both cases land was owned communally, there was not a separate professional administrative group or separate paid armed force.

A state is, as Engels pointed out, an apparatus of control effectively separated from the people. It isn't just the self-governance or self-administration of a community by the people.

I can't speak for all people who call themselves "anarchists," so I will only speak for my organization. In our view, in the revolutionary process the working class takes over management of the industries, dismantles the corporate hierarchies, and dismantles the state. But to consolidate the revolution, the working class needs to create a new governance structure through which the mass of the people, the working class, can self-manage public affairs. These new structures of governance would be rooted in the participatory democracy of the assemblies in the workplaces and neighborhoods, and congresses of delegates elected from, and accoutable to, the base assemblies. This structure of aassemblies and congresses would have the power to set the rules, and to control a people's militia that would provide the armed self-defense of the revolution. Precisely because it is controlled directly by the working masses, this new governance structure isn't a state.

An example of the difference between Communists and anarchists in practice played out in the Spanish revolution in 1936. The armed bodies of the state had mostly gone over to fascism and been destroyed by the working class in most of the country. There was then a debate on the way forward. The Communists wanted to rebuild the Republican state and a conventional hierarchical army -- as had been done under Trotksy in 1918 in the Soviet Union. This was part of the Communists' strategy for gaining state power. Their st rategy was to gain control over the officer corps and the training academy for the officers corps, in army and police.

The CNT, the anarcho-syndicalist union, proposed a different course. They proposed to the Left Socialist leadership of the UGT, the socialist labor federation, that the two unions, the CNT and UGT, would replace the old Republican state with a new governance structure, controlled in the immediate situation by the unions. The cabinet of ministers would be replaced by a National Defense Council made up of equal number of delegates of the UGT and CNT union federations, and the Cortes, the Spanish parliament, would be replaced by a National Workers Congress. And there would be similar regional structures of defense councils and worker congresses. The armed forces would be a unified people's militia with a unified command. This was to overcome the problem of lack of coordination caused by the formation in 1936 of different party and union militias. The CNT proposal also called for seizure of the banks and complete socialization of the Spanish economy under worker management.

To try to force the hand of the UGT, the CNT did form a regional government, a Regional Defense Council, and a Regional Congress, in the liberated zone of Aragon.

Clearly the anarchists were proposing a new governance structure in which the working class would be in power. But the Socialist and Communist parties turned them down, because they preferred the strategy of continuing the old Republican state apparatus.

Rawthentic

29th April 2007, 22:19

because they preferred the strategy of continuing the old Republican state apparatus.
Then they are not communists, and that is not a worker's state. What CdL says is irrefutable; its true.

syndicat

29th April 2007, 22:27

Then they are not communists, and that is not a worker's state. What CdL says is irrefutable; its true.

But then you need to answer the argument i provided against the following comment by CdL:

By calling for the destruction of the capitalist state, without the construction of a workers state to keep the deposed capitalists and their imperialist backers from regaining power, anarchists backhandedly support capitalist counter-revolution.

if this is "irrefutable" then you can show how I didn't refute it.

Rawthentic

29th April 2007, 22:42

This structure of aassemblies and congresses would have the power to set the rules, and to control a people's militia that would provide the armed self-defense of the revolution.
That's a state. Its an organ that the ruling class, working class in this case, uses to repress the counterrevolutionaries and eliminate class antagonisms. This is not a semantical debate; a state is what it is and without it all is an illusion.

And for fuck's sake, don't mistake the bourgeois state for the proletarian one.

apathy maybe

30th April 2007, 00:32

Semantics. We use one word to describe two different things. Of course to my mind, the anarchist definition is more useful and even "more correct". But I can see how Leninists and Marxists would use their definition and were they get it from.

It does come down where the focus is on, economics and class, or simply raw power. The anarchist definition focuses more on who has power, the Leninist and Marxist definition seems to look more at "which class" is in control, even if it is never the whole class that is in control of the state, but only a segment of it.

As I said, it seems that the anarchist definition is more useful. But, it is still all semantics and something that shouldn't really take up much time. (Except in threads such as this where it is so obvious that there are two sides ...)

Oh shit, I just came more ammunition to my detractors! This post is sure to make the poll swing against me now! ....

Rawthentic

30th April 2007, 00:39

All of the working class will administer their state except those who oppose the revolution.

syndicat

30th April 2007, 02:03

The reason this debate is important is because of what has been done in the past in the name of the "proletarian state." The term is mere rhetoric. What is important is to be clear about what we have in mind. I understand A.M's point about the anarchist emphasis on power, but i believe that it is also fundamentally about class.

Consider what happened in the Russian revolution. Remember, Leninists have often claimed that "the working class ran things" so it's fair to take this as an example of what they mean by "workers state."

First, the soviets set up by the Mensheviks and other socialists in the big cities in Russia in 1917 were top-down, they were not controlled by the working class, but by professional class party cadres. The plenary sessions, where the worker delegates came, were just talking shops, they were treated as rubber stamps by the executive. When the Bolsheviks gained the majority in the main soviets in the fall of 1917, they retained the top-down structure.

Secondly, with the setting up of the Council of People's Commissars in Oct. 1917, a central planning body was immediately created, Vesenkha, appointed from above, to plan the national economy. This is inconsistent with workers' management of production. The central planners will want to have their own managers in the worksites to make sure plans are carried out and sure enough Trotsky and Lenin in 1918 became big partisans of one-man management. by the end of 1920 the last of the elected worker committees had been replaced by one-man management. The Regional Soviet of Factory Committees in St. Petersburg had proposed in Nov. 1917 the invoking of a national congress of factory committees to create a plan for the economy, but that more bottom up approach to planning was blocked by the Bolsheviks.

Third, a top-down hierarchical army was created in the spring of 1918, with 30,000 czarist officers hired to run it.

Fourth, in Nov. 1917 a top-down political police, the Cheka, was created, answerable only to the central committee of the Bolshevik Party, which was made up of cadres from the intelligenstia, that is, the professional/managerial class.

This re-creation of a top-down state machine, run by cadres of professionals and managers, was the beginning of a new class system, based on the class of managers and top professionals being the dominating class.

This whole structure satisfies my definition of a "state" -- a hierarchical body separated from the control of the working masses. But it also shows how the state is inherently an institution to protect and further the interests of a dominating class, that is, a class that dominates the class of immediate producers.

Now, the defenders of a "proletarian state" should say whether they agree that this structure that was set up in the first months of the Russian revolution was indeed, in their opinion, a "proletarian state."

Rawthentic

30th April 2007, 02:25

The Russian Revolution was a proletarian one, and they were in power for some time, even though it is debatable actually how long. They had their independent organs of class power, the soviets, where the Bolsheviks were able to win over support of.

Regardless of how long the proletarian state lasted, it is true that they had to create their state to prevent counterrevolution. What happened later, happened later.

This whole structure satisfies my definition of a "state" -- a hierarchical body separated from the control of the working masses
Then you are unfortunately incorrect in your definition. You said:

But to consolidate the revolution, the working class needs to create a new governance structure through which the mass of the people, the working class, can self-manage public affairs. These new structures of governance would be rooted in the participatory democracy of the assemblies in the workplaces and neighborhoods, and congresses of delegates elected from, and accoutable to, the base assemblies. This structure of aassemblies and congresses would have the power to set the rules, and to control a people's militia that would provide the armed self-defense of the revolution
And that is a state of the working class, where there is profound democracy, and at all times led by the working class, and armed to defend its revolution.

syndicat

30th April 2007, 07:22

me: "But to consolidate the revolution, the working class needs to create a new governance structure through which the mass of the people, the working class, can self-manage public affairs. These new structures of governance would be rooted in the participatory democracy of the assemblies in the workplaces and neighborhoods, and congresses of delegates elected from, and accoutable to, the base assemblies. This structure of aassemblies and congresses would have the power to set the rules, and to control a people's militia that would provide the armed self-defense of the revolution"

And that is a state of the working class, where there is profound democracy, and at all times led by the working class, and armed to defend its revolution.

Then you are inconsistent because that is NOT what existed in Russia after October 1917, as I have pointed out.

Rawthentic

30th April 2007, 15:19

Then you are inconsistent because that is NOT what existed in Russia after October 1917, as I have pointed out.
No, I said it was debatable as to how long this lasted, and I agree with your timeline.

Axel1917

30th April 2007, 18:30

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 27, 2007 04:10 pm
As always, anarchists misunderstand the state to be some body that exists independent of class.. something that a set of rulers sets up by choice.

The fact is, as long as more than one class exists, a state will arrise out of the contradiction between those classes. The question is not should we have a state, but, who will organize a state to suppress the enemy class/es.

By calling for the destruction of the capitalist state, without the construction of a workers state to keep the deposed capitalists and their imperialist backers from regaining power, anarchists backhandedly support capitalist counter-revolution.
This is completely true, and the reactionary role of the anarchists in the Spanish Revolution (they voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized power) is a graphic confirmation of this.

syndicat

30th April 2007, 19:22

in the Spanish revolution the working class was divided into two national labor federations, the anarcho-syndicalist CNT and the socialist UGT. The working class couldn't take power unless it were based on the two unions. The CNT, being only a slight majority of the organized workers, couldn't take power in Spain by itself. so in early Sept 1936 the CNT, which had committed itself to a revolutioanry alliance with the UGT, proposed to the UGT, and its Left Socialist leadership, that the two unions replace the Republican state with a National Defense Council made up of an equal number of delegates from the UGT and CNT, and accountable to a National Workers Congress, to replace the parliament, seizure of the banks and socialization of the economy under workers' management, and control of a unified people's militia by joint committees of the CNT and UGT unions, with regional defense councils and regional congresses throughout Spain. This would have amounted to a taking of power by the Spanish working class. But the UGT leadership turned them down. This was because the two main Marxist parties in Spain -- the Socialist and Communist parties -- preferred to prop up the bourgeois Republican state.

The Feral Underclass

30th April 2007, 23:06

Who gives a shit what he said to or about anarchists. Him and his ideology are dead now anyway!

Rawthentic

30th April 2007, 23:18

No it's not, thats just stupid, and I'm not a Leninist in the first place. Its still the largest revolutionary ideology around the world.

But communism isn't dead, if thats what you meant.

Coggeh

30th April 2007, 23:20

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30, 2007 10:06 pm
Who gives a shit what he said to or about anarchists. Him and his ideology are dead now anyway!
:mellow:

stevensen

3rd May 2007, 17:36

just wonder what all u anrchists are doing in a che website forum... the discussion forum set up by a man who believed and set up a state after a revolution. but of course there are no anarchists who have ever achieved a revolution so where else to air ur views but the discussion forum of a man who set up a state after the revolution. why dont u go and launch an anarchist web site and find an anrchist worth half the name of che or lenin.....

Jazzratt

3rd May 2007, 18:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:36 pm
just wonder what all u anrchists are doing in a che website forum...
This criticism would have been fucking relevant a while back you fucking spack.

the discussion forum set up by a man who believed and set up a state after a revolution.
Well the guy who owns and runs this site is Malte who is an anarchist, prick. This site is called revolutionary left now - much more broad based than it was, so stop being a stupid fucking crayon muncher.

but of course there are no anarchists who have ever achieved a revolution
A) Spain.
B) It's irrelevant to the veracity of the theory.

so where else to air ur views but the discussion forum of a man who set up a state after the revolution.
Stop repeating that fucking point this has stopped being simply an extension of che-lives and in fact hasn't been for fucking ages you brain dead ****.

why dont u go and launch an anarchist web site and find an anrchist worth half the name of che or lenin.....
Why don't you fuck off to your stupid temple of the state and jack off wildly to the images of these men you accord the respect one would normally associate with religious fundamentalists. Clearly you have no idea about any form of leftism and should possibly come back when your not such an incredibly thick spacker.

Question everything

3rd May 2007, 21:24

Originally posted by Jazzratt+May 03, 2007 05:27 pm--> (Jazzratt @ May 03, 2007 05:27 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 04:36 pm
just wonder what all u anrchists are doing in a che website forum...
This criticism would have been fucking relevant a while back you fucking spack.

the discussion forum set up by a man who believed and set up a state after a revolution.
Well the guy who owns and runs this site is Malte who is an anarchist, prick. This site is called revolutionary left now - much more broad based than it was, so stop being a stupid fucking crayon muncher.

but of course there are no anarchists who have ever achieved a revolution
A) Spain.
B) It's irrelevant to the veracity of the theory.

so where else to air ur views but the discussion forum of a man who set up a state after the revolution.
Stop repeating that fucking point this has stopped being simply an extension of che-lives and in fact hasn't been for fucking ages you brain dead ****.

why dont u go and launch an anarchist web site and find an anrchist worth half the name of che or lenin.....
Why don't you fuck off to your stupid temple of the state and jack off wildly to the images of these men you accord the respect one would normally associate with religious fundamentalists. Clearly you have no idea about any form of leftism and should possibly come back when your not such an incredibly thick spacker. [/b]
:lol: Wow this guy is an Idiot (I'm refering to stevensen). He sounds like he thinks Che set this thing up :lol: I'm just glad I'm not a communist or I'd be soo embarassed...

Entrails Konfetti

3rd May 2007, 23:14

I don't understand why members of the Communist League are trying to tell Anarchists that Lenins' definition of a workers' state is the synonomous with their ideas and actions of reorganizing society once the bourgeoisie have been overthrown; when at the same time they (CL members) don't uphold Lenins' definition either. They don't uphold a standing army and a secret intelligence agency. They interpret Lenin to mean something other what Lenin did. And I think Lenin intended to do what he did.

syndicat

4th May 2007, 00:27

if Lenin didn't intend to do what he did, why were there not more expressions of regret, like "This is a retreat, but we have no choice." The only time he said something like that was with the NEP's replacing war communism in 1921.

4th May 2007, 02:42

Rawthentic

4th May 2007, 03:28

Thats not what I said, I was responding to TAT's stupidity.

We are not "Leninist", but it would be stupid to discard his theories.

LSD

4th May 2007, 16:55

I know this isn't strictly speaking history, but having this thread in Theory was making me violently ill and had to move it somewhere in this seemed as reasonable as anywhere.

Feel free to move it anywhere you like.

rouchambeau

4th May 2007, 23:36

Semantics.
Isn't that all that this debate is? I don't see how the views of Leninists and anarchists differ in any meaningful way.

I wouldn't take hasta's opinions as representative of all League members. That shouldn't be done with anybody.
That's exactly the kind of thing I would expect from, say, the RAAN.

Terrorist. ;)

5th May 2007, 05:57

Terrorist.

Deal with it

Hiero

5th May 2007, 08:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:55 am
I know this isn't strictly speaking history, but having this thread in Theory was making me violently ill and had to move it somewhere in this seemed as reasonable as anywhere.

Feel free to move it anywhere you like.
Are theories on state now considered history? I don't understand why you moved it.

bloody_capitalist_sham

5th May 2007, 08:55

Are theories on state now considered history? I don't understand why you moved it.

yeah especially when the original post in the thread is made up largely of a quote from one of Lenin's main theoretical contributions to Marxism, state and revolution.

One also wonders why LSD moved a thread out of the theory forum, which is perhaps on of the slowest forums these days. :blink:

Entrails Konfetti

6th May 2007, 04:40

I wouldn't take hasta's opinions as representative of all League members. That shouldn't be done with anybody.
Well then I won't take any CL members opinions as respresentative of the Communist League.

We are not "Leninist", but it would be stupid to discard his theories.
If you want to consider reviewing his blunders as theories, so as to not commit the same attrocities-- yeah I guess so, it would be stupid to discard his theories.

yeah especially when the original post in the thread is made up largely of a quote from one of Lenin's main theoretical contributions to Marxism, state and revolution.

It wasn't a contribution, it was a rewording and citing of paragraphs from the works of Marx and Engels-- with which he tried to assert he had the only true understanding of Communism.

Rawthentic

6th May 2007, 04:50

If you want to consider reviewing his blunders as theories, so as to not commit the same attrocities-- yeah I guess so, it would be stupid to discard his theories.
Stop acting stupid. Theres a reason we take in Lenin the theoretician, not the politician.

Well then I won't take any CL members opinions as respresentative of the Communist League.

What he meant is that not one member is representative of the entire League, but we do try to put our points and principals clear. We are not like RAAN.

6th May 2007, 05:17

Well then I won't take any CL members opinions as respresentative of the Communist League.

Good, that's what the basic principles is for. I think you as a former League member would understand the position we take on the relationship between individual opinions and the organization's position on issues, especially that of Lenin.

It wasn't a contribution, it was a rewording and citing of paragraphs from the works of Marx and Engels-- with which he tried to assert he had the only true understanding of Communism.

Well, if it was just a rewording and citing of the works of Marx and Engels, then it is the only true understanding of communism (Marxism...).

Rawthentic

6th May 2007, 05:23

Marxism-Leninism?

6th May 2007, 05:28

No, just Marxism. I wasn't trying to hint at anything; I was saying that if all Lenin did in State & Revolution was to cite and reword what Marx and Engels already wrote, then that work is the only true understanding of Communism because the fact that he just copied and reworded stuff Marx and Engels said makes it Marxist.

Rawthentic

6th May 2007, 05:38

I see. That seems correct to me, after reading the piece.

6th May 2007, 05:43

Of course, but I would consider it a great contribution to Marxist theory as it consolidates the theoretical conclusions of Marx and Engels on the state into one work and explains those contributions and puts them into context.

syndicat

6th May 2007, 07:34

yeah especially when the original post in the thread is made up largely of a quote from one of Lenin's main theoretical contributions to Marxism, state and revolution.

It wasn't a contribution, it was a rewording and citing of paragraphs from the works of Marx and Engels-- with which he tried to assert he had the only true understanding of Communism.

"State and Revolution" had virtually nothing to do with what actually happened. It was no prediction of what was going to be done. for example, the idea of the "people in arms" was tossed out by April 1918 when they hired 30,000 czarist officers to build a conventional hierarchical army with privileged positions for the officers.

Moreover, "State and Revolution" only talks about government, it doesn't discuss the organization of production.

I think it's best to regard "State and Revolution" as sort of electoral propaganda during the period when the Bolsheviks were trying to get themselves elected as the majority in the soviets, in the fall of 1917. You know, like the claims that politicians make.

A proper evaluation of Leninism has to look at what the Bolsheviks and Lenin actually did in the revolution, their actual programmatic and strategic orientation. This has to include things like advocacy of state ownership of the economy, central planning, setting up managers over workers, with the managers getting orders down the chain of command from planning elite and political apparatchiks, their failure to advocate direct, participatory democracy.

6th May 2007, 07:43

"State and Revolution" had virtually nothing to do with what actually happened. It was no prediction of what was going to be done. for example, the idea of the "people in arms" was tossed out by April 1918 when they hired 30,000 czarist officers to build a conventional hierarchical army with privileged positions for the officers.

This was done because they were in dire need of people with tactical knowledge and experienced in war, not because they "hated the proletariat" or whatever crap you believed.

Entrails Konfetti

6th May 2007, 16:50

Thankyou Syndicat!

Moreover, "State and Revolution" only talks about government, it doesn't discuss the organization of production.

I think it's best to regard "State and Revolution" as sort of electoral propaganda during the period when the Bolsheviks were trying to get themselves elected as the majority in the soviets, in the fall of 1917. You know, like the claims that politicians make.

Yeah, it was incredibly vague. And I think because of it's vagueness Lenin was able to assert his views. Anyone can say "theres going to be workers democracy" without going to far into detail. As you've stated everywhere, he didn't mention at all the Bolshevik idea of "workers Democracy" as a godawful onion diagram-- where the local soviets only elect a local level, and the local level which was elected elects regional, and regional, national, and national, supreme, not to mention the sway of the party in deciding representatives at levels other than local.

Originally posted by Zampano
This was done because they were in dire need of people with tactical knowledge and experienced in war, not because they "hated the proletariat" or whatever crap you believed.

In CL litterature "The Russia Question" explains the workers had the initiative to run the new society on their own, it also explain how the upper-class intellecutuals took power in Russia, because they believedthey were the only one capable. Ironically, the CL has a membership policy of workers only, yet, you claim "they" were in dire need of professionals. This "dire need" you suppose, supposes that workers weren't capable.

Rawthentic

7th May 2007, 00:07

. Ironically, the CL has a membership policy of workers only, yet, you claim "they" were in dire need of professionals. This "dire need" you suppose, supposes that workers weren't capable.
Yeah, idiot, like the need for doctors, teachers, scientists, etc. Russia had a very backward proletariat. I mean, alot couldn't even read, and that hurt their power.

manic expression

7th May 2007, 00:25

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 06, 2007 06:43 am

"State and Revolution" had virtually nothing to do with what actually happened. It was no prediction of what was going to be done. for example, the idea of the "people in arms" was tossed out by April 1918 when they hired 30,000 czarist officers to build a conventional hierarchical army with privileged positions for the officers.

This was done because they were in dire need of people with tactical knowledge and experienced in war, not because they "hated the proletariat" or whatever crap you believed.
Exactly, well said.

Syndicat, there was a real need for a trained army and trained workers in Russia. The Bolsheviks realized this and acted accordingly, and therefore they were able to defend the revolution (whereas the anarchists failed in both Ukraine and Spain). The Bolsheviks weren't dogmatic, and so if Lenin's optimal suggestion wasn't compatible with the situation at hand, they weren't scared to do what material conditions necessitated.

syndicat

7th May 2007, 00:50

Syndicat, there was a real need for a trained army and trained workers in Russia. The Bolsheviks realized this and acted accordingly, and therefore they were able to defend the revolution (whereas the anarchists failed in both Ukraine and Spain). The Bolsheviks weren't dogmatic, and so if Lenin's optimal suggestion wasn't compatible with the situation at hand, they weren't scared to do what material conditions necessitated.

You seem to be ignorant of the labor army the anarcho-syndicalists built in the Spanish revolution. There the issue was posed much more clearly than in the Russian revolution. That's because in Sept. 1936 there was a direct debate on two clear options. The anarcho-syndicalists proposed a unified people's militia, including relevant training schools, but this militia was to be controlled by joint councils made up of delegates elected by the two union federations, the socialist UGT and the anarchist CNT, plus delegates elected by the members of the militia, so they would have a voice in their own "work" and fate.

The Communists proposed, as Trotsky and Lenin did in Russia in 1918, the replacement of the worker militia -- which actually existed -- with a top-down conventional army, with officers appointed from above with privileged positions. Due to the wavering of the Left Socialists, who controlled the UGT, the Communists won out in this debate. And the consequence of this was the construction of a new army and police, which the Communist party was able to weasel its way into control of. Because it wasn't controlled by the unions, the Communists were able to use the army to smash collectives, give expropriated land back to fascist landowners, and seize control of worker-managed industries that the unions had expropriated. Thus they were beginning to build a coordinator class regime in Spain, as they had done in Russia. This is the basic issue: Who will control the ultimate armed force in society?

You naivly assume that only a conventional hierarchical army answerable to party leaders running a state can be "trained". The reason the Makhnovist army in Ukraine lost is because the Bolshevik government invaded Ukraine with a million-man army. The Makhnovist army had maybe 25,000 participants at most. It was a question of naked force. As far as defending the revolution was concerned, the Maknovists were doing quite well against the whites before the Bolshevik invasion.

The preference of Lenin for a hierarchical army wasn't determined soley by "material conditions" but by the logic of a politics and strategy based on centralizing control in the hands of a state, and planning the economy from above, a logic that would favor a top-down managerialist soclution to defense of the revolution also.

Coggeh

7th May 2007, 02:26

And the consequence of this was the construction of a new army and police, which the Communist party was able to weasel its way into control of. Because it wasn't controlled by the unions, the Communists were able to use the army to smash collectives, give expropriated land back to fascist landowners, and seize control of worker-managed industries that the unions had expropriated.

Well if you look at it ,Lenin only gave rights to landowners after the Kronstadt rebellion ( a rebellion anarchists love to associate themselves with) it was their reactionary actions and that of peasants and landowners that forced Lenin to let some farmers and landowners sell some of their profit .

The preference of Lenin for a hierarchical army wasn't determined soley by "material conditions" but by the logic of a politics and strategy based on centralizing control in the hands of a state, and planning the economy from above, a logic that would favor a top-down managerialist solution to defense of the revolution also.

Of course it was material conditions that forced Lenin to do this ,because of the post-war ,the testing support of the people and the threat of the whites Lenin had to establish a organised Army its basic tactics from a military position.He did what he needed too for the defense of the October revolution and its gains , if an army wasn't establised who was going to defend it ? unorganized reactionaries ?

syndicat

7th May 2007, 02:55

Lenin only gave rights to landowners after the Kronstadt rebellion

Giving the peasants right to market their products, rather than seizing them thru a centralized state monopoly, wasn't done in response to the Kronstadt rebellion. The Kronstadt workers and sailors weren't advocating free trade.

Rather, it was the response to peasant rebellion. in 1921 there was a massive peasant guerrilla rebellion going on in cnetral Russia, with the SRs playing a leading role.

Of course it was material conditions that forced Lenin to do this ,because of the post-war ,the testing support of the people and the threat of the whites Lenin had to establish a organised Army its basic tactics from a military position.He did what he needed too for the defense of the October revolution and its gains , if an army wasn't establised who was going to defend it ? unorganized reactionaries ?

You're confused here. There are different ways to orgnize an army. I wasn't suggesting that an army wasn't needed. When the CNT defeated the army in Catalonia in 1936, they built an army to defend the revolution. But it was
an internally democratic army, elected officers, no differences in pay etc
between officers and ranks, and it was controlled directly by the unions, the mass organizations of workers.

Thus building a conventional hierarchical army controlled by professional class leaders at the top of the state, with no direct control by the working masses -- the new Red Army of 1918 -- is not the only way to organize an army to defend a revolution.

And the thing is this: If the working class does not end up in direct control of the major armed power when the dust settles, you can be sure it won't end up controlling the society.

manic expression

7th May 2007, 05:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:50 pm
You seem to be ignorant of the labor army the anarcho-syndicalists built in the Spanish revolution. There the issue was posed much more clearly than in the Russian revolution. That's because in Sept. 1936 there was a direct debate on two clear options. The anarcho-syndicalists proposed a unified people's militia, including relevant training schools, but this militia was to be controlled by joint councils made up of delegates elected by the two union federations, the socialist UGT and the anarchist CNT, plus delegates elected by the members of the militia, so they would have a voice in their own "work" and fate.

The Communists proposed, as Trotsky and Lenin did in Russia in 1918, the replacement of the worker militia -- which actually existed -- with a top-down conventional army, with officers appointed from above with privileged positions. Due to the wavering of the Left Socialists, who controlled the UGT, the Communists won out in this debate. And the consequence of this was the construction of a new army and police, which the Communist party was able to weasel its way into control of. Because it wasn't controlled by the unions, the Communists were able to use the army to smash collectives, give expropriated land back to fascist landowners, and seize control of worker-managed industries that the unions had expropriated. Thus they were beginning to build a coordinator class regime in Spain, as they had done in Russia. This is the basic issue: Who will control the ultimate armed force in society?

You naivly assume that only a conventional hierarchical army answerable to party leaders running a state can be "trained". The reason the Makhnovist army in Ukraine lost is because the Bolshevik government invaded Ukraine with a million-man army. The Makhnovist army had maybe 25,000 participants at most. It was a question of naked force. As far as defending the revolution was concerned, the Maknovists were doing quite well against the whites before the Bolshevik invasion.

The preference of Lenin for a hierarchical army wasn't determined soley by "material conditions" but by the logic of a politics and strategy based on centralizing control in the hands of a state, and planning the economy from above, a logic that would favor a top-down managerialist soclution to defense of the revolution also.
You seem to be ignorant to the actual realities of the anarchist system. The anarchist militias were ill-trained, undisciplined and worse. They had a lot of spirit and morale and used this to their advantage, but that's about it.

Show me proof the Republican military and communists gave land to fascists. That sounds like slander, at best. Also, the fact that there were officers in the communist forces doesn't equal another class, and you have again demonstrated your idiocy by not knowing what a class actually is.

The Bolsheviks and Makhnovists worked together at points, don't ignore that. Secondly, there are reasons why there was a difference in manpower. More importantly, Makhno was able to do what he did ONLY because of what the Bolsheviks did in the Russian Revolution. His program was only able to take advantage of the situation that the Bolsheviks created, while being unable to create such a situation himself. Oh, and his force was far from able to make a real impact, due to his numbers (effectively making him tactically insignificant).

Lenin's preferences had everything to do with material conditions. The revolution needed a conventional army, and so he had nothing against forming one. Ask yourself, why did the Bolsheviks do those things? Well, because they were needed at the time. In the end, they were right, and they succeeded where the anarchists quickly fell flat on their face time and again.

syndicat

7th May 2007, 06:19

To begin with, the modern state is inherently a structure for domination of the mass of immediate producers -- peasants and workers in the case of Russia in 1917. The sort of top-down hierarchical structure, with professionals (lawyers, engineers, etc) at the top, and managers over workers, mirrors the sort of structure you will find in a capitalist corporation. The class that fills out the control positions are the cadres of the coordinator class. In corporate capitalism this is the class of managers and top professionals (engineers, lawyers, finance officers, etc). In the Soviet Union this class became the ruling class, with the exproprition of the capitalist class. This means, if a person favors liberation of the working class from subordination to an exploiting, dominating class, they need to explain how the coordinator class came to dominance in the Russian revolution. Otherwise their view about the Russian revolution is bankrupt.

The Bolsheviks, to begin with, had no commitment to participatory democracy, that is, to the workers making the actual decisions. Their unions were centralized topdown affairs, controlled by bureaucrats on national executive committees. The big city soviets in 1917 were controlled top down, with power concentrated into the executives, and the people on the executives were members of the Russian intelligentsia, mainly not workers, but party leaders.

This centralizing practice was continued with the setting up of a statist central planning body, Vesenkha, in Nov. 1917, with a charter to plan out the whole economy. There were no workers on it. It had party stalwarts, engineers and trade union bureaucrats, appointed from above.

But if the working class is to liberate itself it must gain direct self-management over industry and over public affairs, over goverance of the society.

Now in the system that emerged in the Soviet Union, the new coordinator ruling class was based on the central planning elite (Vesenkha become Gosplan in 1924), the political party aparatchiks, the managers of industries and big plants, and the generals and admirals in the hierarchical Soviet military. The thing about hierarchical military and police bodies is that they are structured that way so they will do the bidding of the people at the top of the state, who run the state in the interests of the ruling class. The elite classes don't want the masses getting in the way.

So you're plainly wrong when you say that the Spanish Communists' push for a conventional hierarchical army has nothing to do with class. That tells me you don't understand the class nature of the state. What they did NOT want was the unions controlling the army because then it would be the working class that had the ultimate power, not the coordinator class.

The Spanish Communists were vigorously recruiting members of the Spanish middle strata -- shopkeepers, farm owners, landowners, lawyers and other profesionals and managers. They were able to recruit them because the proletarian revolution -- the seizure of the country's industries -- by the anarcho-syndicalist unions had frightened them, and the Communists looked to be the toughest, most disciplined opponents of the libertarian worker revolution.

the Communists' strategy for winning in Spain was to gain control over a
hierarchical army and police and use that control to capture state power. Through nationalization of the economy, they could then control the country. And the hierarchies in the military and industry would then be the realm of the new coordinator ruling class.

The Spanish Communists' policy on agricultural land ownership is well known and was the source of conflicts with both the Left Socialists, who were dominant in the UGT Land Workers Federation (farm laborers union), as well as the CNT campesinos' union. The CNT and UGT farm labor unions agreed on policy and had an alliance in the revolution. Their aim was to do away with wage-labor in the countryside by seizing the land not only of the big landowners but also any excess that some farmer had above what he could farm with his own family's labor. If a farmer owned more land than he could farm himself, that meant he hired others as wage-workers to work for him. This class was the equivalent of the kulak class in the Russian revolution. The Communists' main conflict with the Left Socialists and anarchosyndicalists in the countryside was they opposed expropriating any landowner who hadn't fled to the fascist side. In August 1937 an army unit under the command of the Communist officer, Enrique Lider, rampaged through Aragon and seized land from collectives, broke up farm worker collectives, and overthrowed the union-controlled government of the region, arresting 600 CNT members. This is well known. The book "Blood of Spain" by Ronald Fraser has numerous interviews on this subject, by both anarchists and Communists.

It is well known that many of these landowners helped by the Communists were rightwingers. For example, in Valencia there was a conflict between the citrus industry workers union (packers, truckers etc) which was in the CNT and the farmers who owned the orchards. These farmers had been big supporters before the civil war of the Valencian Autonomist Party, a proto-fascist nationalist party. They were recruited en masse by the Communists.

The Bolsheviks only entered into truces and pacts with Makhno because they needed the support of his army to fight the whites. in each of these cases the Communists stabbed the Makhnovists in the back. For example, the second of these two pacts gave anarchists the right to organize in Russia as long as they didn't promote armed struggle against the Soviet government. But when the Ukrainian anarchists took advantage of this to organize a congress of their organization in Kharkov, the Communist Cheka swooped in and arrested all of them, and killed some of them. At the end of the campaign against Baron Wrangel, a white general, the Communists swooped in and arrested and shot the general staff of the Makhnovist forces who were at that point officially a unit of the Red Army.

You claim that a conventional hierarchical army was needed at the time of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Much of the radical left in Russia at the time, including many members of the Bolshevik party did not agree. There were advocates for both expanding the worker militia as well as use of guerrilla forces.

Anyway, as I showed from the Spanish example, it is possible to organize an army in a democratic way, accountable to worker mass organizations. so you've not shown that the hierarchical Red Army was the only solution for defense of the revolution.

Entrails Konfetti

7th May 2007, 06:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:07 pm
Yeah, idiot, like the need for doctors, teachers, scientists, etc. Russia had a very backward proletariat. I mean, alot couldn't even read, and that hurt their power.
And it was these proffesional revolutionaries and intellectuals who took state power by occupying key places of the country, while the workers and peasants, who were organized in their soviets, were busy trying to maintain their seizures and confriscations.

The soviets formed on their own accord, they could demobilize the entire country, they produced and distributed according to need, they democratically ran workplaces on their own, and they could ignore any partys' call for a strike. Yessir, there was revolutionary consciousness before the Bolsheviks recieved a flood of new members.

There was a system for workers control, but the intellectuals and proffessional revolutionaries, believed the workers weren't politically conscious as them, and didn't want to give up their position to be one of the workers. They did want to teach them stuff like reading, writing, math, and science-- but not without honor or privilege. And so the revolution was like an expiriment for these academics, and if the expiriment failed they had something to fall back on-- honor and privilege.

You see upper-class members in the Bolsheviks were raised upper-class, understood upper-class, accustomed to living like upper-class: in short being upper class is what they knew. They viewed workers like a scientist views an insect under a microscope. Lenin sent people around to factories to ask workers questions, he never worked-- that right there says everything!

I do not understand why you are trying to justify the tyranny of the academics upon the workers. It's clear that it wasn't a worker ran society, because the intellectuals ruled over the workers, and not the intellectuals being integrated with the workers. Lenin was an intellectual, he didn't want to be a worker-- the way the party was set up, who was in it, and what happened has everything to do with what Lenin meant with State and Revolution. So quit trying to say that Lenin had to change his mind with the material circumstances, and quit trying to say it's all semantics.

The Feral Underclass

7th May 2007, 19:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:18 pm
Its still the largest revolutionary ideology around the world.
No it isn't.

We are not "Leninist", but it would be stupid to discard his theories.

Why is it "stupid" to discard his theories? They were falsified. What on earth would be the point in doing anything else other than discarding them?

Rawthentic

7th May 2007, 23:08

Discarding the State and Revolution?

Oh yeah, this is nothing more than your ignorant anti-statism.

syndicat

8th May 2007, 00:10

"State and Revolution" was propaganda, to convince people to
support the Bolsheviks. it had nothing to do with what actually happened. it was just PR.

8th May 2007, 00:16

"State and Revolution" was propaganda, to convince people to
support the Bolsheviks.

First, all Marxist theoretical publications are "propaganda" so classifying it as such is redundant.

Second, it's a valid exposition of the Marxist theory of the state and because of that it's a great contribution to Marxist theory.

The Feral Underclass

8th May 2007, 13:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:08 pm
Discarding the State and Revolution?
It was falsified. Deal with it and move on.

Oh yeah, this is nothing more than your ignorant anti-statism.

After ten years of studying this shit I think it's only fair to say that whatever my anti-statism, it certainly isn't ignorant.

I am fully prepared to enter into a discussion with you about the state, however?

8th May 2007, 14:00

It was falsified. Deal with it and move on.

How was it falsified?

The Feral Underclass

8th May 2007, 14:02

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 08, 2007 02:00 pm

It was falsified. Deal with it and move on.

How was it falsified?
The hypothesis was tested and it failed. The idea that you can centralise political authority is fundamentally flawed.

You will never be able to destroy the state by maintaining its existance.

8th May 2007, 14:06

The hypothesis was tested and it failed. The idea that you can centralise political authority is fundamentally flawed.

Where in State & Revolution does Lenin say that authority should be "centralized" other than into the hands of the working class?

You will never be able to destroy the state by maintaining its existance.

The state is destroyed and the dictatorship of the proletariat is created. You yourself should know that this is merely a semantical issue and not a theoretical difference.

Rawthentic

8th May 2007, 14:21

Its a semantical issue, but its also his flawed analysis and failure to understand what needs to be done post-revolution, and how the worker's state, or worker's republic transforms to meet historical and material needs as it moves towards communism.

8th May 2007, 14:27

No, it's pretty much just semantics.

The Feral Underclass

8th May 2007, 14:27

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 08, 2007 02:06 pm

You will never be able to destroy the state by maintaining its existance.

The state is destroyed and the dictatorship of the proletariat is created. You yourself should know that this is merely a semantical issue and not a theoretical difference.
No, I don't "know" that at all. You extrapolate and then tell me its semantic. That is not at all 'realisation' of theoretical similarity.

You use the word state interchangeably to mean something that isn't a state. You call the DoP a state, that concept is attacked by anarchists and then you assert that what you mean to be a state is in fact what we mean is not a state.

As Noam Chomsky once said to me in an email: "Marxists should find their own words to use". If it is decentralised, federal organisation that you want then say so. Stop using a word that describes, etymologically and empirically the opposite.

It's utterly ridiculous.

The Feral Underclass

8th May 2007, 14:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:21 pm
Its a semantical issue, but its also his flawed analysis and failure to understand what needs to be done post-revolution, and how the worker's state, or worker's republic transforms to meet historical and material needs as it moves towards communism.
What does that even mean?

8th May 2007, 14:29

TAT, stop arguing about the issue. Respond to the first part of my post.

The Feral Underclass

8th May 2007, 14:42

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 08, 2007 02:29 pm
TAT, stop arguing about the issue. Respond to the first part of my post.
Chapter 5 is dedicated to discussing the nature of a Socialist state, it's purpose and its form. He doesn't ever use the word 'centralisation'. Why? Well, obviously because it was already assumed that this was the case.

Does he ever say that it won't be centralised? Of course not. Why would he? The whole basis of his politics was and still is firmly rooted in the German tradition of statism that his great master Karl Marx revered to near messianic level.

In any case, the material realisation of Lenin's state irrefutably demonstrates that what he meant was centralisation. And that was certainly not into the hands of the "workers".

8th May 2007, 14:47

Chapter 5 is dedicated to discussing the nature of a Socialist state, it's purpose and its form. He doesn't ever use the word 'centralisation'. Why? Well, obviously because it was already assumed that this was the case.

Does he ever say that it won't be centralised? Of course not. Why would he? The whole basis of his politics was and still is firmly rooted in the German tradition of statism that his great master Karl Marx revered to near messianic level.

So prove then that Marx advocated a "centralized state".

In any case, the material realisation of Lenin's state irrefutably demonstrates that what he meant was centralisation. And that was certainly not into the hands of the "workers".

The centralization of authority in the state in Russia was due to application to material conditions and isn't based on a theory held by Lenin that all states must be centralized. Tactics, not principle.

The Feral Underclass

8th May 2007, 14:55

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 08, 2007 02:47 pm

Chapter 5 is dedicated to discussing the nature of a Socialist state, it's purpose and its form. He doesn't ever use the word 'centralisation'. Why? Well, obviously because it was already assumed that this was the case.

Does he ever say that it won't be centralised? Of course not. Why would he? The whole basis of his politics was and still is firmly rooted in the German tradition of statism that his great master Karl Marx revered to near messianic level.

So prove then that Marx advocated a "centralized state".
Read the Communist Manifesto. It's not a particularly well known book, but perhaps you could start there.

Also, if you have balls, you could try reading 'Statism and Anarchy'.

In any case, the material realisation of Lenin's state irrefutably demonstrates that what he meant was centralisation. And that was certainly not into the hands of the "workers".

The centralization of authority in the state in Russia was due to application to material conditions and isn't based on a theory held by Lenin that all states must be centralized. Tactics, not principle.

What a defence! So you're claiming it wasn't actually Lenin's fault then? That Lenin and Trotsky had no alternative but to exact a brutal centralised state over the working class?

You make me laugh!

Led Zeppelin

8th May 2007, 14:58

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 08, 2007 01:27 pm
You use the word state interchangeably to mean something that isn't a state. You call the DoP a state, that concept is attacked by anarchists and then you assert that what you mean to be a state is in fact what we mean is not a state.
The Dicatorship of the proletariat, or a Socialist state, can only be so if its policies are in the best interest of the working-class, that is, if the policies are revolutionary instead of reactionary.

Every logical thinking person knows that under Stalin the state wasn't revolutionary, as it forwarded reactionary policies, however, what about under Lenin's leadership? It was definitely revolutionary. Lenin was the expression of the revolutionary consciousness of the working-class.

As for leaders and their role in the state machinery, it is inevitable that leaders will exist. Even in anarchist circles there are such leaders. Take Makhno for example, he was definitely the leader of the anarchists in the Ukraine.

I leave you this quote to think about, and realize that it also applies to anarchists:

"Every State is a dictatorship. Every State cannot avoid having a government, made up of a small number of men, who in their turn organize themselves around one who is endowed with greater ability and greater perspicacity. So long as a State is necessary, so long as it is historically necessary to govern men, whichever the ruling class may be, the problem will arise of having leaders, of having a "leader". The fact that socialists, even ones who call themselves Marxists and revolutionaries, say they want the dictatorship of the proletariat but not the dictatorship of leaders; say they do not want command to be individualized and personalized; in other words, say they want dictatorship, but not in the form in which it is historically possible - merely reveals a whole political stance, a whole "revolutionary" theoretical formation."

8th May 2007, 14:59

Read the Communist Manifesto.

Quote where he says anything about a centralized state apparatus.

What a defence! So you're claiming it wasn't actually Lenin's fault then? That Lenin and Trotsky had no alternative but to exact a brutal centralised state over the working class?

You make me laugh!

It's completely irrelevant if what I think they did was justified; the fact is that they changed their tactics based on material conditions.

The Feral Underclass

8th May 2007, 14:59

It's all semantic anyway.

The Feral Underclass

8th May 2007, 15:08

Originally posted by Leninism+May 08, 2007 02:58 pm--> (Leninism @ May 08, 2007 02:58 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 08, 2007 01:27 pm
You use the word state interchangeably to mean something that isn't a state. You call the DoP a state, that concept is attacked by anarchists and then you assert that what you mean to be a state is in fact what we mean is not a state.
The Dicatorship of the proletariat, or a Socialist state, can only be so if its policies are in the best interest of the working-class, that is, if the policies are revolutionary instead of reactionary. [/b]
So a state is defined based on whether it's policies are in the "interest of the working class"? I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no rational sense at all.

Every logical thinking person knows that under Stalin the state wasn't revolutionary, as it forwarded reactionary policies, however, what about under Lenin's leadership? It was definitely revolutionary. Lenin was the expression of the revolutionary consciousness of the working-class.

The notion that Lenin was some kind of working class messiah who led the people into the light and Stalin was the proverbial Lucifer casting the revolution into temptation is utter crap.

Lenin and Stalin were different only in the intensity by which they exacted their control. Lenin laid the way for Stalin, they were, for all intent and purpose, the same thing.

As for leaders and their role in the state machinery, it is inevitable that leaders will exist. Even in anarchist circles there are such leaders. Take Makhno for example, he was definitely the leader of the anarchists in the Ukraine.

Yes yes, I know how much you people relish the ability to parade Makhno around as proof that anarchism's desire for a leaderless world is impossible, but let's not forget that Makhno went on to publish an extremely controversial document that the vast majority of the anarchist world, Malatesta included, rejected based on it's authoritarian nature.

Led Zeppelin

8th May 2007, 15:16

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 08, 2007 02:08 pm
So a state is defined based on whether it's policies are in the "interest of the working class"? I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no rational sense at all.
How does it not make rational sense? Of course I'm only speaking about the politics of a socialist state. There are some pre-conditions for a state to be called socialist, like for example nationalization of the economy and destruction of capitalism.

A state has many sides to it. There's a proletarian side, a bourgeois side, a petty-bourgeois side. Not all states of course, but many vary in forms. Take for example the state in Japan of the 19th century. It had a bourgeois side in it while at the same time having a powerful petty-bourgeois section which was pro-feudalism. Eventually the former beat the latter inside the machinery.

Raising the state above classes and ideas and creating a monolithic structure out of it is idealist, because it's not like that in practice.

Bourgeois states also have many different sides to them. Liberal, conservative etc.

It is inevitable that the same will be the case with a proletarian state. There are many different ideas in the proletarian movement, however objectively there is only one correct way of handling things, and logically speaking that idea must be the policy of a true workers state.

How is that not rational?

The notion that Lenin was some kind of working class messiah who led the people into the light and Stalin was the proverbial Lucifer casting the revolution into temptation is utter crap.

Lenin and Stalin were different only in the intensity by which they exacted their control. Lenin laid the way for Stalin, they were, for all intent and purpose, the same thing.

Why was it crap? Lenin was revolutionary in his politics, Stalin was reactionary. It is a simple "good and bad for the working class" situation here.

Yes yes, I know how much you people relish the ability to parade Makhno around as proof that anarchism's desire for a leaderless world is impossible, but let's not forget that Makhno went on to publish an extremely controversial document that the vast majority of the anarchist world, Malatesta included, rejected based on it's authoritarian nature.

Malatesta, Bakunin, Proudhon, all of them were also theoretical leaders, and if there would be an anarchist movement at the time of their life they would've led it, undoubtedly.

Entrails Konfetti

8th May 2007, 15:17

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 08, 2007 01:59 pm
It's completely irrelevant if what I think they did was justified; the fact is that they changed their tactics based on material conditions.
If all else fails to reiterate points raised, repeat the same damn thing over and over again.

8th May 2007, 15:18

Actually, I was responding to TAT's accusation that I support what happened. You'd realize that if you actually read the thread.

Entrails Konfetti

8th May 2007, 15:33

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 08, 2007 02:18 pm
Actually, I was responding to TAT's accusation that I support what happened. You'd realize that if you actually read the thread.
People have responded over and over again that what happened was a result of the way Bolshevism was constructed, and that the intent of State and Revolution-- Lenins' interpretation of Marx and Engels, was the product of what happened. Yet, you state over and over again to Anarchists and Left-Communists that it was the product of material conditions, and semantics. It's pointless to remind you, but whatever, it isn't semantical because Anarchists and Left-Communists form their organizations differently than those who follow the idea of building on Bolshevik principles and guidelines.

8th May 2007, 15:36

Ahh, so because I'm not an anarchist I'm a Bolshevik. Some stunning analytical skills you possess. Be careful with those; it might lead people to respect you, and then you'll be a leader, and leaders are teh sux.

Entrails Konfetti

8th May 2007, 15:52

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 08, 2007 02:36 pm
Ahh, so because I'm not an anarchist I'm a Bolshevik. Some stunning analytical skills you possess. Be careful with those; it might lead people to respect you, and then you'll be a leader, and leaders are teh sux.
After repeating the same thing over and over again with the thought that by doing so you'll have pounded your argument in our heads and convinced us: Once confronted that you have only been repeating the same shit, you try to reduce the standard of the debate to mud throwing.

The Feral Underclass

9th May 2007, 12:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:57 pm
You mean, besides refuting your ignorance?

Thats contributing in my book.
I find it irritating that you can attack my alleged style of arguing when in fact your arguments never extend beyond calling someone ignorant.

Why bother engaging in a discussion if you don't actually have anything to say other than you think people who don't agree with you are ignorant?

Rawthentic

9th May 2007, 14:34

The point is that whatever happened in Russia, a "state" is needed post-revolution, regardless.

You can call it "federations", or whatever to make it look cute, but it doesnt change reality.

The Feral Underclass

9th May 2007, 14:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:34 pm
The point is that whatever happened in Russia, a "state" is needed post-revolution, regardless.
What are you defining to be a state? As far as I'm concerned there is absolutely no evidence or reason to make such an assertion as fact.

You can call it "federations", or whatever to make it look cute, but it doesnt change reality.

And you call me ignorant.

Using the word Federation has a specific meaning. Anarchists call for the decentralisation of political control and the creation of a federalist, direct democratic form of administration with the removal of institutionalised structures of political power.

That is not a state in any sense of the term.

apathy maybe

9th May 2007, 15:19

And even if it was a state, to have such a broad meaning for the word state, and claim that *some sort of state* is needed, opens the way for something that anarchists actually call a state. I.e. a centralised political system, with some sort of centralised armed forces.

Yes, perhaps "federations" are necessary, but a state as defined by anarchists is not...

Rawthentic

9th May 2007, 15:43

The reality is the after the revolution, class antagonisms will be very sharp, and this calls for a state, ie., an organ that will repress the counterrevolutionaries and eliminate class antagonisms.

To think that there will be no political centralization is utopian, especially in the face of a counterrevolutionary force of millions. We can't all just have federations and be happy and dance.

Or maybe its the anarchists dont have a real materialist understanding of history, one that would recognize that in class society, there is a state.

Marx actually seldom used the word state, and even explained that it would not be like any other form of state, but a radically different one. And for all your diatribe about the Manifesto, I'm sure you understand that he changed his view after the Paris Commune, that the working class must smash the bourgeois state and create their own class organs of power.

Or maybe its semantical after all. Either way, I didn't tell you TAT that you were ignorant, that was for syndicat.

Forward Union

9th May 2007, 15:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:43 pm
The reality is the after the revolution, class antagonisms will be very sharp
Of course.

and this calls for a state,

Why? Repression of counter revolutionary elements doesn't need a state. In fact, a state seems to be a liability, as it is a central organ that can be infiltrated by bourgeoisie. Decentralised, accountable local democracy, cannot be commandeered. Making it immune to infiltration.

Anarchists don't oppose the idea of a police force or military that can be mandated by the power of the workers and peasants soviets. In Ukraine, Spain, and Korea, the Anarchists had no more or less trouble in rooting out and executing counterrevolutionaries than the Authoritarian did. So I don't see how the existence of counterrevolutionary forces necessitates a state in any way.

an organ that will repress the counterrevolutionaries and eliminate class antagonisms.

The bodies of people that fight the counter revolutioanries, be that Millitias, a Millitary, a police, or all three, would exist in an Anarchist society, and a 'Leninist' one. But they would be democratically mandated and accountable to the workers and peasents collectives. This would prevent these bodies from being used to defend the interests of those with the power to command them. Which was the catastrophic failure of authorotarian socialism in Russia (and everywhere else)

Or maybe its the anarchists dont have a real materialist understanding of history, one that would recognize that in class society, there is a state.

Well of course, a state is by definition a class of people, with decision making power. Though I would say that in a truely libertarian-capitalist society, class would still exist, but a state would not, but we've drifted from the point.

Forward Union

9th May 2007, 16:13

This struck me as interesting

Originally posted by hastalavictoria
anarchists dont have a real materialist understanding of history

Right... (emphasis added)

The point is that whatever happened in Russia, a "state" is needed post-revolution, regardless.

Interesting then how you can completely dismiss one of the most important points in revolutionary communist history, the Russian revolution. How can you seriously say you have a materialist understanding of history and in the same breath tell me that whatever the outcome of that revolutionary experiment was, weather it was a total success, or a total failure, the results would agree with you anyway. :rolleyes:

Because the reality is that the results don't agree with you, if they did we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. History has only given credence to all the criticisms thrown at the Authoritarians nearly a century ago. But it seems that rather than swallow pride or even reconsider your theoretic shortcomings, you bury your head and dismiss nearly 80 years of failure.

What a materialist understanding of history you must have! we anarchists have much to learn.

The Feral Underclass

9th May 2007, 17:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:43 pm
The reality is the after the revolution, class antagonisms will be very sharp, and this calls for a state, ie., an organ that will repress the counterrevolutionaries and eliminate class antagonisms.
The problem here is that what you have described is simply a function of a state; it is not the definition of it.

To think that there will be no political centralization is utopian

How is it utopian?

especially in the face of a counterrevolutionary force of millions. We can't all just have federations and be happy and dance.

I find these petulant comments about cuteness and dancing extremely irritating! No one is claiming that the creation of a decentralised, federalist system of organisation will be easy, but the concept has been applied in practice and has worked; so there is no reason to make the claim that it is "utopian" or unattainable.

Or maybe its the anarchists dont have a real materialist understanding of history, one that would recognize that in class society, there is a state.

This is just Marxist posturing and could never stand up to any serious criticism. Because of that, I'm not even going to bother.

Marx actually seldom used the word state, and even explained that it would not be like any other form of state, but a radically different one.

Where does he do that? In the Communist Manifesto he specifically talks about the centralisation of political administration.

And for all your diatribe about the Manifesto, I'm sure you understand that he changed his view after the Paris Commune, that the working class must smash the bourgeois state and create their own class organs of power.

Perhaps that's true, but I don't see any evidence that suggests it to be true. He continued to organise his political organisations with strict political centralisation.

In any case, this discussion is about Lenin and I can accept - with some degree of skepticism - that Lenin distorted Marx's theories.

9th May 2007, 17:18

Where does he do that? In the Communist Manifesto he specifically talks about the centralisation of political administration.

Actually, he talks about centralization of power into the hands of the proletariat. Since you failed to respond when I asked you to specifically quote what passage from the Manifesto you were talking about, I'll do it:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."
-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Ch. 2

Now, you should know the Marxist definition of the state so you should be able to understand what he's talking about here. He's saying the proletariat will "centralize all instruments of production in the hands of...the proletariat organized as the ruling class". Do you disagree with the fact that the proletariat should take control of the means of production?

The Feral Underclass

9th May 2007, 17:22

So Marx does believe in a centralised state then...Will you people make up your mind.

In any case, this argument is becoming tautological and I can't be arsed to bring forward new points.

You cannot centralise political authority into the hands of the "proletariat", only into a state made up of workers; it's materially possible for the entire proletariat to govern the state - This is why you employ professional revolutionaries to do it on their behalf.

Also, Marx's defintion of a State is wrong.

9th May 2007, 17:55

So Marx does believe in a centralised state then...Will you people make up your mind.

Don't be so ignorant. You completely misrepresented that quote and failed to answer my question (I'm guessing on purpose, because I assumed you were smarter than that). Marx isn't talking about the structure of the state, but the class struggle. Obviously if the proletariat becomes the ruling class then all power will be centralized in its hands, regardless of how the state is set up. Even in your conception of federations, power is centralized in the hands of the proletariat. This is quite easy stuff to understand, so I suggest you stop letting your emotions interpret what you read and start using your brain.

You cannot centralise political authority into the hands of the "proletariat"

Why not?

it's materially possible for the entire proletariat to govern the state - This is why you employ professional revolutionaries to do it on their behalf.

Did you mean impossible there?

Also, Marx's defintion of a State is wrong.

That's completely irrelevant to the content of this discussion.

cenv

10th May 2007, 00:16

Also, Marx's defintion of a State is wrong.
What is your definition of the state?

How do you conclude that Marx's definition is "wrong"?

Rawthentic

10th May 2007, 00:34

Marx's definition is correct, because as I earlier pointed out, it is based on the materialist conception of history. It is an organ of class rule. The proletariat elevates itself to a position of ruling class. One can conclude whatever from there.

cenv

10th May 2007, 00:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:34 pm
Marx's definition is correct, because as I earlier pointed out, it is based on the materialist conception of history. It is an organ of class rule. The proletariat elevates itself to a position of ruling class. One can conclude whatever from there.
While I don't think Marx's definition is "wrong", you can't just say his definition is correct "because...it is based on the materialist conception of history". This is just repeating slogans and making assertions. It's not much different than saying "Marx said it, so it must be true".

Rawthentic

10th May 2007, 01:55

It has nothing to do in that case whether Marx said it or not. Historical materialism has been proven correct, that societies move from production mode to production mode and that humans make history according to material conditions. "Being determines conscious" is another one.

10th May 2007, 04:30

Stop sloganeering and respond to him with some substance other than "You were wrong and Marx was right because it was proven so."

Rawthentic

10th May 2007, 04:35

Sorry bud. :lol:

Cenv, after a revolution, there will obviously still be class antagonisms, as well as an overwhelming capitalist force. This calls for a state, but not any sort of state, as Marx said. There will be political centralization, that is something that anarchists cant get around.

10th May 2007, 04:50

Cenv, after a revolution, there will obviously still be class antagonisms, as well as an overwhelming capitalist force. This calls for a state, but not any sort of state, as Marx said. There will be political centralization, that is something that anarchists cant get around.

In order to prove your assertion (i.e. that Marx's conception of the state is correct and the anarchist analysis of it is wrong) you have to write more than three sentences. Actually, it would probably be much longer than that.

RebelDog

10th May 2007, 05:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:35 am
Sorry bud. :lol:

Cenv, after a revolution, there will obviously still be class antagonisms, as well as an overwhelming capitalist force. This calls for a state, but not any sort of state, as Marx said. There will be political centralization, that is something that anarchists cant get around.
This is the crux of the whole thing. Why didn't the Russian state wither away? The answer is that state and class will not disappear until the external and domestic class antagonisms are gone. I think its increasing likely that the nature of the revolution will be the proletariat seizing power through a worldwide collapse of global capital, which would facilitate an almost uniform collapse of bourgeois power and proletarian rebellion. The material conditions must be right for the state/class to go and single or even groups of states who have libertarian or even authoritarian revolutions cannot proceed to communism when they have huge, powerful entities like the US plotting and acting to destroy them on top of internal enemies. Its impossible to have an successful authoritarian communist revolution in a world of capitalism, never mind a libertarian one. I think a successful move to real stateless, classless, libertarian communism, will be achieved only in a post-capitalist world.

Vargha Poralli

10th May 2007, 08:56

Originally posted by Dissenter+--> (Dissenter) This is the crux of the whole thing. Why didn't the Russian state wither away?[/b]

Because the revolutionary wave which started in the February which swept through the Euorope did not succeed as the February and October revolutions did. Even the push by the Bolsheviks to bring "Socialism under the Bayonet of Red Army" violating their own policy of self determination to nationalities failed miserably.

The young Soviet state which has been isolated from the rest of the world had to rely solely on it self for its survival. The the social conditions are totally against the Soviet government so the Bolsheviks are forced to bring back some capitalism in the form of NEP.

All these things were carried out still in hope for a world wide revolution especially in Germany. But when the time was ripe for it the thermidor reaction took place in Soviet Union and the disastrous policy of "Socialism in one Country" became a priority for both Stalinist bureaucracy in USSR and the Comintern. In the World War 2 things became worse for the Socialism in USSR which made it further destroy the revolutionary fervour. The height of it was the disbanding of the Comintern and the betrayal of the working class.

It is very easy to blame everything on the Bolsheviks. But it is really hard to understand the correct reasons for the degeneration of October revolution and really learn from it to not repeat those mistakes. Unfortunately we are very busy fighting the sectarian battles from the historical events rather than learning lessons from it.

Originally posted by Dissenter+--> (Dissenter)The answer is that state and class will not disappear until the external and domestic class antagonisms are gone. I think its increasing likely that the nature of the revolution will be the proletariat seizing power through a worldwide collapse of global capital, which would facilitate an almost uniform collapse of bourgeois power and proletarian rebellion.[/b]

IMO that kind of conditions have come and gone atleast some three to four times after the October revoltuion why did nothing happened ? Why did the proletariat did not seize the power when the global capitalism came in to crisis atleast twice in the Late 30,s ,60's and 90's ?

Originally posted by Dissenter
The material conditions must be right for the state/class to go and single or even groups of states who have libertarian or even authoritarian revolutions cannot proceed to communism when they have huge, powerful entities like the US plotting and acting to destroy them on top of internal enemies.

The material conditions are not some things that willl cerate successful parameters for a perfect workers revolutions. It is the masses that should use thoise conditions those from itself for their struggles. We cannot postponse some decisive actions just because "the material Conditions" are not right.

[email protected]

Its impossible to have an successful authoritarian communist revolution in a world of capitalism, never mind a libertarian one.

Thses libertarian/authoritarian nonsense has no meaning when it comes to reality.

Dissenter

I think a successful move to real stateless, classless, libertarian communism, will be achieved only in a post-capitalist world.

So we should sit in front of the computer and discuss in the revolutionary left ahile waiting for the post capitalist world ?

Chicano Shamrock

10th May 2007, 09:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:21 pm
The point is that in class society there must be a state. Thus it is after the proletarian revolution, classes still exist, and the proletariat must build its own revolutionary worker's state to eliminate these antagonisms.

No state, and the working class will be massacred.
You, like Lenin, use words like "must" that make it seem as that is the only way things can happen. You are working off of a theory not off of a scientific law. There is no law that says only a state can eliminate class antagonism.... whatever that means. You really need to let go of the absolutes and think a little bit for yourself. Don't dwell on what people said 100+ years ago.

If the working class is going to be massacred it will be during the revolution not afterwards. The only way the proles can "make" a state is if they win the revolution. That means there is no need for a state to protect the people because if the people already have enough power to win the revolution they can stick up for themselves.

What everything boils down to seems to be people just holding on to somebodies words like it is gospel from the mouth of god himself. Theories are theories because they haven't been proven yet. The theory of state socialism leading to communism has been attempted. It has failed. Get over it. Stop making excuses that fit your romantic idea of those old twats in the propaganda paintings. I really don't see the difference in worshiping jesus and worshiping Lenin or Marx. You guys seem to care enough about history to spend hours researching it yet it is worth nothing if you don't learn from it.

The local fool who hears communism and thinks of the USSR is not so dumb after all if you guys keep insisting that they had the right approach. If so many communists believe that a state will magically wither away like it withered away in Russia maybe I should just stop correcting ignorant rednecks and spare myself a potential brawl.

The Feral Underclass

10th May 2007, 10:21

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 09, 2007 05:55 pm

So Marx does believe in a centralised state then...Will you people make up your mind.

Don't be so ignorant. You completely misrepresented that quote and failed to answer my question (I'm guessing on purpose, because I assumed you were smarter than that).
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State"

Are you blind?

Marx isn't talking about the structure of the state, but the class struggle.

So the word "centralise" means what in this context? It's very difficult to keep up when you people keep changing the meaning of words almost randomly.

Obviously if the proletariat becomes the ruling class then all power will be centralized in its hands, regardless of how the state is set up.

Nice try.

Even in your conception of federations, power is centralized in the hands of the proletariat. This is quite easy stuff to understand, so I suggest you stop letting your emotions interpret what you read and start using your brain.

So my reaction to your incoherence is emotionalism. That's a new one.

You cannot centralise political authority into the hands of the "proletariat"

Why not?

Centralisation, being more than a vague indefinable theoretical posture, actually refers, practically, to a specific form of organisation.

Where as you just band slogans around in this apparent immaterial way without any regard for reality I realise that the whole concept of centralisation applied in the great expanse of the real means exactly what the word means.

it's materially possible for the entire proletariat to govern the state - This is why you employ professional revolutionaries to do it on their behalf.

Did you mean impossible there?

No, no, I meant possible.

Also, Marx's defintion of a State is wrong.

That's completely irrelevant to the content of this discussion.

What with you arguing a false premise, I would have thought it was right in the crux of the discussion.

The Feral Underclass

10th May 2007, 10:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:56 am
It is very easy to blame everything on the Bolsheviks.
Yes, it's very very easy to blame them. It was, after all, them who were responsable for the disasters of 20th century Marxism.

bloody_capitalist_sham

10th May 2007, 11:04

Yes, it's very very easy to blame them. It was, after all, them who were responsable for the disasters of 20th century Marxism.

which Bolsheviks?

The ones Stalin purged, killed etc or the ones who were brought in the late 20's and the 30's?

The Feral Underclass

10th May 2007, 11:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:04 am

Yes, it's very very easy to blame them. It was, after all, them who were responsable for the disasters of 20th century Marxism.

which Bolsheviks?

The ones Stalin purged, killed etc or the ones who were brought in the late 20's and the 30's?
All of them.

Forward Union

10th May 2007, 12:51

Vargha Poralli

10th May 2007, 13:15

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 10, 2007 02:53 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 10, 2007 02:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:56 am
It is very easy to blame everything on the Bolsheviks.
Yes, it's very very easy to blame them. It was, after all, them who were responsable for the disasters of 20th century Marxism. [/b]
Well I have posted a lot more than that. What is your response for those points ?

which Bolsheviks?

The ones Stalin purged, killed etc

I don't know who Anarchist Tention is referring but by Bolsheviks I meant only them not

he ones who were brought in the late 20's and the 30's?

The Anarchist Tention
All of them.

How ? Could you elaborate on that statement ? Or should I ignore your posts as sectarian flaming ?

The Feral Underclass

10th May 2007, 17:32

Originally posted by g.ram+May 10, 2007 01:15 pm--> (g.ram @ May 10, 2007 01:15 pm)
The Anarchist Tention
All of them.

How ? Could you elaborate on that statement ? Or should I ignore your posts as sectarian flaming ? [/b]
You can do what the fuck you want. The facts are clear to anyone who wishes to investigate them even slightly.

10th May 2007, 17:54

You, like Lenin, use words like "must" that make it seem as that is the only way things can happen. You are working off of a theory not off of a scientific law. There is no law that says only a state can eliminate class antagonism.... whatever that means. You really need to let go of the absolutes and think a little bit for yourself. Don't dwell on what people said 100+ years ago.

Marxist theory states that a state must exist when class antagonisms are irreconcilable. The state doesn't "eliminate" class antagonisms; it manages them. Also, your analysis is based on a lack of knowledge of the marxist theory of the state.

If the working class is going to be massacred it will be during the revolution not afterwards. The only way the proles can "make" a state is if they win the revolution. That means there is no need for a state to protect the people because if the people already have enough power to win the revolution they can stick up for themselves.

Class antagonisms still exist within the country and because of this a state is necesary to deal with that. Again, your analysis is based on a lack of knowledge on the marxist theory of the state.

What everything boils down to seems to be people just holding on to somebodies words like it is gospel from the mouth of god himself. Theories are theories because they haven't been proven yet. The theory of state socialism leading to communism has been attempted. It has failed. Get over it. Stop making excuses that fit your romantic idea of those old twats in the propaganda paintings.

Your assumption that these revolutions failed because of Marxist theory is completely ridiculous and completely absent of any valid analysis of the developments of these revolutions.

The local fool who hears communism and thinks of the USSR is not so dumb after all if you guys keep insisting that they had the right approach.

Good to know you're saturated with bourgeois propaganda. Not that I'm surprised...

If so many communists believe that a state will magically wither away like it withered away in Russia

I don't think anyone claimed the state in Russia withered away.

maybe I should just stop correcting ignorant rednecks

How about you stop using such ignorant discriminatory language? You gonna start calling us "stupid niggers" next, asshole?

TAT:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State"

Are you blind?

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class..."

First, you missed that second part. Marx clearly states what he means by the word "State" here; he means the proletariat organized as the ruling class. Second, in class society power is necessarily centralized in the hands of the ruling class for the very reason that the only other alternative is dual power between the ruling and oppressed class. This would imply a "shared power" between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Do you agree with that? I'm guessing not, and that you're just getting hung up on the word "centralized". When the proletariat successfully revolts, it becomes the ruling class. In doing so, it gains all power as a class (i.e. power is centralized into the hands of the proletariat). It's rather obvious that Marx wasn't talking about any form of state here and was talking about an analysis of the class struggle itself.

So the word "centralise" means what in this context? It's very difficult to keep up when you people keep changing the meaning of words almost randomly.

I never changed the meaning of the word. You just can't comprehend that it can be used in a context other than to define the structure of a state.

Centralize: to bring under one control.

In the context that Marx uses it, this is the definition he is using; to bring power under control of the proletariat (i.e. to centralize power into the hands of the proletariat).

Nice try.

No, it's true.

Centralisation, being more than a vague indefinable theoretical posture, actually refers, practically, to a specific form of organisation.

Where as you just band slogans around in this apparent immaterial way without any regard for reality I realise that the whole concept of centralisation applied in the great expanse of the real means exactly what the word means.

Centralization does have more than one definition you know, and the one Marx was using in that sentence was the one I provided above. Again, you're going nuts because of the word itself, and not interpreting what Marx actually wrote. I invite you to stop thinking from such an ignorant point of view, read the quote again and read the definition I've provided.

No, no, I meant possible.

So you're saying I support professional revolutionaries governing the state because it's possible for the entire proletariat to govern the state? That doesn't make sense (nor is it relevant, because nobody's talking about the structure of the state).

What with you arguing a false premise, I would have thought it was right in the crux of the discussion.

Nope, we're discussing the aforementioned quote. I'm not going to discuss this crap with you in this thread because it won't lead anywhere. However, you can respond to this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65988&view=findpost&p=1292308887) post if you wish.

Rawthentic

10th May 2007, 23:14

The bodies of people that fight the counter revolutioanries, be that Millitias, a Millitary, a police, or all three, would exist in an Anarchist society, and a 'Leninist' one. But they would be democratically mandated and accountable to the workers and peasents collectives. This would prevent these bodies from being used to defend the interests of those with the power to command them. Which was the catastrophic failure of authorotarian socialism in Russia (and everywhere else)
This is why Russia falied??! How typical. So, you think, ignoring material conditions (which I am sure you are used to) that if the working class in Russia started some collectives with the peasants, it would all be good? Ridiculous. The proletarian power would only be helped with a world revolution. What caused the bureaucracy and counterrevolutionary return to capitalism was precisely because this did not happen. Russia had no choice but to submit to the laws of capitalism.

Oh yeah, and the cute scenario that you described, is a state.

RebelDog

11th May 2007, 08:46

g.ram

Because the revolutionary wave which started in the February which swept through the Euorope did not succeed as the February and October revolutions did. Even the push by the Bolsheviks to bring "Socialism under the Bayonet of Red Army" violating their own policy of self determination to nationalities failed miserably.

The young Soviet state which has been isolated from the rest of the world had to rely solely on it self for its survival. The the social conditions are totally against the Soviet government so the Bolsheviks are forced to bring back some capitalism in the form of NEP.

All these things were carried out still in hope for a world wide revolution especially in Germany. But when the time was ripe for it the thermidor reaction took place in Soviet Union and the disastrous policy of "Socialism in one Country" became a priority for both Stalinist bureaucracy in USSR and the Comintern. In the World War 2 things became worse for the Socialism in USSR which made it further destroy the revolutionary fervour. The height of it was the disbanding of the Comintern and the betrayal of the working class.

It is very easy to blame everything on the Bolsheviks. But it is really hard to understand the correct reasons for the degeneration of October revolution and really learn from it to not repeat those mistakes. Unfortunately we are very busy fighting the sectarian battles from the historical events rather than learning lessons from it.

When a chance like Russia comes along again its essential that people have learnt something but I don't know if they will have. One shouldn't bang on about workers emancipating themselves and taking control and then deny them this. Why should any real revolutionary have anything other than disgust for what the Bolsheviks turned in to. Kronstadt alone shows the Bolshevik legacy is a warning to present day revolutionaries never to tread the same perfidious path they did.

IMO that kind of conditions have come and gone atleast some three to four times after the October revoltuion why did nothing happened ? Why did the proletariat did not seize the power when the global capitalism came in to crisis atleast twice in the Late 30,s ,60's and 90's ?

Capitalism was too strong and the movement too weak, clearly. The crisis of over-production and fall of profit will be more pronounced in the capitalist globalisation stage.

The material conditions are not some things that willl cerate successful parameters for a perfect workers revolutions. It is the masses that should use thoise conditions those from itself for their struggles. We cannot postponse some decisive actions just because "the material Conditions" are not right.

I never said the material conditions were something that would create a 'perfect' situation for proletarian revolution. They are essential though. I wouldn't postpone anything because if we are of sufficient strength and confidence to carry out such actions it means the material conditions are correct or can be achieved.

Thses libertarian/authoritarian nonsense has no meaning when it comes to reality.

On the contrary, it has great meaning. The Spanish civil war comes to mind.

So we should sit in front of the computer and discuss in the revolutionary left ahile waiting for the post capitalist world ?

We should strive for revolution everywhere we can. I think there is increasing scope for co-ordinated action of the proletariat globally. We must put capitalism to the sword forever before we can truly achieve our aims and we must stick to those aims.

Vargha Poralli

11th May 2007, 16:55

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 01:16 pm
g.ram

Because the revolutionary wave which started in the February which swept through the Euorope did not succeed as the February and October revolutions did. Even the push by the Bolsheviks to bring "Socialism under the Bayonet of Red Army" violating their own policy of self determination to nationalities failed miserably.

The young Soviet state which has been isolated from the rest of the world had to rely solely on it self for its survival. The the social conditions are totally against the Soviet government so the Bolsheviks are forced to bring back some capitalism in the form of NEP.

All these things were carried out still in hope for a world wide revolution especially in Germany. But when the time was ripe for it the Thermidor reaction took place in Soviet Union and the disastrous policy of "Socialism in one Country" became a priority for both Stalinist bureaucracy in USSR and the Comintern. In the World War 2 things became worse for the Socialism in USSR which made it further destroy the revolutionary fervour. The height of it was the disbanding of the Comintern and the betrayal of the working class.

It is very easy to blame everything on the Bolsheviks. But it is really hard to understand the correct reasons for the degeneration of October revolution and really learn from it to not repeat those mistakes. Unfortunately we are very busy fighting the sectarian battles from the historical events rather than learning lessons from it.

When a chance like Russia comes along again its essential that people have learnt something but I don't know if they will have. One shouldn't bang on about workers emancipating themselves and taking control and then deny them this. Why should any real revolutionary have anything other than disgust for what the Bolsheviks turned in to. Kronstadt alone shows the Bolshevik legacy is a warning to present day revolutionaries never to tread the same perfidious path they did.
The Kronstadt will be a never ending argument in my opinion and has been discussed a lot of times. So I don't want to get in to it. But both Lenin and Trotsky have implicitly stated that crushing of Kronstadt was a Tragic Necessity. It is an expression of Thermidorian retreat where masses grew tired of revolutionary situation and want it to end. Lenin was actually devastated by the event so the Bolsheviks decided to end the policy of War Communism and bring back limited capitalism in the name of NEP. And it is not only Kronstadt that made them do it but also many more rebellions which were mostly a reaction against the economic policies of War Communism. They all have stopped after NEP was introduces that speaks about the nature of those revolts.

IMO that kind of conditions have come and gone atleast some three to four times after the October revoltuion why did nothing happened ? Why did the proletariat did not seize the power when the global capitalism came in to crisis atleast twice in the Late 30,s ,60's and 90's ?

Capitalism was too strong and the movement too weak, clearly. The crisis of over-production and fall of profit will be more pronounced in the capitalist globalisation stage.

Or we can say there is no movement like Bolsheviks. You must be aware that until 1917 the numbers of Bolsheviks was very much less than Mensheviks and SR's but the actions of Bolsheviks steadily earned the much support of the workers.

The material conditions are not some things that willl cerate successful parameters for a perfect workers revolutions. It is the masses that should use thoise conditions those from itself for their struggles. We cannot postponse some decisive actions just because "the material Conditions" are not right.

I never said the material conditions were something that would create a 'perfect' situation for proletarian revolution. They are essential though. I wouldn't postpone anything because if we are of sufficient strength and confidence to carry out such actions it means the material conditions are correct or can be achieved.

Forgive me But I can't understand what you are saying here. Could you rephrase to best explain your stance because I really can't understand what you are saying(I fear I could also misinterpret you).

Thses libertarian/authoritarian nonsense has no meaning when it comes to reality.

On the contrary, it has great meaning. The Spanish civil war comes to mind.

Which I think had showed weakness in Anarchist theory and praxis. CNT-FAI failed to do the right thing even though they had the ability to do it. They trusted the Republican government and the Stalinists tooo much which lead to the defeat of the Spanish working class to Franco's goons.

So we should sit in front of the computer and discuss in the revolutionary left ahile waiting for the post capitalist world ?

We should strive for revolution everywhere we can. I think there is increasing scope for co-ordinated action of the proletariat globally. We must put capitalism to the sword forever before we can truly achieve our aims and we must stick to those aims.

I think we agree very much in this piece. As Engels said Communism is not a doctrine it is a movement which proceeds from facts.We must throw all stones that is the path.Working class needs to gain power for the very survival of Humanity whether it comes from Bullets or Ballots.

syndicat

11th May 2007, 17:08

The Kronstadt will be a never ending argument in my opinion and has been discussed a lot of times. So I don't want to get in to it. But both Lenin and Trotsky have implicitly stated that crushing of Kronstadt was a Tragic Necessity. It is an expression of Thermidorian retreat where masses grew tired of revolutionary situation and want it to end.

Lenin and Trotsky never stated any regrets, as far as I know, about Kronstadt. It was indeed a "necessity" for them to stay in power.

if you say that the Kronstadt rebels "wanted the revolution to end", would you mind indicating which of the 15 points of their demands suggest this? And why then did the paper of the Kronstadt revolutionary committee talk about a third revolution that would sweep out the bureaucracy?

the Kronstadt rebellion was about demanding authentic soviet democracy, actually controlled by the working class. abolishing the political rights of the workers and peasants to elect whichever political tendency they want to the soviets, and instituting a party dictatorship, is inconsistent with the actual power of the working class. but that's what the Bolsheviks did, beginning in 1918. Lenin himself never expressed any regrets about this, nor did Trotsky. on the contrary, that very month Trotsky asserted that "the party's birthright to rule takes precedence over the passing whims of the workers democracy."

the course pursued by the Bolsheviks would inevitably empower a new class of "leaders of the production process", the planning elite, engineers and managers in the hierarchy running production, generals and party apparatchiks.

11th May 2007, 17:25

Trotsky - Hue and Cry Over Kronstadt (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/kronstadt/trotsky_hue_cry.html)
Kramer - Kronstadt: Trotsky was right! (http://www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html)

Vargha Poralli

11th May 2007, 17:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:38 pm

The Kronstadt will be a never ending argument in my opinion and has been discussed a lot of times. So I don't want to get in to it. But both Lenin and Trotsky have implicitly stated that crushing of Kronstadt was a Tragic Necessity. It is an expression of Thermidorian retreat where masses grew tired of revolutionary situation and want it to end.

Lenin and Trotsky never stated any regrets, as far as I know, about Kronstadt. It was indeed a "necessity" for them to stay in power.

Yes Lenin and Bolsheviks justified the supressing of Kronstadt. And yes it is a necessity to save the Soviet state from the Wrangel's forces who was awaiting for a situation like Kronstadt to exploit.

if you say that the Kronstadt rebels "wanted the revolution to end", would you mind indicating which of the 15 points of their demands suggest this? And why then did the paper of the Kronstadt revolutionary committee talk about a third revolution that would sweep out the bureaucracy?

Well actions speak a lot more than words. The fact Wrangel had contacts with mutineers speaks a lot about the commitment of mutineers to their own demands.

the Kronstadt rebellion was about demanding authentic soviet democracy, actually controlled by the working class. abolishing the political rights of the workers and peasants to elect whichever political tendency they want to the soviets, and instituting a party dictatorship, is inconsistent with the actual power of the working class. but that's what the Bolsheviks did, beginning in 1918. Lenin himself never expressed any regrets about this, nor did Trotsky. on the contrary, that very month Trotsky asserted that "the party's birthright to rule takes precedence over the passing whims of the workers democracy."

the course pursued by the Bolsheviks would inevitably empower a new class of "leaders of the production process", the planning elite, engineers and managers in the hierarchy running production, generals and party apparatchiks.

That diatribe does not explain the historical fact that Kronstadt like revolts(which were numerous all over Russia) stopped magically after withdrawal of War Communism and introduction of NEP. It is really funny for anarchists to criticise both Kronstadt and NEP which IMO is a true example of hypocrisy.

And for other facts Trotsky suggested abandoning War Communism as early as 1920,which was rejected by Central Committee which was expecting to join forces with on going German Revolution.

syndicat

11th May 2007, 17:58

That diatribe does not explain the historical fact that Kronstadt like revolts(which were numerous all over Russia) stopped magically after withdrawal of War Communism and introduction of NEP. It is really funny for anarchists to criticise both Kronstadt and NEP which IMO is a true example of hypocrisy.

The civil war had ended in 1920. Workers and peasnants had been told they had to put up with endless sacrifices and bosses being imposed on them, eliminating all elected plant committees, because of the needs of the civil war. so there were many strikes and peasant rebellions at that time.

as to the explanation for why the Communist apparatchiks could easily crush those rebellions, well, consider that they had millions of soldiers and the whites had been defeated, so the army could now be directed against worker and peasant rebellions.
this is fairly obvious, one would think.

The fact Wrangel had contacts with mutineers speaks a lot about the commitment of mutineers to their own demands.

The usual trot bullshit. Care to provide any evidence?

The official SR party leadership (not Wrangel) contacted the Kronstadt rebels and offered aid if they would back the demand for the Constituent Assembly.

But the Kronstadt sailors and workers had always opposed the Constituent Asembly. They were fightint for soviet democracy, as their 15 point demands makes clear. Thus they rejected the offer from the SR party.

if they were willing tools of the whites, why would they have done that?

This is discussed in both Ida Mett's book on Kronstadt and Israel Getzler's comprehensive study, "Kronstadt 1917-21" which also makes use of soviet archives.

Vargha Poralli

11th May 2007, 18:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:28 pm

That diatribe does not explain the historical fact that Kronstadt like revolts(which were numerous all over Russia) stopped magically after withdrawal of War Communism and introduction of NEP. It is really funny for anarchists to criticise both Kronstadt and NEP which IMO is a true example of hypocrisy.

The civil war had ended in 1920. Workers and peasnants had been told they had to put up with endless sacrifices and bosses being imposed on them, eliminating all elected plant committees, because of the needs of the civil war. so there were many strikes and peasant rebellions at that time.
Well I have already said in this post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65728&view=findpost&p=1292313748)

And for other facts Trotsky suggested abandoning War Communism as early as 1920,which was rejected by Central Committee which was expecting to join forces with on going German Revolution.

The reason War Communism was not abandoned because Bolsheviks were still waiting for some news from German revolution. Their own attempt to join with the German workers failed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_at_Vistula).

And the reasons why did Bolsheviks are so eager for the victory of German revolution was that they are internationalists. They knew very much that without the help of a revolution in an industrially advanced countries like Germany the Russian Revolution cannot sustain itslef in the weakly industrialised and a primarily agrarian country . Even Stalin who later came up with theory of "Socialism in one Country" and Bhukharin who supported Stalin's stance had no illusions in the fate of an isolated Revolutionary Russia at that time.

as to the explanation for why the Communist apparatchiks could easily crush those rebellions, well, consider that they had millions of soldiers and the whites had been defeated, so the army could now be directed against worker and peasant rebellions.
this is fairly obvious, one would think.

I get what really makes up your ideology. Think whatever you can but you cannot hold masses by the use of Terror. There are numerous historical facts that had proved this point. If what you say was really true we would be still in the days of slave societies.

The fact Wrangel had contacts with mutineers speaks a lot about the commitment of mutineers to their own demands.

The usual trot bullshit. Care to provide any evidence?

The official SR party leadership (not Wrangel) contacted the Kronstadt rebels and offered aid if they would back the demand for the Constituent Assembly.

But the Kronstadt sailors and workers had always opposed the Constituent Asembly. They were fightint for soviet democracy, as their 15 point demands makes clear. Thus they rejected the offer from the SR party.

if they were willing tools of the whites, why would they have done that?

This is discussed in both Ida Mett's book on Kronstadt and Israel Getzler's comprehensive study, "Kronstadt 1917-21" which also makes use of soviet archives.

If you cared to click the links Zampano has posted here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65728&view=findpost&p=1292313744) you could have got the sources. I didn't link them again because it has already been posted.

The article by A Kramer in Zampano's post is written very recently after the opening up of the Soviet Archives which were previously kept secret. It shatters many myths of Kronstadt built by Anarchists and Bourgeoisie.

Chicano Shamrock

11th May 2007, 18:48

Class antagonisms still exist within the country and because of this a state is necesary to deal with that. Again, your analysis is based on a lack of knowledge on the marxist theory of the state.

Sure but what is the need for a state in that situation. If the people have enough power and organization to last through the revolution they can probably also protect themselves afterwards without a state. I may not have the most knowledge of marxist theory but I do use my common sense and someone telling me they will make a vanguard in my interest is a little foolish. From one organizing elite to another right?

Your assumption that these revolutions failed because of Marxist theory is completely ridiculous and completely absent of any valid analysis of the developments of these revolutions.

The complete idea is illogical. Let's make a new state so we can later destroy it....... :|
It just doesn't make sense to me how a communist can be for a society without a state and at the same time be for a society with a state. Make up your mind and pick one.

Good to know you're saturated with bourgeois propaganda. Not that I'm surprised...
Ummm what? Who isn't?

I don't think anyone claimed the state in Russia withered away.
That was my point....

How about you stop using such ignorant discriminatory language? You gonna start calling us "stupid niggers" next, asshole?
:D What? I don't know about you but racist, sexist and homophobic rednecks are no friends of mine. I really don't give a shit about using discriminatory language against them since they don't seem to care much about others feeling anyway.

I am sorry but after years of going to school with rednecks I can say that I don't feel any shame in calling them names. All that came out of them was "spics, jews, niggers, nips, fag, homo, sand nigger, raghead" and everything in between. So excuse if I don't feel the need to stifle myself.

syndicat

11th May 2007, 19:34

i read the piece by Kramer when it first came out. it was emailed to me by a
trot friend. it uses the soviet archives but the only thing it takes out of those archives is more of the lying propaganda that the Bolsheviks generated at the time. the Bolsheviks were practitioners of the cynical method of intentional lying about their political opponents on the left. their attacks on the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine as "anti-semitic, bandits, kulaks" etc were another example. In the Karmer piece he quotes a piece of Communist propaganda from the time saying that the writings of the rebels admitted links with white guards...that was simly an example of the method of intentional lying. there were no such links, as I pointed out.

some trots have even lately taken to the ploy of quoting from the "confession" signed by Anatoly Lamonov before he was executed. Lamonov was the main articulator of the ideas of the Kronstadt rebellion, as an editor of the rebeles newspaper. But the "confession" is worthless as it was signed with a gun to his head. Lamonov was the leading figure in Kronstadt of the Union of Maximalists -- an anti-parliamentory (anti-Constituent Assembly) libertarian socialist group. The maximalists had been the dominant political tendency in the Kronstadt soviet at the time of the October 1917 revolution, when Trotsky and Lenin praised the Kronstadt soviet as "the vanguard of the revolution." That was when they were an ally of the Bolsheviks. of course once they insisted on taking the talk of soviet democracy seriously, well, then they became enemies of the Bolshevik elite.

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 23:01

The Bolshevik elite!! :lol:

As if the Russian working class didn't elect them to their Soviets!

But seriously syndicat, get serious.

Vargha Poralli

12th May 2007, 04:40

Originally posted by syndicat+--> (syndicat) the Bolsheviks were practitioners of the cynical method of intentional lying about their political opponents on the left. their attacks on the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine as "anti-semitic, bandits, kulaks" etc were another example.[/b]

Yeah what is next ? Bolsheviks are a part of Illuminati Conspiracy for world domination ?

The Anti-Semitic pogoroms of Makhno's bandits are historic facts. I have seen them being refuted only by Anarchist sources not by any other sources.

And I really don't think discussing about Kronstadt any more. All you do was say that Bolsheviks were liars as if that would make your argument credible.

hatstalavictoria

The Bolshevik elite!! laugh.gif

As if the Russian working class didn't elect them to their Soviets!

Of course elections are farce and Bolsheviks deceibed workers in to voting them by false promises. :ph34r:

syndicat

12th May 2007, 05:54

The Anti-Semitic pogoroms of Makhno's bandits are historic facts. I have seen them being refuted only by Anarchist sources not by any other sources.

You're wrong again. During the period of the civil war a certain Jewish historian named Tcherkover kept a tally of deaths due to anti-Jewish pogroms carried out by the various armies. Worst was the white army, 20,000 deaths. 5,000 were attributed to the army of Grigoriev. 500 to the Red Army. but none to Makhno's army. As Tcherkover said, Makhno's army not only caused no deaths due to anti-Jewish pograms that he could find out about, but, he said, they were generally better to the entire civilian population of Ukraine than any other. Since it was an indigenous people's army this is understandable.

There are also sorts of other pieces of evidence. For example, Makhno's political organization, the Federation of Anarchist Organizations of Ukraine had many Jewish members, such as Zevelod Echenbaum (Volin) who was part of the cultural section of the Makhnovist army.

Makhno's army was notorious as an enemy of anti-semitism. How do you think Grigoriev was dispatched? He was executed for carrying out anti-semitic pogroms...by Makhno's army.

Of course elections are farce and Bolsheviks deceibed workers in to voting them by false promises.

well, now that you mention it, how about the fact that the Bolsheviks refused to recognize the results of the soviet elections in 19 of 22 cities in European Russia in the spring of 1918...because they lost!

This is mentioned in "Before Stalinism" by Sam Farber. Not an anarchist source. He's a Marxist sociologist.

Nusocialist

12th May 2007, 07:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:19 am

Responses?
Easy, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc.

Nusocialist

12th May 2007, 07:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:40 am
And I really don't think discussing about Kronstadt any more. All you do was say that Bolsheviks were liars as if that would make your argument credible.

Whoever said that is a smart man.

Never trust a Leninist, like you should trust no statist.

The Anti-Semitic pogoroms of Makhno's bandits are historic facts. I have seen them being refuted only by Anarchist sources not by any other sources.I've only seen them mentioned by Trotsky and I'm not sure what this proves, the bloody Stalinists in Hungary and other areas had pogroms after the holocaust for god's sake, 180,000 jews were forced west after enduring the Nazis.

Stalin and Mao are enough to show leninism for what it really is.

12th May 2007, 07:12

Originally posted by n00bsocialist

Stalin and Mao are enough to show communism for what it really is.

<_<

Nusocialist

12th May 2007, 07:32

I see nothing remotely communist in their practice, in fact I see little socialism.

Forward Union

12th May 2007, 09:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:14 pm
This is why Russia falied??! How typical. So, you think, ignoring material conditions (which I am sure you are used to) that if the working class in Russia started some collectives with the peasants, it would all be good? Ridiculous.
Workers power? Rediculous! :lol:

And as it had been working for three years in Ukraine, and also parts of Russia, under the defence of the Makhnovists, I fail to see how to demand direct workers control of the means of prodution was rediculous.

What I think is ridiculous is the idea that after seizing power, an individual will altruistically give up power and wealth for the good of the workers.

Oh yeah, and the cute scenario that you described, is a state.

No because there would be no governing body, or more accurately there would, but it would be made up of, essentially everyone. Which I have no objection to.

Forward Union

12th May 2007, 09:53

Originally posted by g.ram+May 12, 2007 03:40 am--> (g.ram @ May 12, 2007 03:40 am) The Anti-Semitic pogoroms of Makhno's bandits are historic facts. I have seen them being refuted only by Anarchist sources not by any other sources.
[/b]
Bandits? :lol: Been reading Capmag again?

The Makhnovists were divided into Brigades, with some local Millitia units acting autonomously under the banner. Makhno was, I believe in charge of the 3rd Dniepr brigade.

Even Antonov-Ovseenko, a Bolshevik official who had been sent to Ukraine to do a report for Bolshevik military leaders said that the Makhnovists were well-organized, had popular support, and should have been given supplies. He even suggested making them an autonomous unit of the Red army!

As for the Pogroms. Which anarchists have denied that it happened? I certainly haven't, even Makhno admitted that several individuals were discovered to have been involved in anti-semitic attacks. In one insance a bolshevik commisar (as pointed out already,Tcherkover attributed around 500 anti-semeitc murders to the Bolshevik rogues) was also involved in the pogroms along with members of a Makhnovist millitia, their punishment was death by fireing squad. The Makhnovists had scores of Jewish members, I believe one Artillery brigade was actually entire jewish.

I think what Anarchists are probably objecting to is your bullshit insinuation that this anti-semitism was somehow part of the Makhnovist agenda. Whereas anyone with any reasonable understanding of the period would know that the real controversy is over whether the Makhnovists were too harsh in dealing with anti-semitism.

The ironic reality is that pretty much all the evidence in existance, linking anti-semitism to individual makhnovists, comes from the personal testiments of the executioners/Makhnovist command staff, and the execution documents!!

Read this;

Makhno
Every attempted pogrom or looting from our side was nipped in the bud. All found guilty of such acts were invariably shot out of hand for their misdeeds.

This was the case for instance in May 1919, when some peasant insurgents from Novo-Uspenovka, on leaving the front line for some rest in the rear, came upon two decomposed corpses near a Jewish settlement: assuming these to be the corpses of insurgents murdered by members of the Jewish colony, they vented their spleen on the colony and slaughtered around thirty of its inhabitants. That same day, my Staff dispatched a commission of inquiry to the colony. It discovered the tracks of the perpetrators of the butchery. I immediately sent a special detachment to their village to place them under arrest. Those responsible for the attack on the Jewish colony, namely six individuals, one of them the Bolshevik district commissar, were all shot on 13 May 1 91 9.

That's the way to do it!

The Grey Blur

12th May 2007, 10:40

You seem just to take Makhno's word for anything US...did you read RedDali's post in the other thread where the dictatorial conditions of his camps were described?

Tower of Bebel

12th May 2007, 10:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:54 am

Of course elections are farce and Bolsheviks deceibed workers in to voting them by false promises.

well, now that you mention it, how about the fact that the Bolsheviks refused to recognize the results of the soviet elections in 19 of 22 cities in European Russia in the spring of 1918...because they lost!

This is mentioned in "Before Stalinism" by Sam Farber. Not an anarchist source. He's a Marxist sociologist.
That's not important. I wouldn't like the social revolutionaries to be leading the Revolution. Far more important is that they abolished these election instead of preparing for new ones. They abolished democray.
Many people still voted for the soc.rev. because they were more popular (populists they were, full of lies (look at what kerensky did)).

Vargha Poralli

12th May 2007, 19:49

Originally posted by Nusocialist+May 12, 2007 11:38 am--> (Nusocialist @ May 12, 2007 11:38 am)
Originally posted by g.ram+May 12, 2007 03:40 am--> (g.ram @ May 12, 2007 03:40 am) And I really don't think discussing about Kronstadt any more. All you do was say that Bolsheviks were liars as if that would make your argument credible.

[/b]
Whoever said that is a smart man.

Never trust a Leninist, like you should trust no statist.
[/b]
Welll instead trust an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Originally posted by Anarcho Capitalist

The Anti-Semitic pogoroms of Makhno's bandits are historic facts. I have seen them being refuted only by Anarchist sources not by any other sources.I've only seen them mentioned by Trotsky and I'm not sure what this proves, the bloody Stalinists in Hungary and other areas had pogroms after the holocaust for god's sake, 180,000 jews were forced west after enduring the Nazis.

Really cool story.

Anarcho [email protected]
Stalin and Mao are enough to show leninism for what it really is.

So does your support for Anarcho capitalism show Anarchism for what it really is ?

The Makhnovists were divided into Brigades, with some local Millitia units acting autonomously under the banner.

I really doubht that. In other thread in OI you yourself said that Makhnovschina's army unit was under direct command of Makhno and the elite circle around him.

And I wopuld really like to a third neutral view of Makhno's army. Certainly there were lot of works that has been made about the Red Army apart from Bolsheviks and Makhno's thing has no other sources apart from Makhno.

And also I would like your comments of issues raised by RedDali in the other thread.

Syndicat

You're wrong again. During the period of the civil war a certain Jewish historian named Tcherkover kept a tally of deaths due to anti-Jewish pogroms carried out by the various armies. Worst was the white army, 20,000 deaths. 5,000 were attributed to the army of Grigoriev. 500 to the Red Army. but none to Makhno's army. As Tcherkover said, Makhno's army not only caused no deaths due to anti-Jewish pograms that he could find out about, but, he said, they were generally better to the entire civilian population of Ukraine than any other. Since it was an indigenous people's army this is understandable.

There are also sorts of other pieces of evidence. For example, Makhno's political organization, the Federation of Anarchist Organizations of Ukraine had many Jewish members, such as Zevelod Echenbaum (Volin) who was part of the cultural section of the Makhnovist army.

Makhno's army was notorious as an enemy of anti-semitism. How do you think Grigoriev was dispatched? He was executed for carrying out anti-semitic pogroms...by Makhno's army.

Is this source available online ? If not could you give more details about it ?

well, now that you mention it, how about the fact that the Bolsheviks refused to recognize the results of the soviet elections in 19 of 22 cities in European Russia in the spring of 1918...because they lost!

And because they were also in the middle of a civil war. It didn't end until 1921 man.
Do you expect SR's who workerd along with Kerensky who supported the imperialist war wopuld have fought the Imperialist armies supporting the whites ?

syndicat

12th May 2007, 20:46

me: "well, now that you mention it, how about the fact that the Bolsheviks refused to recognize the results of the soviet elections in 19 of 22 cities in European Russia in the spring of 1918...because they lost!"

And because they were also in the middle of a civil war. It didn't end until 1921 man.
Do you expect SR's who workerd along with Kerensky who supported the imperialist war wopuld have fought the Imperialist armies supporting the whites ?

Wrong. The civil war didn't start til June-July 1918. The elections happened before
that.

The main political organization that was victorious in those soviet elections
were the Left Mensheviks. They didn't support the whites. Neither did the Left SRs.
Nor the syndicalists or anarchists.

But these political tendencies were all suppressed.

Coggeh

13th May 2007, 00:54

The main political organization that was victorious in those soviet elections
were the Left Mensheviks. They didn't support the whites. Neither did the Left SRs.
Nor the syndicalists or anarchists.

But these political tendencies were all suppressed.

The mensheviks support the bourgeois system as a way of "developing Russia to an extent where socialism is possible" therefore completely stalling the momentum of the October revolution , damn right they shouldn't be aloud set up bourgeois hypocritical democracy .

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 01:28

Yeah, the Mensheviks were determinists in that they insisted that Russia had to go through the same process that Western Europe did, and were of course rejected by Lenin and the working class.

In fact, the Russian proletariat proved the mensheviks wrong by making a socialist revolution.

Nusocialist

13th May 2007, 10:05

Originally posted by State capitalist
Welll instead trust an Anarcho-Capitalist.Real mature, when did I ever say I was an anarcho-capitalist? You are the capitalist, you are even worse you support totalitarian mass murdering regimes.

Really cool story.
Shows you what scum leninists are.

So does your support for Anarcho capitalism show Anarchism for what it really is ?
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and as you don't know the first thing about anarcho-capitalism why do you feel like you can comment?

I accept anarcho-capitalists because I accept all real decentralists and libertarians because they will create very similar outcomes, certainly a far, far improved outcome to your stinking stalinism.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 17:27

Originally posted by Nusocialist+May 13, 2007 10:05 am--> (Nusocialist @ May 13, 2007 10:05 am)
State capitalist
Welll instead trust an Anarcho-Capitalist.Real mature, when did I ever say I was an anarcho-capitalist? You are the capitalist, you are even worse you support totalitarian mass murdering regimes.

Really cool story.
Shows you what scum leninists are.

So does your support for Anarcho capitalism show Anarchism for what it really is ?
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and as you don't know the first thing about anarcho-capitalism why do you feel like you can comment?

I accept anarcho-capitalists because I accept all real decentralists and libertarians because they will create very similar outcomes, certainly a far, far improved outcome to your stinking stalinism. [/b]
You're not real.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th May 2007, 18:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:28 am
Yeah, the Mensheviks were determinists in that they insisted that Russia had to go through the same process that Western Europe did, and were of course rejected by Lenin and the working class.

In fact, the Russian proletariat proved the mensheviks wrong by making a socialist revolution.
So the fact that Russia is no longer even socialist doesn't bother you? I think it speaks volumes about the Marxist-Leninist project.

And how can you make a proletarian revolution in a country that is (well was) mostly made up of peasants?

The Grey Blur

13th May 2007, 19:25

So the fact that Russia is no longer even socialist doesn't bother you?
When did Hasta say that?

I think it speaks volumes about the Marxist-Leninist project.
The revolution deteriotated due to objective factors not Marxist-Leninist theory. Also, how many failed experiments are neccessary before something new comes into being? Even the bourgeois faced some defeats on the way to creating capitalism.

And how can you make a proletarian revolution in a country that is (well was) mostly made up of peasants?
Well you seize the means of production and other positions of political and economic power, ally with the peasantry and defeat the counter-revolution. Simple as that ;)

Do you realise who you're siding with when your argue against the Russian Revolution? Those who wanted to carry on the 1st World War, those who wanted to continue the exploitation of the Russian worker and peasant, those who committed pogroms against the Jews and national minorities - you are siding with the bourgeois against the Russian working-class

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 19:26

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 13, 2007 07:25 pm
Do you realise who you're siding with when your argue against the Russian Revolution? Those who wanted to carry on the 1st World War, those who wanted to continue the exploitation of the Russian worker and peasant, those who committed pogroms against the Jews and national minorities - you are siding with the bourgeois against the Russian working-class
That's a logical fallacy. Just because you oppose the Russian Revolution in the form it was in, does not make you reactionary. Nor does it make you support capitalism or wars.

Nice try though.

The Grey Blur

13th May 2007, 19:29

Of course it does. You side against the Bolsheviks and the working-class, you side with the bourgeois.

Through their opposition to the state on an equal footing with capitalism Anarchists make themselves tools of the counter-revolution.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 19:33

Precisely. They openly support counter-revolution because they are opposed to the working class organizing itself as ruling class to defend its revolution.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 19:34

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 13, 2007 07:29 pm
Of course it does. You side against the Bolsheviks and the working-class, you side with the bourgeois.
That's a fallacy and makes no rational sense.

Through their opposition to the state on an equal footing with capitalism Anarchists make themselves tools of the counter-revolution.

The opposition to the state is not the equal footing with capitalists. Anarchists want to destroy the state. Capitalism wants to maintain one.

Many anarchists were fighting the white army just as much as they were fighting the state. Your logic:

Anarchists opposed revolution
Capitaists opposed revolution
Anarchists must be capitalists.

Don't be a fool all your life.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 19:36

I know anarchists aren't capitalists, but by opposing the Russian working class revolution in its logical form, that of a state to protect itself, they support counterrevolution.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 19:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:33 pm
Precisely. They openly support counter-revolution because they are opposed to the working class organizing itself as ruling class to defend its revolution.
That's an incredibly naive if not ignorant argument that makes no rational sense at all.

For people who claim to be Marxists you certainly do not rely on rationalism to attain understanding.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 19:38

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 19:38

Seems pretty logical. Instead of *****ing about the state, they should participate in it, as revolutionary workers would.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 19:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:38 pm
Seems pretty logical. Instead of *****ing about the state, they should participate in it, as revolutionary workers would.
:wacko:

Why do anarchists oppose the state?

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 19:41

Because they have the wrong definition of it and are scared that a new ruling class over the workers will arise.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 19:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:41 pm
Because they have the wrong definition of it and are scared that a new ruling class over the workers will arise.
It's not that we have a 'wrong' definition. We accept Marx's definition as a purpose; the state, however, is not defined solely on its purpose, but by its function and structure.

If you wish to call the anarchist way of organising, a state, then that's fine with me. I don't care what you call it, I just care about how it's structured. Centralised political authority into formal and institutionalised structures being a state and a decentralised, federalist organisation without formal structure and hierarchy not being a state.

are scared that a new ruling class over the workers will arise.

Once again, the alleged Marxist relying on emotionalism as a justification.

It's not about "fear". It's about the material consequences of applying theory into practice. In any case, even if it were a fear those fears were clearly realised were they not.

As with the material consequences of centralising political authority into a formal structure (i.e. a state) on the basis of Socialism, you create a bureaucracy. Marx’s theory relies on the rest of the world falling into line in order for the revolution to succeed. That being almost impossible this bureaucracy (as we have seen) grows into a tyrannical and distorted reality of itself.

This is what happens when you maintain a state.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 19:54

Marx’s theory relies on the rest of the world falling into line in order for the revolution to succeed. That being almost impossible this bureaucracy (as we have seen) grows into a tyrannical and distorted reality of itself.
Wrong. You can't make communism if it is not a global revolution. This is the main reason a bureaucracy was created in Russia.

I am actually for decentralized structures, based on worker's councils, but it would be utopian to think that there would not be political centralization in the face of a counterrevolutionary force of millions.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:54 pm

Marx’s theory relies on the rest of the world falling into line in order for the revolution to succeed. That being almost impossible this bureaucracy (as we have seen) grows into a tyrannical and distorted reality of itself.
Wrong. You can't make communism if it is not a global revolution. This is the main reason a bureaucracy was created in Russia.
What are you taking about you strange little man! How can you say I'm wrong and then go on to make the same point as me? :blink:

I am actually for decentralized structures, based on worker's councils

Good.

but it would be utopian to think that there would not be political centralization in the face of a counterrevolutionary force of millions.

I don't see why? It worked in Spain.

syndicat

13th May 2007, 19:58

Permanent Rev:
Do you realise who you're siding with when your argue against the Russian Revolution?

Anarchists don't "argue against the Russian revolution". The libertarian left were a significant force in the Russian revolution, this included the anarcho-communist groups in St. Petersburg and Moscow, the Russian syndicalists, the Ukrainian libertarain communist federation, and the Union of Maximalists (a libertarian socialist group). at the time of the October revolution in 1917, 40% of the troops available for the overthrow of the provisional government were provided by the Kronstadt soviet, which was described by Lenin and Trotsky as "the vanguard of the revolution." The Kronstadt soviet was directly controlled and run by ordinary workers and sailors, unlike the St. Petersburg soviet, which was run top-down by members of the "intelligentsia" on its executive committee. The dominant political tendency in the Kronstadt soviet were the maximalists and syndicalists. In January 1918 the Kronstadt soviet expropriated all the busineses and land in Kronstadt. This proposal was put forward in the soviet by Efim Yarchuk, a syndicalist. The Bolsheviks were opposed to this measure, but they were defeated in the vote.

Yarchuk was also on the St. Petersburg Military Revolutionary Committee that organized the insurrection to overthrow the provisional government.

The libertarian left in the Russian revolution were for the revolution but for it to be an emancipatory revolution, where the workers would run the industries, the peasants would collectively run their villages, and the soviets would be horizontal, not top down, and controlled by ordinary people. Their conflict with the Bolsheviks was over what direction the revolution should take.

It is our view that the program and strategy of the Bolsheviks, as actually carried out in various ways, led to the emergence of a new dominating class, with the working class continuing to be subordinated and exploited. This refers to things like the top-down structure of the soviets, packing the soviet congress with bureaucrats so that the Bolshevik government could rule undisturbed by other viewpoints, rebuilding a conventional top-down army, setting up a centralized state planning scheme, appointing one-man managers over workers in industry, blocking the factory committee movement from holding regional and national congresses to take over economic planning from below.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 19:58

What are you taking about you strange little man. How can you say I'm wrong and then go on to make the same point as me? blink.gif
I meant the thing about global revolution.

I don't see why? It worked in Spain.
But the working class didn't take power now did they?

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:01

It is our view that the program and strategy of the Bolsheviks, as actually carried out in various ways, led to the emergence of a new dominating class, with the working class continuing to be subordinated and exploited. This refers to things like the top-down structure of the soviets, packing the soviet congress with bureaucrats so that the Bolshevik government could rule undisturbed by other viewpoints, rebuilding a conventional top-down army, setting up a centralized state planning scheme, appointing one-man managers over workers in industry, blocking the factory committee movement from holding regional and national congresses to take over economic planning from below.
Thats just plain wrong. You base things on ideology rather than material conditions.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:58 pm

What are you taking about you strange little man. How can you say I'm wrong and then go on to make the same point as me? blink.gif
I meant the thing about global revolution.
What about it? You're not making any sense.

I don't see why? It worked in Spain.
But the working class didn't take power now did they?

They destroyed formal political structures, collectivised land and started to distribute according to need. They defended their gains using workers militia's and they did all of this using anarchist principles of organisation.

If that isn't "taking power", then really, what is? Do you mean bourgeois power? What anarchists did in Spain and what I want is different from taking control of bourgeois poitical structures.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:03

Okay sorry, I thought you were looking for a serious debate. I'll let you get on with your funny jokes.

Say that again. I've gotten used to it and its really hard to debate such people.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:05

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 13, 2007 08:02 pm

The libertarian left were a significant force in the Russian revolution,
:lol: Okay sorry, I thought you were looking for a serious debate. I'll let you get on with your funny jokes.
What's the point in attempting to engage in debate when you don't even understand the basic facts.

It's utterly ludicrous to believe that anarchists in Russia had no significant part to play. I understand you're attempting to win a political argument and score points in your relentless attacks on anarchism, but for christ sake boy - at least know what you're talking about!

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:06

I don't think that anyone denies that they played a role.

But the significant workers are the ones who organized themselves into the Soviets and armed themselves.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:06 pm
I don't think that anyone denies that they played a role.

But the significant workers are the ones who organized themselves into the Soviets and armed themselves.
And they were made up of anarchists just as much as they were bolsheviks. Let's not forget than many anarchists sided with the Soviets.

We did compromise and look where it ended.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:11

Too bad you have the inability to analyze material conditions to figure out why.

You blame it all on the evil "state" or Lenin the "boogeyman", instead of what was really going on.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:11 pm
Too bad you have the inability to analyze material conditions to figure out why.

You blame it all on the evil "state" or Lenin the "boogeyman", instead of what was really going on.
You make very little sense; you rely on emotionalism to justify your arguments or criticisms and you offer nothing in terms of moving this discussion forward in any sensible way.

If you have something of substance to add, then I'll be more than happy to continue this discussion with you.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:24

My point is that it is not the ideology of the "state" that created this, but the ebb of the revolutionary wave in Europe and the isolation of the Russian proletariat.

They did control the state, they were the state, but these real, material factors greatly contributed to the Stalinist counter-revolution.

The Grey Blur

13th May 2007, 20:24

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 13, 2007 07:05 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 13, 2007 07:05 pm)
Permanent [email protected] 13, 2007 08:02 pm

The libertarian left were a significant force in the Russian revolution,
:lol: Okay sorry, I thought you were looking for a serious debate. I'll let you get on with your funny jokes.
What's the point in attempting to engage in debate when you don't even understand the basic facts.

It's utterly ludicrous to believe that anarchists in Russia had no significant part to play. I understand you're attempting to win a political argument and score points in your relentless attacks on anarchism, but for christ sake boy - at least know what you're talking about! [/b]
There were tiny bands of anarchist criminals, the petit bourgeois idealists exiled from America and Makhno's confused nationalism. All resorted to attacking, physically or idelogically, the working-class. Oh the glory.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:24 pm
My point is that it is not the ideology of the "state" that created this, but the ebb of the revolutionary wave in Europe and the isolation of the Russian proletariat.
This situation is not isolated to Russia during the revolution.

They did control the state, they were the state, but these real, material factors greatly contributed to the Stalinist counter-revolution.

Nonsense. The theory has been applied many times with the same results. The theory is flawed. This is clearly a fact.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:30

Nonsense. The theory has been applied many times with the same results. The theory is flawed. This is clearly a fact.
Nonsense. It does not change the Marxist analysis one bit. The working class will organize itself into the ruling class, as did the Russian proletariat, arm itself, and create the necessary political structures they see fit.

This is a historical movement. The working class isn't going to stop just because some people say that their attempts failed. Thats why we learn from history.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:32

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+May 13, 2007 08:24 pm--> (Permanent Revolution @ May 13, 2007 08:24 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 07:05 pm

Permanent [email protected] 13, 2007 08:02 pm

The libertarian left were a significant force in the Russian revolution,
:lol: Okay sorry, I thought you were looking for a serious debate. I'll let you get on with your funny jokes.
What's the point in attempting to engage in debate when you don't even understand the basic facts.

It's utterly ludicrous to believe that anarchists in Russia had no significant part to play. I understand you're attempting to win a political argument and score points in your relentless attacks on anarchism, but for christ sake boy - at least know what you're talking about!
There were tiny bands of anarchist criminals, the petit bourgeois idealists exiled from America and Makhno's confused nationalism. All resorted to attacking, physically or idelogically, the working-class. Oh the glory. [/b]
Does that include the Anarchist Communist Federation and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation?

Perhaps you could try reading, it's bound to help.

WSM texts (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia_wsm.html)

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:30 pm
Thats why we learn from history.
What is it that you people have learnt from history?

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:36

That to defend a revolution, the working class will organize itself into the ruling class, as did the Russian proletariat, arm itself, and create the necessary political structures they see fit.

The problem with you people is that you can't learn from it, because either you don't the ability to objectively analyze material conditions, or outright refuse to, as we see so clearly.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:36 pm
That to defend a revolution, the working class will organize itself into the ruling class, as did the Russian proletariat, arm itself, and create the necessary political structures they see fit.
How is that a lesson from history? :blink:

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:39

How is that a lesson from history?
The initial success of the Russian Revolution?

Had they not done that, they would have been massacred and destroyed.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:39 pm

How is that a lesson from history?
The initial success of the Russian Revolution?
Ok, well Let's hope you people never get that chance again.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:41 pm
This is possibly the most boring debate or what ever I've ever seen , its just hasta making a point and TAT asking him to repeat it ... :wacko:
You mean justify himself?

We have witnessed countless attempts at what you people propose and we have never seen anything different in their outcome.

If that is not falsification, then I don't know what is?

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 20:46

Yeah, lets not let the working class take power ever again... :wacko:

I suppose I'm done here, there's no more to point out, I've made my case clear and concise.

Coggeh

13th May 2007, 20:52

We have witnessed countless attempts at what you people propose and we have never seen anything different in their outcome.

And we have witnessed the might of the anarchist movement through history :rolleyes: .
If you can't accept that it was certain conditions in Russia e.g the rise of Stalin , the constant reactionary movements ,the post war poor economic conditions and the civil war you are no better than the bourgeois reporters/leaders and historians.

Ok, well Let's hope you people never get that chance again.
Ya and if we do I'm sure you'll be leaching along until its time to become reactionary .

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 20:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:52 pm

We have witnessed countless attempts at what you people propose and we have never seen anything different in their outcome.

And we have witnessed the might of the anarchist movement through history :rolleyes:
Oh come. That's not an argument.

If you can't accept that it was certain conditions in Russia e.g the rise of Stalin , the constant reactionary movements ,the post war poor economic conditions and the civil war you are no better than the bourgeois reporters/leaders and historians.

Stalin and Lenin were barely different in their methods and approach. I do not accept that, even if the conditions were different, the outcome would still have been the same.

In any case, what about the countless other times its been attempted and failed. The theory is applied and fails. Applied again: Fails. Applied again: Fails. Applied again: Fails.

At what point do you go: "Wait a minute. Maybe this doesn't work?"

Ok, well Let's hope you people never get that chance again.
Ya and if we do I'm sure you'll be leaching along until its time to become reactionary .

Yes, I'm sure we will be. :rolleyes:

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 21:00

I do not accept that, even if the conditions were different, the outcome would still have been the same.

And thats why your arguments are nothing, thin air.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 21:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:00 pm

I do not accept that, even if the conditions were different, the outcome would still have been the same.

And thats why your arguments are nothing, thin air.
I'm sure the material conditions in Russia contributed to the outcome of certain things, but Lenin's intentions were clear and there is no evidence to suggest he would have done anything differently.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 21:05

You mean that if the revolution had happened in the US, NEP would still have been introduced? Peasants would be a serious question?

Get serious.

Coggeh

13th May 2007, 21:07

In any case, what about the countless other times its been attempted and failed. The theory is applied and fails. Applied again: Fails. Applied again: Fails. Applied again: Fails.

Do ya mind throwing down a few examples there ....

Stalin and Lenin were barely different in their methods and approach. I do not accept that, even if the conditions were different, the outcome would still have been the same.

So if it always has the same end result time and time again , then were forever trapped in capitalism ,the exploitation of the workers is an everlong endless saga ?
ya i think ill stop fighting for workers rights racial/sex equality for basic humane essentials like a home ,education and health care for everyone ..... because you said it won't/can't work.

Lenin and Stalin were not the same ,I don't even need to explain why because i know someone else already has and all you'll do is ask me to repeat myself anyway so ...

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:07 pm

In any case, what about the countless other times its been attempted and failed. The theory is applied and fails. Applied again: Fails. Applied again: Fails. Applied again: Fails.

Do ya mind throwing down a few examples there ....
Vietnam, Cuba, China, Mozambique, Laos, Angola...

Stalin and Lenin were barely different in their methods and approach. I do not accept that, even if the conditions were different, the outcome would still have been the same.

So if it always has the same end result time and time again , then were forever trapped in capitalism ,the exploitation of the workers is an everlong endless saga ?

No. Just abandon Leninism.

ya i think ill stop fighting for workers rights racial/sex equality for basic humane essentials like a home ,education and health care for everyone ..... because you said it won't/can't work.

It'll mean fuck all if you attempt to exact Leninism on the world...again.

The Grey Blur

13th May 2007, 21:13

Anyone that thinks Lenin was a conscious capitalist needs to take a long hard look at their politics. And then kill themselves. Not neccessarily in that order.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 21:15

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 13, 2007 09:13 pm
Anyone that thinks Lenin was a conscious capitalist needs to take a long hard look at their politics. And then kill themselves. Not neccessarily in that order.
Are you talking to me?

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 21:17

I think his suggestion was universal.

But I mean, strawmen arguments are a problem.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 21:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:17 pm
I think his suggestion was universal.

But I mean, strawmen arguments are a problem.
Do you even know what a strawman argument is?

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 21:23

No, I'm like you.

I throw shit with out knowing why or how they come to be.

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 21:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:23 pm
No, I'm like you.

I throw shit with out knowing why or how they come to be.
I grasp what you're saying. I just don't agree. I'm sure that's very difficult for you, but alas, in the real world, you're just going to have deal with it.

Coggeh

13th May 2007, 21:34

Vietnam, Cuba, China, Mozambique, Laos, Angola...

And now give me a list of countries where anarchism was tried .

Cuba :Embargo, Castro was never really a proper socialist although the pluses of Cuba are endless that not even you can refute

China : Great Leap Forward

Angola : Civil war ,South African/US help

Laos :Supported by Moscow(Never Communist) No workers movement too much foreign military intervention

Vietnam :post Vietnam war , Invasion of Cambodia ,Worsening relations with ally China .Đổi Mới . Vietnamese never committed to communism, they were just nationalists with the support of the soviet union .

Mozambique : Never even tried communism , they just created a one party dictatorship after the Portuguese left and sought the support of the soviets , hell they even got support off Sweden

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 21:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:34 pm

Vietnam, Cuba, China, Mozambique, Laos, Angola...

And now give me a list of countries where anarchism was tried
How is that the point?

Out of interest, what are the right material conditions for Leninism to work?

Coggeh

13th May 2007, 21:57

My point is that your so quick to critize all the time but you never stop about your own politics .

Why do you continue to call it "leninism " .. Socialism/Communism will survice

Lets just say you have to be socialist in the first place for even a chance at a workers movement .

The Feral Underclass

13th May 2007, 21:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:57 pm
My point is that your so quick to critize all the time but you never stop about your own politics .
No, I'm totally capable of criticising my politics. I have and do and so does the anarchist movement. In fact, we criticised ourselves so much we even entered into the state during the Spanish civil war. We realised how right we were.

Rawthentic

13th May 2007, 22:20

I'm sure that's very difficult for you, but alas, in the real world, you're just going to have deal with it.
Ditto.

Out of interest, what are the right material conditions for Leninism to work?
There isn't any perfect material conditions for anything. The point is that, when applied in different places, different things will occur. Thats a fact, and you can't understand that. So thats why, ditto to the my first point in this post.

Like I said, if "Leninism" was applied to the US, things would be so much different.

Jazzratt

13th May 2007, 23:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:34 pm

Vietnam, Cuba, China, Mozambique, Laos, Angola...

And now give me a list of countries where anarchism was tried .
This is rather specious reasoning - the suitability of a political system is not based on the number of times it's "been tried", having "been tried" only really gives you something to judge the practicalities of a theory on.

By your own reasoning Marxism was completely irrelevant until Lenin gave it a whirl.

Question everything

14th May 2007, 00:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:34 pm

Vietnam, Cuba, China, Mozambique, Laos, Angola...

And now give me a list of countries where anarchism was tried .
TAT you got Burned.

Disclaimer- I am a "Left Communist", and it is a rather poor arguement especially becuase Coggy just discredited all the nations that claim to adhere to leninism.

Disclaimer- Please don't kill me Coggy.

Chicano Shamrock

14th May 2007, 02:09

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 13, 2007 11:44 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 13, 2007 11:44 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 08:39 pm

How is that a lesson from history?
The initial success of the Russian Revolution?
Ok, well Let's hope you people never get that chance again. [/b]
Yes learning from history now means to not pay attention to the things that discredit your ideology. I love it. I think I might just have to ignore latin america, Africa and Asia and become a capitalist........ :blink:

Labor Shall Rule

14th May 2007, 03:14

The Russian Revolution failed because it was isolated, materially deprivated, and increasingly reliant on a bureacratic class to control both the functioning of the party (only 1% of the Bolshevik/CP were members before 1917, all the rest were casualties of conflict), and the management of the heavy industry and military. Thus Stalin was able to come around with his counter-revolution quite easily. He was 'General Secretary' of the party, he had control of all intertwining bureacracies, "notes" from unpublished minutes of meetings, and so on. He used the bureaucracy against party democracy. Why is this so hard to see? In fact, if Lenin had his way, Stalin would have been sacked as general secretary. According to Lenin's wife, if Lenin were alive during Stalin's complete consolidated reign, he would have ended up incarcerated, or lined up against a wall and swiftly executed. A river of blood separates Bolshevism from Stalinism.

In any case, the Bolsheviks failed, no doubt. But the ultimate question is why? The reason is not because Bolshevism is inherently flawed, but because the material conditions, the failed revolutions in Germany, Italy, China, Britain, Spain, that tightened Stalin's grip and ability to build 'Socialism in One Country', while Trotsky was increasingly used as a scapegoat for breaking 'party discipline' criticizing the Troika.

Rawthentic

14th May 2007, 05:04

Oh comrade Dali! I love you!

Someone is clearly using their brains, and even though he is a Bolshevik, he can analyze material conditions.

You're a monumental idiot. So idiotic in fact that it's practically palpable.
Or in other words you have nothing better to say. Understandable, on your part.

But Dali, you just made my day comrade.

chimx

14th May 2007, 05:38

Originally posted by reddali
The Russian Revolution failed because it was isolated, materially deprivated, and increasingly reliant on a bureacratic class to control both the functioning of the party

Maybe this is why it failed, but you are implying that the revolution would have been successful if these conditions were met, which you have yet to prove unfortunately. Pointing out the errors of another does not in itself make yourself right.

14th May 2007, 05:51

That's impossible to prove.

Labor Shall Rule

14th May 2007, 06:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:38 am
Maybe this is why it failed, but you are implying that the revolution would have been successful if these conditions were met, which you have yet to prove unfortunately. Pointing out the errors of another does not in itself make yourself right.
Is this your argument? I am not making some sort of blind 'prediction', I am acknowleding that socialism has definite pre-conditions.

Marx, The German Ideology:
"…so long as the productive forces are still insufficiently developed to make competition superfluous, and therefore would give rise to competition over and over again, for so long the classes which are ruled would be wanting to be impossible if they had the "will" to abolish competition and with it the state and the law."

In other words, without the necessary material and technological prerequisites, we can not expect that the burden of the state and competition to be thrown off of our shoulders. For Marx, what determined the capabilities of revolutionary movements was the state of development of the productive forces, which would be the ultimate factor for the success, or the fate, of certain historical actors.

Marx:
"Only at a certain level of development of these social productive forces, even a very high level for our modern conditions, does it become possible to raise production to such an extent that the abolition of class distinctions can constitute real progress, can be lasting without bringing about stagnation or even decline in the mode of social production."

Marx makes it clear, that without a development of the productive forces, and moreover at a very high level, does socialism become a distinct possibility. The consequences of the absence of this requisite are "stagnation and decline", words that aptly describe the last three decades or so of the Soviet economy.

It is obvious that once the Bolsheviks assumed power, they had to work in a country that was previously devastated by the First World War, that was composed of mostly peasants and petit-artisans that were withhelding grain for months while the cities descended into a state of famine, a moment of industrial chaos had left production at a stand-still as capitalists had sabotaged machinery and vital engineers and technicians had fled the entire country, and then the White Guards were formed to pummel the newly-formed Soviet Republic while interventionist forces landed and seiged to the battle-hym of foreign capital. The level of destitution and death that stalked Russia as a result of it's fortune had left it in ruins and on the verge of literal extincion. Do I need to mention the regions of the country that resorted to cannabalism? Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that general want existed, and that socialism could never come out of these conditions, whether we like it or not.

Labor Shall Rule

14th May 2007, 06:52

Anarchist Tension wrote:
Nonsense. The theory has been applied many times with the same results. The theory is flawed. This is clearly a fact.

The childish 'nonsense' that you are slamming onto your keyboard has had no substance; you have provided no analysis explaining why Bolshevism has failed, besides the casual simplication that the Russian Revolution was a product of the hypnotic effect of a mad-genius named Lenin. Have you read one single work of Lenin? How about Trotsky? I'm willing to bet that you have read nothing but anarchists interpretation of "Leninism". You make anarchists appear as immature, theoretically impoverished partisans. I think that your attitude has displayed the failure, ineptitude, cowardice, theoretical backwardness--and did I mention, the complete failure of anarchism. It is sad that so many have such a serious inclination of winning the class struggle.

Nusocialist

14th May 2007, 06:57

And now give me a list of countries where anarchism was tried . Many, many places, particularly in earlier times, anarchism simply means the absence of legitimised (positive.)coercion.

Just look at many north American Indian tribes, as Jefferson commented they were very anarchistic.

And of course there is Makhno and Spain etc.

Nusocialist

14th May 2007, 07:14

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 04:27 pm

You're not real.
Why because I don't believe in wasting any time with stinking Leninists and statists?

You are a real decentralist of course, you are blinded by terminology and tradition, it turns the mind narrow.

Can someone tell me why, even if your strawman of them is correct, should me be more matey with Leninists than Ancaps?

Vargha Poralli

14th May 2007, 11:19

Originally posted by NoXion+May 13, 2007 10:35 pm--> (NoXion @ May 13, 2007 10:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:28 am
Yeah, the Mensheviks were determinists in that they insisted that Russia had to go through the same process that Western Europe did, and were of course rejected by Lenin and the working class.

In fact, the Russian proletariat proved the mensheviks wrong by making a socialist revolution.
So the fact that Russia is no longer even socialist doesn't bother you? I think it speaks volumes about the Marxist-Leninist project.
[/b]

It is does not speak anything about Marxist Leninist Project but hell a lot of reasons which I have already given in this post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65728&view=findpost&p=1292313091) in this same thread. I don't know how did it evaded you eyes.

And how can you make a proletarian revolution in a country that is (well was) mostly made up of peasants?

I think this stupid question has already been answered. Lenin and Bolsheviks are not armchair revolutionaries to go on sit and discuss about which country is closer to socialism. They saw an possibility for a world wide worker's revolution and as Internationalists they pushed for it to happen. Their vision was not limited to Russia.

All of the anarchists go on crying about revolution what history do you have on your side ? Was there any Anarchist revolution where the revolutionaries envision a world wide revolution emancipating not only their localities but the entire world.

The only people who never commit any mistakes were the ones who never do anything. Which speaks a lot about Anarchist's history.

chimx
Maybe this is why it failed, but you are implying that the revolution would have been successful if these conditions were met, which you have yet to prove unfortunately. Pointing out the errors of another does not in itself make yourself right.

That can never be proved. But majority of anarchists in this board don't just point out mistakes of Bolsheviks but you discredit the whole Russian Revolution by calling it a capitalist and especially calling Lenin a conscious capitalist.

Which concious capitalist would push for a world revolution ? For one both Lenin and Trotsky(in this case even Stalin before 1924)had any illusions that Russian Revolution could survive in its own without a revolution at least in Germany. And history proved proved that they were correct. And degeneration of Russian Revolution is not an end of history just like Eighteenth Brumaire did not led to triumph of both Bonaparte and Bourbon Monarchs.

bloody_capitalist_sham

14th May 2007, 12:09

Chimx

Maybe this is why it failed, but you are implying that the revolution would have been successful if these conditions were met, which you have yet to prove unfortunately. Pointing out the errors of another does not in itself make yourself right.

If Russia had not be isolated, then the bureaucracy might not have needed to squeeze the peasants so much.

They did not squeeze the peasants just to feed the urban population, but they sold more grain increasingly over the first five year plan, because of the world recession it meant that this could generate the capital to buy the technology in order to industrialise.

Clearly, this therefore was a result of the material conditions.

Stalin's drive for industrialisation is another example of this. The bureaucracy enforced a much higher rate of exploitation from the urban workers than ever previously, in order to bridge the gap between Russia and the west.

Clearly, this is also a result of material conditions.

:hammer: i'm not justifying the crimes of the bureaucracy though.

The Feral Underclass

14th May 2007, 15:23

Originally posted by Question everything+May 14, 2007 12:11 am--> (Question everything @ May 14, 2007 12:11 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 08:34 pm

Vietnam, Cuba, China, Mozambique, Laos, Angola...

And now give me a list of countries where anarchism was tried .
TAT you got Burned. [/b]
Don't be ridiculous! The fact that anarchism has had only one attempt at a national level does not discredit the idea. In fact, anarchism whas succeeded in it's application of its theory.

Where as Leninism has been falsified, anarchism has not.

The Feral Underclass

14th May 2007, 15:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:14 am
The Russian Revolution failed because it was isolated
Revolutions are always going to be isolated. The notion that revolution will happen universally at the same time is simply false.

Whereas regions may ignite in varying degree's we must expect that the bourgeoisie will use their force to isolate us. This is yet another reason not to rely on Leninism.

Forward Union

14th May 2007, 15:28

Originally posted by Question everything+May 13, 2007 11:11 pm--> (Question everything @ May 13, 2007 11:11 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 08:34 pm

Vietnam, Cuba, China, Mozambique, Laos, Angola...

And now give me a list of countries where anarchism was tried .

[/b]
Ukrane (1917 - 1920)
Korea (1920 - I forget when)
Spain (1936 - 1939)

On two occasions the projects were notably crushed by the Leninists but never through any internal fault. :angry:

Also, I notice g.ram hasnt had the guts to either defend his bullshit slander of Makhno, or even admit he's wrong - could you please do one or the other?

Vargha Poralli

14th May 2007, 17:11

Ukrane (1917 - 1920)

I don't consider Makhno a Anarchist.

Spain (1936 - 1939)

Failure of which has more to do with CNT-FAI than with Leninism.

Also, I notice g.ram hasnt had the guts to either defend his bullshit slander of Makhno, or even admit he's wrong - could you please do one or the other?

If I post my source anyway you are going to call it Trot Bullshit false propaganda etc. Anyway could you provide anything apart from Makhno himeself ?

Revolutions are always going to be isolated. The notion that revolution will happen universally at the same time is simply false.

But any isolated revolution whether Anarchist or Marxist is doomed to fial it it does'nt spread universally.

Whereas regions may ignite in varying degree's we must expect that the bourgeoisie will use their force to isolate us. This is yet another reason not to rely on Leninism.

I don't understand why it is the reason not to rely on Leninism.

Where as Leninism has been falsified, anarchism has not.

Yes it has been falsified once. If you consider the CNT FAI's decision to rely on Republicans and Stalinists and Kropotkin's trust of Kerensky.

Of course they are not "true" anarchists.

The Feral Underclass

14th May 2007, 18:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:00 pm
And yours is so great
Thanks.

come back in 10years when you've matured from punk rock and become a good old uncle tom :rolleyes:

Why would I want to "mature from punk rock"? That sounds like an awful thing to do! Especially if it made me be like you lot :(

The Feral Underclass

14th May 2007, 18:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:11 pm

Spain (1936 - 1939)

Failure of which has more to do with CNT-FAI than with Leninism.
How is that true?

Anarchism was applied practically and worked. What eventually brought about failure was the compromise and participation with the state.

In terms of organisation, collectivisation and the general application of anarchist organisation it was a brilliant success. It was proven to work, not only in terms of workers and peasents taking control of their communities but in terms of production, distribution and defence.

It was relying on the politics of Leninists that ultimately led to a betrayel, which granted, the CNT-FAI should have forseen.

Revolutions are always going to be isolated. The notion that revolution will happen universally at the same time is simply false.

But any isolated revolution whether Anarchist or Marxist is doomed to fial it it does'nt spread universally.

Perhaps.

Where as Leninism has been falsified, anarchism has not.

Yes it has been falsified once. If you consider the CNT FAI's decision to rely on Republicans and Stalinists

That's not a falsification of anarchism that's simply what happens when you co-operate with bourgeois politicians, statists and authoritarians: Betrayel.

and Kropotkin's trust of Kerensky.

I don't see how that has to do with anything.

Of course they are not "true" anarchists.

I don't accept that. The CNT-FAI decided to compromise their principles for what they believed to be a pragmatic approach to the 'greater good'.

Obviously that was a massive mistake.

Forward Union

14th May 2007, 18:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:11 pm
I don't consider Makhno a Anarchist.

Pardon?!!?

He's probably one of the most significat Libertarian-communists in human history. His politics were Libertarian-communist, his practice was libertarian communist, his contributions to anarchist theory (The Organisational Platform) have had massive effects of the direction of the movement up to the present day .

How can you sit there with a straight face and actually claim he wasn't a libertarian-communist?

I think im more at a loss as to why you would claim that? (as it is evidently false in every possible way) It does little more than expose your complete lack of undertanding of both Anarchist thoery and the Makhnovist movement (which was already obvious from your outlandish slander)

If I post my source anyway you are going to call it Trot Bullshit false propaganda etc. Anyway could you provide anything apart from Makhno himeself ?

I've never heard any official trot propaganda nutty enough to claim that the Makhnovists command had actually planned any pogroms. It would contradict all historical accounts of the time, even bolshevik ones, the entire philosophy of the Makhnovist movement, The aims and principals of the Movement, and the beliefs and values of all the individuals in charge.

Like I said, the main criticisms coming from the authorotarian-left were that Makhno attacked anti-semitism in a counter productive way.

No one denies that he executed the guilty parties involved in the pogroms, including several bolsheviks.

Maybe look into Antonov-Ovseenko reports back to trotsky.

Read:

Piotr Arshinov The Makhnovists and the Jewish Question (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/arsh_antsem.htm)
Paul Avrich Russian Anarchists and the Civil war (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/avrracw.htm)
Andrew Flood Notes on the Makhnovischina (http://www.struggle.ws/russia/makhno_notes.html)
Morpheus Revolutionary Ukraine (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/revukr.htm)
Alexander Berkman The Bolshevik Myth (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/berk_mak.htm)
Daniel Guérin The Makhnovishcina (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/guermakh.htm)

Labor Shall Rule

14th May 2007, 21:13

Anarchist Tension wrote:
Revolutions are always going to be isolated. The notion that revolution will happen universally at the same time is simply false.

Whereas regions may ignite in varying degree's we must expect that the bourgeoisie will use their force to isolate us. This is yet another reason not to rely on Leninism.

I don't think that I ever stated that it's isolation was the only factor of it's defeat, that is simply nitpicking; ignoring what I entirely posted on this subject while only focusing on certain points. It's the objective conditions of deprivation and scarcity, combined with the incoming tide of isolation at the hand of reaction, that completely placed the weakened working class into a situation that made a bureaucratic stratum an absolute necessity. But in the end, instead of moving towards the abolition of the standing army and police, it actually expanded like a cancerous growth and strangled the workers and the poorer sections of the peasantry towards the years that ushered in the tight-grip rule of Stalin. With the equation of Bolshevism with Stalinism; Lenin with Stalin, I think you could easily lose all connection with historical truth. As I have earlier stated, Lenin and Trotsky recognized the threat of the bureaucracy, and worked with all their efforts to rip it out of it's very roots. Lenin is not responsible for Stalin, just as the Jacobins are not responsible for Napolean.

I don't think you have been able to specify which Bolshevik tactics would of contributed to it's easy dissolution into bureaucracy? Besides, if 'Leninism' can not maintain itself amidst this 'isolation', how can anarchism necessarily survive in such conditions also? I think we need to take the Spanish Revolution into consideration.

Leon Trotsky The Lessons of Spain: The Last Warning:
Instead of this, the anarcho-syndicalists, seeking to hide from “politics” in the trade unions, turned out to be, to the great surprise of the whole world and themselves, a fifth wheel in the cart of bourgeois democracy. But not for long; a fifth wheel is superfluous. After Garcia Oliver and his cohorts helped Stalin and his henchmen to take power away from the workers, the anarchists themselves were driven out of the government of the Popular Front. Even then they found nothing better to do than jump on the victor’s bandwagon and assure him of their devotion. The fear of the petty bourgeois before the big bourgeois, of the petty bureaucrat before the big bureaucrat, they covered up with lachrymose speeches about the sanctity of the united front (between a victim and the executioners) and about the inadmissibility of every kind of dictatorship, including their own. “After all, we could have taken power in July 1936 ...” “After all, we could have taken power in May 1937...” The Anarchists begged Stalin-Negrin to recognize and reward their treachery to the revolution. A revolting picture! They were afraid of everything: “isolation,” “involvement,” “fascism.” They were afraid of France and England. More than anything these phrasemongers feared the revolutionary masses. The renunciation of the conquest of power inevitably throws every workers’ organization into the swamp of reformism and turns it into a toy of the bourgeoisie; it cannot be otherwise in view of the class structure of society. In opposing the goal, the conquest of power, the Anarchists could not in the end fail to oppose the means, the revolution.

In other words, the petit-bourgeois leadership of CNT-FAI had completely sold the revolutionary workers out in the name of reformism; being willing to sustain their position as bourgeois ministers instead of furthering their position further in order to truly place "the working class in the saddle", as George Orwell had said. As a result, the Bolshevik-Leninists in Spain, along with the anarchists that endorsed tactics and modes of organization that we encourage such as Durruti, Andres, Nin, and Landau, were slaughtered and 'isolated' by certain class forces that had infiltrated their 'nonhierarchal' organizations.

I think that your problem Anarchist Tension, is that you are thinking that ideological alignment of 'left', 'right', 'hierarchal', 'anarchist', or 'anti-authoritarian', ultimately determines the moral goodness of certain characters in the course of human history. A political regime, whether of the right or the left, or based on democratic participation or a rigid hierarchy, is not merely the product of the sum total of all the prejudices and hatreds of the population towards 'statism'. It is, in the final analysis, the expression of a certain relationship, forged in the course of social and political struggles, between the main classes in society. In the outcome of those struggles the character of the political leadership of the contending classes, and the program upon which they base their struggle, are of immense significance. I think that many anarchists are disillusioned over this historical fact; their reductionism has left them in a inherently defeatist attitude that leaves them sponsoring counterrevolution when they least expect it.

PRC-UTE

14th May 2007, 21:24

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

And how can you make a proletarian revolution in a country that is (well was) mostly made up of peasants?
Actually Marx never said it couldn't be done - he just said that you'd end up with something like 'prussian barracks room socialism' meaning it would be rather harsh and difficult to live under. This seems to be a common misconception, that Marx thought socialism was unachievable in underdeveloped economies. Marx and Engels both wrote of higher and lower stages of socialism as well.

syndicat

15th May 2007, 00:09

Permanent Rev:

I don't think you have been able to specify which Bolshevik tactics would of contributed to it's easy dissolution into bureaucracy?

Here are some:

(1) Creating a state central planning body, Vesenkha, in Nov 1917, made up of party stalwards, union bureaucrats, and engineers, appointed from above. Central planning would tend to lead to the emergence/entrenchment of a managerial hiearchy because the planners will want to have managers in place to ensure their plans are carried out. At that very moment an alternative direcion was posed: the regional soviet of factory committees of St. Petersburg proposed regional and national congresses to work out plans and coordination, from below.

(2) in the first few months the revolution was defended by a workers' militia, the Red Guard. why not continue and expand that, and partisan or guerilla forces, rather than a conventional hierarchical army, presided over by 30,000 czarist officers?

(3) The state food procurement monopoly, with its violent grain requisitions, didn't work very well. It led to individuals in the cities going out to the countryside to contact peasants, including relatives, to barter for food. This mass "commuting" to the countryside overloaded the Russian railways and brought them to the verge of collapse. Why not allow/encourage the residents in city neighborhoods to form collective food supply comittees, or city supply associations, to collectively arrange for food supply via contacts in the countryside?

(4) The big city local soviets were structured very top-down, with members of the intelligentsia from the various parties on the executive committee, and the plenaries converted largely into rubber stamps. The Kronstadt soviet in 1917 posed an alternative model. There, only people who worked in a workplace could be elecrted as a delegate, regular assemblies of the ships crews and workplaces were held to control the delegates, and the plenaries of the soviet were a real working body, with the issues actually debated and decided there, not at the executive committee.

In "Before Stalinism" Sam Farber points out that neither the Mensheviks nor the Bolsheviks placed any emphasis on participatory democracy. Their emphasis was on election of leaders to make the decisions for people, not workers making the decisions themselves.

I don't think these things are explained entirely by the low level of education. I don't think average education in Moscow or St. Petersburg was much different than Kronstadt. Illiteracy was a problem for the self-organization of the peasantry, however. but that doesn't explain the defects in terms of institutions in the cities
and industry.

Your comments about the Spanish revolution don't really understand the situation. The problems derive from long before May of 1937. For one thing, the issue wasn't just power in Catalonia, where the CNT did have the power to take over in July-Aug of 1936. The problem was, the CNT was majority in the eastern part of Spain but the UGT was the majority in the center and other parts. The CNT and UGT each consisted of about half the organized workers. This means that working class power in Spain had to involve the UGT as well as the CNT.

A key issue was whether the old Republican state, based on its hierarchical professional army and police bodies, was going to be rebuilt or swept away and replaced with something new.

The strategy of the Communists was to have a hierarchical army and police built back up, and then weasel their way into control of the officer positions, using the Republic's dependency on the Soviet Union for arms as a lever. With the Communists, with the backing of the Popular Front parties, beating the drum for this, the issue of working class power was starkly posed. The danger that the Communist proposal posed to the revolution was recognized by many in the CNT, and in early Sept. 1936, at a national conference, they agreed to a proposal to replace the national Republican state with a new structure. They proposed to the UGT that they joinly get rid of the Popular Front government, and replace it with a National Defense Council, a joint UGT-CNT body, which would be elected by, and accountable to, a National Workers Congress, with delegates elected by the assemblies at the base. The military would be a unified people's militia, controlled by CNT-UGT "joint commissions". They proposed seizure of the banks and authorization for complete socialization of the economy under workers' management.

Now, according to the quote from Trotsky, this should have been inconsistent with their anarchism. Why didn't this working class government come about? The problem wasn't the "anarchists". The problem was the Left Socialists, who were at that moment still the dominant tendency in the UGT. The Socialists and the Communists were able to get the UGT to reject the CNT proposal.

So you'll have to direct "blame" in this case on the two main Marxist parties in Spain at the time.

However, I don't think they deserve quite all the blame. As Durruti was well aware, the CNT could put pressure on the UGT by carrying out its program for union-controlled defense councils in regions it controlled. And a union government of this sort, with a Defense Council and regional congress of delegates, was set up in Aragon. But in Catalonia they went in the opposite direction and joined the regional government at the end of Sept, thus undermining their bargaining clout with Largo Caballero and the UGT leadership. But this didn't happen because of their anarchism, but due to their failure to carry out their own program.

Rawthentic

15th May 2007, 04:26

But this didn't happen because of their anarchism, but due to their failure to carry out their own program.

But Russia failed because of Marxism? How ignorant and convenient.

syndicat

15th May 2007, 16:43

I didn't say the failure was due to "Marxism". That's too abstract to be an explainer. Marxism comes in various forms. The relative passivity, illiteracy and disorganization of the huge peasant mass also played a role, in making it easier for the Bolshevik party to dominate them. The Bolshevik party's "solution" was to use the state to create an entirely new type of class system. Creating a class system is a defeat for the working class.

Labor Shall Rule

15th May 2007, 21:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:09 pm
Here are some:

(1) Creating a state central planning body, Vesenkha, in Nov 1917, made up of party stalwards, union bureaucrats, and engineers, appointed from above. Central planning would tend to lead to the emergence/entrenchment of a managerial hiearchy because the planners will want to have managers in place to ensure their plans are carried out. At that very moment an alternative direcion was posed: the regional soviet of factory committees of St. Petersburg proposed regional and national congresses to work out plans and coordination, from below.

(2) in the first few months the revolution was defended by a workers' militia, the Red Guard. why not continue and expand that, and partisan or guerilla forces, rather than a conventional hierarchical army, presided over by 30,000 czarist officers?

(3) The state food procurement monopoly, with its violent grain requisitions, didn't work very well. It led to individuals in the cities going out to the countryside to contact peasants, including relatives, to barter for food. This mass "commuting" to the countryside overloaded the Russian railways and brought them to the verge of collapse. Why not allow/encourage the residents in city neighborhoods to form collective food supply comittees, or city supply associations, to collectively arrange for food supply via contacts in the countryside?

(4) The big city local soviets were structured very top-down, with members of the intelligentsia from the various parties on the executive committee, and the plenaries converted largely into rubber stamps. The Kronstadt soviet in 1917 posed an alternative model. There, only people who worked in a workplace could be elecrted as a delegate, regular assemblies of the ships crews and workplaces were held to control the delegates, and the plenaries of the soviet were a real working body, with the issues actually debated and decided there, not at the executive committee.

In "Before Stalinism" Sam Farber points out that neither the Mensheviks nor the Bolsheviks placed any emphasis on participatory democracy. Their emphasis was on election of leaders to make the decisions for people, not workers making the decisions themselves.

I don't think these things are explained entirely by the low level of education. I don't think average education in Moscow or St. Petersburg was much different than Kronstadt. Illiteracy was a problem for the self-organization of the peasantry, however. but that doesn't explain the defects in terms of institutions in the cities
and industry.

Your comments about the Spanish revolution don't really understand the situation. The problems derive from long before May of 1937. For one thing, the issue wasn't just power in Catalonia, where the CNT did have the power to take over in July-Aug of 1936. The problem was, the CNT was majority in the eastern part of Spain but the UGT was the majority in the center and other parts. The CNT and UGT each consisted of about half the organized workers. This means that working class power in Spain had to involve the UGT as well as the CNT.

A key issue was whether the old Republican state, based on its hierarchical professional army and police bodies, was going to be rebuilt or swept away and replaced with something new.

The strategy of the Communists was to have a hierarchical army and police built back up, and then weasel their way into control of the officer positions, using the Republic's dependency on the Soviet Union for arms as a lever. With the Communists, with the backing of the Popular Front parties, beating the drum for this, the issue of working class power was starkly posed. The danger that the Communist proposal posed to the revolution was recognized by many in the CNT, and in early Sept. 1936, at a national conference, they agreed to a proposal to replace the national Republican state with a new structure. They proposed to the UGT that they joinly get rid of the Popular Front government, and replace it with a National Defense Council, a joint UGT-CNT body, which would be elected by, and accountable to, a National Workers Congress, with delegates elected by the assemblies at the base. The military would be a unified people's militia, controlled by CNT-UGT "joint commissions". They proposed seizure of the banks and authorization for complete socialization of the economy under workers' management.

Now, according to the quote from Trotsky, this should have been inconsistent with their anarchism. Why didn't this working class government come about? The problem wasn't the "anarchists". The problem was the Left Socialists, who were at that moment still the dominant tendency in the UGT. The Socialists and the Communists were able to get the UGT to reject the CNT proposal.

So you'll have to direct "blame" in this case on the two main Marxist parties in Spain at the time.

However, I don't think they deserve quite all the blame. As Durruti was well aware, the CNT could put pressure on the UGT by carrying out its program for union-controlled defense councils in regions it controlled. And a union government of this sort, with a Defense Council and regional congress of delegates, was set up in Aragon. But in Catalonia they went in the opposite direction and joined the regional government at the end of Sept, thus undermining their bargaining clout with Largo Caballero and the UGT leadership. But this didn't happen because of their anarchism, but due to their failure to carry out their own program.
The Bolsheviks would not of lasted a few months, let alone a few days, unless they instituted these measures.

As I have previously stated, this a country that was materially incapable of creating socialism, that was also surrounded by hostile forces that were using any means in their disposal to undermine the efforts of the workers and the poorer sections of the peasantry. I think that democratic control over industry by all of the workers is not only a preference, but a necessity in ushering in our ultimate objective, but when our objective is not even reachable, certain measures need to be taken in order to ensure that we progress fowards. I think that the creation of Vesenkha, or the All-Union Council of State Economy, was needed in order to provide a level of cooridination between enterprises that were in a state of disillusion at the time; industrialists had sabotaged machinery and engineers and technicians that were crucial to the production process had fled the entire country, not to mention, the flow of capital had effectively ended as a result of the blockade. Paul Avrich, who many from 'anti-authoritarian' audiences condemn as a revisionist for stating the obvious factors that were haunting Russia at the time, stated this in The Russian Anarchists.

Paul Avrich The Russian Anarchists:
In other words, a state of industrial chaos had descended on the entire country. The grain blockade had left the cities starving; many workers were left hungry and weak, while many more simply died from malnourishment. The absence of specialists had left many factories in a state of unproductivity and mismanagement, while the social catastrophe of the famine and the civil war pushed the hardships of the workers to a completely new level of utter misery. As a result, a struggle for individual existence was waged within communities between rival workers as they aggressively battled one another in order to yield certain scarce resources for themselves. It created a conflict that was untold of to civilization at that time; it was a division based on worker against worker, where there would be no collective destruction on their part, but a survival for their respective neighborhood.

In other words, the situation grew so worse that workers were fighting each other as a result of their disastrous conditions. I don't think you mentioned Syndicat, that the Bolsheviks didn't fully dissolve the factory committees until 1919, and that Vesenkha cooperated with them up until the point that they became completely dormant and ineffective. They were unable to function properly, and just as the democratic soviets, basically became useless bodies that did not even represent the idealistic image that you are associating them with.

The Red Guard was a militia; a band of disorganized and lightly-armed troops that were gathered from certain local areas. They proved ineffective in Ukraine and the Volga area against Denikin, they barely were able to seize control in Moscow, and they were butchered by Yudernich when he launched a military thrust into Petrograd. Tukhachevsky called them 'shock troops', because he considered them to be both militarily and strategically useless. I think it's obvious that the Soviet Republic would not of been able to survive if it did not institute a highly-disciplined and well-supplied force that had strong leadership. I also don't that those officers should be held as a negative force; Trotsky once stated that "we need to take the bricks of the crumbled structure and utilize them to construct the new", and that analogy is certainly correct when applied to this situation. They should not be condemned by history, when they actively offering their services to the new regime. Trotsky personally ordered the execution of certain officers that had intentions that countered the interests of the workers, and was brought in front of a committee more than three times over his conduct of allowing these officers into such a position, but these situations were examine subjectively, and he was let off in every trial of his actions.

Once again, on the question of the distribution of food-stuffs, I would ask that you refer to the situation. I have a similar conception of the Kronstadt Uprising to you, but I hold that it was necessary to crush due to the relative threat of the French navy and Mannaheim's forces that were poised outside Petrograd. By this time, it was necessary for the proletarian state to work towards capital accumulation while promoting world revolution that would render it unnecessary in the first place, basically by ending their reliance on the bureaucracy, and providing material and financial support to construct socialism without the board of capitalist production on their backs. I don't support one revolutionary spasm if it would endanger the entire process of another, and in this case, it would of completely destroyed the Russian Revolution if it was not crushed.

As for your comments on Spain, I think you need to read my post over again. Do you ignore that anarchists became active participants in the bourgeois regime? Do you ignore that is, in some way, contributed to their defeat?

Labor Shall Rule

15th May 2007, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:47 pm
The Bolsheviks would not of lasted a few months, let alone a few days, unless they instituted these measures.

As I have previously stated, this a country that was materially incapable of creating socialism, that was also surrounded by hostile forces that were using any means in their disposal to undermine the efforts of the workers and the poorer sections of the peasantry. I think that democratic control over industry by all of the workers is not only a preference, but a necessity in ushering in our ultimate objective, but when our objective is not even reachable, certain measures need to be taken in order to ensure that we progress fowards. I think that the creation of Vesenkha, or the All-Union Council of State Economy, was needed in order to provide a level of cooridination between enterprises that were in a state of disillusion at the time; industrialists had sabotaged machinery and engineers and technicians that were crucial to the production process had fled the entire country, not to mention, the flow of capital had effectively ended as a result of the blockade. Paul Avrich, who many from 'anti-authoritarian' audiences condemn as a revisionist for stating the obvious factors that were haunting Russia at the time, stated this in The Russian Anarchists.

Paul Avrich The Russian Anarchists:
In other words, a state of industrial chaos had descended on the entire country. The grain blockade had left the cities starving; many workers were left hungry and weak, while many more simply died from malnourishment. The absence of specialists had left many factories in a state of unproductivity and mismanagement, while the social catastrophe of the famine and the civil war pushed the hardships of the workers to a completely new level of utter misery. As a result, a struggle for individual existence was waged within communities between rival workers as they aggressively battled one another in order to yield certain scarce resources for themselves. It created a conflict that was untold of to civilization at that time; it was a division based on worker against worker, where there would be no collective destruction on their part, but a survival for their respective neighborhood.

In other words, the situation grew so worse that workers were fighting each other as a result of their disastrous conditions. I don't think you mentioned Syndicat, that the Bolsheviks didn't fully dissolve the factory committees until 1919, and that Vesenkha cooperated with them up until the point that they became completely dormant and ineffective. They were unable to function properly, and just as the democratic soviets, basically became useless bodies that did not even represent the idealistic image that you are associating them with.

The Red Guard was a militia; a band of disorganized and lightly-armed troops that were gathered from certain local areas. They proved ineffective in Ukraine and the Volga area against Denikin, they barely were able to seize control in Moscow, and they were butchered by Yudernich when he launched a military thrust into Petrograd. Tukhachevsky called them 'shock troops', because he considered them to be both militarily and strategically useless. I think it's obvious that the Soviet Republic would not of been able to survive if it did not institute a highly-disciplined and well-supplied force that had strong leadership. I also don't that those officers should be held as a negative force; Trotsky once stated that "we need to take the bricks of the crumbled structure and utilize them to construct the new", and that analogy is certainly correct when applied to this situation. They should not be condemned by history, when they actively offering their services to the new regime. Trotsky personally ordered the execution of certain officers that had intentions that countered the interests of the workers, and was brought in front of a committee more than three times over his conduct of allowing these officers into such a position, but these situations were examine subjectively, and he was let off in every trial of his actions.

Once again, on the question of the distribution of food-stuffs, I would ask that you refer to the situation. I have a similar conception of the Kronstadt Uprising to you, but I hold that it was necessary to crush due to the relative threat of the French navy and Mannaheim's forces that were poised outside Petrograd. By this time, it was necessary for the proletarian state to work towards capital accumulation while promoting world revolution that would render it unnecessary in the first place, basically by ending their reliance on the bureaucracy, and providing material and financial support to construct socialism without the board of capitalist production on their backs. I don't support one revolutionary spasm if it would endanger the entire process of another, and in this case, it would of completely destroyed the Russian Revolution if it was not crushed.

As for your comments on Spain, I think you need to read my post over again. Do you ignore that anarchists became active participants in the bourgeois regime? Do you ignore that is, in some way, contributed to their defeat?
The Bolsheviks would not of lasted a few months, let alone a few days, unless they instituted these measures.

As I have previously stated, this a country that was materially incapable of creating socialism, that was also surrounded by hostile forces that were using any means in their disposal to undermine the efforts of the workers and the poorer sections of the peasantry. I think that democratic control over industry by all of the workers is not only a preference, but a necessity in ushering in our ultimate objective, but when our objective is not even reachable, certain measures need to be taken in order to ensure that we progress fowards. I think that the creation of Vesenkha, or the All-Union Council of State Economy, was needed in order to provide a level of cooridination between enterprises that were in a state of disillusion at the time; industrialists had sabotaged machinery and engineers and technicians that were crucial to the production process had fled the entire country, not to mention, the flow of capital had effectively ended as a result of the blockade. Paul Avrich, who many from 'anti-authoritarian' audiences condemn as a revisionist for stating the obvious factors that were haunting Russia at the time, stated this in The Russian Anarchists.

Paul Avrich The Russian Anarchists:
In other words, a state of industrial chaos had descended on the entire country. The grain blockade had left the cities starving; many workers were left hungry and weak, while many more simply died from malnourishment. The absence of specialists had left many factories in a state of unproductivity and mismanagement, while the social catastrophe of the famine and the civil war pushed the hardships of the workers to a completely new level of utter misery. As a result, a struggle for individual existence was waged within communities between rival workers as they aggressively battled one another in order to yield certain scarce resources for themselves. It created a conflict that was untold of to civilization at that time; it was a division based on worker against worker, where there would be no collective destruction on their part, but a survival for their respective neighborhood.

In other words, the situation grew so worse that workers were fighting each other as a result of their disastrous conditions. I don't think you mentioned Syndicat, that the Bolsheviks didn't fully dissolve the factory committees until 1919, and that Vesenkha cooperated with them up until the point that they became completely dormant and ineffective. They were unable to function properly, and just as the democratic soviets, basically became useless bodies that did not even represent the idealistic image that you are associating them with.

The Red Guard was a militia; a band of disorganized and lightly-armed troops that were gathered from certain local areas. They proved ineffective in Ukraine and the Volga area against Denikin, they barely were able to seize control in Moscow, and they were butchered by Yudernich when he launched a military thrust into Petrograd. Tukhachevsky called them 'shock troops', because he considered them to be both militarily and strategically useless. I think it's obvious that the Soviet Republic would not of been able to survive if it did not institute a highly-disciplined and well-supplied force that had strong leadership. I also don't that those officers should be held as a negative force; Trotsky once stated that "we need to take the bricks of the crumbled structure and utilize them to construct the new", and that analogy is certainly correct when applied to this situation. They should not be condemned by history, when they actively offering their services to the new regime. Trotsky personally ordered the execution of certain officers that had intentions that countered the interests of the workers, and was brought in front of a committee more than three times over his conduct of allowing these officers into such a position, but these situations were examine subjectively, and he was let off in every trial of his actions.

Once again, on the question of the distribution of food-stuffs, I would ask that you refer to the situation. I have a similar conception of the Kronstadt Uprising to you, but I hold that it was necessary to crush due to the relative threat of the French navy and Mannaheim's forces that were poised outside Petrograd. By this time, it was necessary for the proletarian state to work towards capital accumulation while promoting world revolution that would render it unnecessary in the first place, basically by ending their reliance on the bureaucracy, and providing material and financial support to construct socialism without the board of capitalist production on their backs. I don't support one revolutionary spasm if it would endanger the entire process of another, and in this case, it would of completely destroyed the Russian Revolution if it was not crushed.

As for your comments on Spain, I think you need to read my post over again. Do you ignore that anarchists became active participants in the bourgeois regime? Do you ignore that is, in some way, contributed to their defeat?

syndicat

16th May 2007, 01:31

The Bolsheviks would not of lasted a few months, let alone a few days, unless they instituted these measures.

Why is it of any value that they should last, if their strategy and trajectory
will inevitably consolidate a new dominating and exploiting class?

You object to the CNT unions joining a Popular Front government in Spain but
the Bolshevik regime also represented the interests of an incipient dominating
class.

As I have previously stated, this a country that was materially incapable of creating socialism,

That may be what you claim but I can't see that you've proven this.

As I have previously stated, this a country that was materially incapable of creating socialism,

That may be what you claim but I can't see that you've proven this.

I think that democratic control over industry by all of the workers is not only a preference, but a necessity in ushering in our ultimate objective, but when our objective is not even reachable, certain measures need to be taken in order to ensure that we progress fowards.

In this case the measures progressed inevitably towards consolidation of a new mode of production dominated by the coordinator class. To suppose that the people in charge having "socialist" ideas is sufficient to ensure that workers power could be an eventual result is the worst sort of idealism. No dominating class has ever given up its power voluntarily and none ever will. "Socialism" just gets converted into an ideology of justification for this new dominating and exploiting class.

I think that the creation of Vesenkha, or the All-Union Council of State Economy, was needed in order to provide a level of cooridination between enterprises that were in a state of disillusion at the time;

you don't say why,tho. why couldn't the workers deal with these issues? they were well aware of them, and the factory committee movement had been formed in part to deal with these problems. They realized that the problems could not be overcome except thru regional and national planning and coordination. But they also believed they were capable of doing this. You've not provided any cogent argument as to why this would not be the case.

industrialists had sabotaged machinery and engineers and technicians that were crucial to the production process had fled the entire country, not to mention, the flow of capital had effectively ended as a result of the blockade.

And some of these engineers and administrators were hired by the Bolsheviks. but workers were able to keep production running without the old technical personnel in many cases, and were learning how to take over responsibilities that the professionals and managers had done, just as the workers in the recuperated factories in Argentina are doing today. Why couldn't a worker managed industry have been based on a combination of worker learning and hiring technical advisors from among the old professionals willing to continue?

You've not provided a cogent argument as to what the alleged advantages of the central planning approach were. In fact a lot of workers in early 1918 accused the Bolsheviks of causing "chaos from above", in other words, making things worse, by flip-flopping back and forth, and because local Bolshevik administrations didn't always coordinate with the center or each other. This is one of the reasons the Bolsheviks lost the elections to the soviets in 19 of 22 cities in European Russia in the spring of 1918.

Just as the Bolsheviks refused to recognize the results of those elections and dispersed the soviets, or refused to leave office, the Bolsheviks on the factory committees in 1918 also often refused to hold new shop committee elections. These things are discussed by Sam Farber in "Before Stalinism".

Thus if you use the fact that the shop committees (at 400 enterprises, at most) continued til 1919 as some indication of worker management continuing at the point of production, the fact Farber points to, of the committees becoming increasingly out of touch with the workers, suggests otherwise.

just as the democratic soviets, basically became useless bodies that did not even represent the idealistic image that you are associating them with.

Here you're overlooking the fact that the soviets became "ineffective" because the workers didn't elect the "right" people (Bolsheviks) and so the Bolsheviks dissolved them or refused to leave office.

I think it's obvious that the Soviet Republic would not of been able to survive if it did not institute a highly-disciplined and well-supplied force that had strong leadership.

I don't see any reason why a popular, egalitarian militia cannot also be disciplined and well-supplied.

By this time, it was necessary for the proletarian state to work towards capital accumulation while promoting world revolution that would render it unnecessary in the first place, basically by ending their reliance on the bureaucracy, and providing material and financial support to construct socialism without the board of capitalist production on their backs. I don't support one revolutionary spasm if it would endanger the entire process of another, and in this case, it would of completely destroyed the Russian Revolution if it was not crushed.

"Proletarian State" is a self-contradiction in my lexicon. And, as I've said elsewhere here, the institutions set up could not possibly further working class liberation and the dissolution of the class system if the new institutional arrangements and direction entrench a new class of profesionals and managers in industrial and state hierarchies, dominating over workers.

As for your comments on Spain, I think you need to read my post over again. Do you ignore that anarchists became active participants in the bourgeois regime? Do you ignore that is, in some way, contributed to their defeat?

Okay, why did the CNT join the Popular Front government? Given that the Socialists and Communists vetoed their proposal of replacing the Popular Front government with a joint UGT-CNT workers government, what then? They were afraid of being frozen out of decision-making about arms and resources for their militias and the war industry they had created in Catalonia.

I personally think they should have pursued a different strategy, more in keeping with their actual program, a strategy of setting up worker defense councils and congresses in the regions where they were powerful enough to do this. This would have been more consistent with their program. When they decided to join the Popular Front government, this caused a split internal to the anarchists in the CNT. This is why the Friends of Durruti Group was formed. The Friends of Durruti Group were advocating that they carry out their own program. but by May 1937 a certain section of leading activists of the CNT had become entrenched in the practice of Popular Front collaboration.

But my point was that Trotsky was wrong in suggesting that their decision to join the Popular Front government flowed out of opposition to the working class taking power. In other words, Trotsky was arguing that the decision in favor of joining the Popular Front government was a product of their anarchist politics. This is because, says Trotsky, anarchism is opposed to the working class taking power. I've pointed out that Trotsky was simply wrong about that. The difference between the anarcho-syndicalists and Trotsky was not about whether the working class should take power -- that was exactly what their program called for. Rather, the difference is about what the power of the working class would or could consist in.

Rawthentic

16th May 2007, 04:15

That may be what you claim but I can't see that you've proven this.
There's nothing to prove; RedDali already pointed out the adverse material conditions.

"Proletarian State" is a self-contradiction in my lexicon. And, as I've said elsewhere here, the institutions set up could not possibly further working class liberation and the dissolution of the class system if the new institutional arrangements and direction entrench a new class of profesionals and managers in industrial and state hierarchies, dominating over workers.
But this does prove that you have the wrong definition of a state. It may be semantics, but I can quote you several times where you outline what you see as post-capitalism, and equate it as what most communists want to see in a state.

Labor Shall Rule

16th May 2007, 04:37

Why is it of any value that they should last, if their strategy and trajectory
will inevitably consolidate a new dominating and exploiting class?

Lenin and Trotsky recognized that their tactics and strategy had contributed to a growing reliance on a bureaucracy, which in their view, was absolutely dangerous, in that a potential existed for it to completely substitute worker's democracy for it's own consolidatory strength. But anyway Syndicat, under the conditions of this civil war, you would have done what? Every revolution is consolidated by a party dictatorship. Its not because "some men" are "greedy for power", its because the class struggle is a matter of life and death, it demands swift and decisive action as does any war. The Bolshevisk triumphed against ridiculous odds because of their internal discipline, among other factors. Both figures, also if I may add, held that once Germany experienced a revolution, that Russia would been relieved, in that capital and supplies would flow freely into the country that would promote economic development while also removing the exponent of imperialist encirclement completely off of the map. It would, in other words, remove the necessity of having a highly-structured and disciplined standing army and police force to defend the revolution; in other words, it would eliminate the bureaucratic stratum. Lenin personally called for worker's and peasant's inspection of state officials towards the end of his life, and in his Last Testament, he demanded the removal of Stalin from his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party.

That may be what you claim but I can't see that you've proven this.

Are you kidding? It is an historical fact that scarcity was rampant; the death of millions of workers and peasants to malnourishment and their resorting to cannabalism in certain regions proves that this is a simple reality that you ignored in this sentence.

you don't say why,tho. why couldn't the workers deal with these issues? they were well aware of them, and the factory committee movement had been formed in part to deal with these problems. They realized that the problems could not be overcome except thru regional and national planning and coordination. But they also believed they were capable of doing this. You've not provided any cogent argument as to why this would not be the case.

I did say why. I think my 'cogent argument' was, once again, ignored by you.

And some of these engineers and administrators were hired by the Bolsheviks. but workers were able to keep production running without the old technical personnel in many cases, and were learning how to take over responsibilities that the professionals and managers had done, just as the workers in the recuperated factories in Argentina are doing today. Why couldn't a worker managed industry have been based on a combination of worker learning and hiring technical advisors from among the old professionals willing to continue?

I was refering to engineers and technicians, who oftenly guided production and performed certain functions in the process, that basically fled the country shortly after the October Revolution? Can you provide an example of a single case? I drew my source from a renowned anarchist historian--Paul Avrich. I don't think that workers in certain districts of Buenos Aires are experiencing famine, civil war, and territory war between rival factories that are struggling to just sustain themselves. That is a ridiculous comparison; a complete withdrawing from the conditions of complete economic and societal breakdown that was present in Russia at the time. If I may also mention, most cooperatives that are based in Argentina are hotels, textile plants, and printing shops, which, for the most part, do not necessitate a sort of guiding technician. In Russia, it was primarily based around heavy industry, so we can find that your example is a fraud.

Here you're overlooking the fact that the soviets became "ineffective" because the workers didn't elect the "right" people (Bolsheviks) and so the Bolsheviks dissolved them or refused to leave office.

No, I am acknowledging the fact that many workplaces and neighborhoods were even unable to hold elections due to the prevailing chaos, and that many elected delegates either died or lost communication with the base that they were recognized from. For example, say that I am an elected miner from the Urals. Kolchak has occupied the area, has dispersed of my meeting halls, and cut all of my telephone wires. Not only that, but the railroads are temporarily down due to a fuel shortage. It is hard for the workers to be democratically represented when a democracy can not even function correctly.

I don't see any reason why a popular, egalitarian militia cannot also be disciplined and well-supplied.

Have you refered to my examples? I can refer to many more.

Okay, why did the CNT join the Popular Front government? Given that the Socialists and Communists vetoed their proposal of replacing the Popular Front government with a joint UGT-CNT workers government, what then? They were afraid of being frozen out of decision-making about arms and resources for their militias and the war industry they had created in Catalonia.

If I may refer to what you earlier wrote, "why is it of any value that they should last, if their strategy and trajectory will inevitably consolidate a new dominating and exploiting class". Why does this matter, since this action inevitably consolidated a new dominating and exploitation class?

As I have said, you have completely ignored what I wrote. CNT-FAI denounced any independent role, focusing on their trade unions and the structures that branched off of them, while not utilizing the political theatre of dialogue that previously existed. Amidst all of this, their leadership became entangled in bourgeois politics. It created a recipe for disaster, in that it's reformist leadership capitulated to the orders of the Negrin-Stalin through gradual appeasement; first ridding of food distribution centers, then agricultural collectives, then worker self-managed industries, and finally of the revolutionary opposition itself.

Rawthentic

16th May 2007, 04:44

Dali, I applaud your material analysis as compared to syndicat.

CNT-FAI denounced any independent role, focusing on their trade unions and the structures that branched off of them, while not utilizing the political theatre of dialogue that previously existed. Amidst all of this, their leadership became entangled in bourgeois politics.
Precisely. Because they are economists and have the wrong definition of the state, that it is product therein, it leads to their confusion and as you said, "entanglement in bourgeois politics."

syndicat

16th May 2007, 08:20

Lenin and Trotsky recognized that their tactics and strategy had contributed to a growing reliance on a bureaucracy, which in their view, was absolutely dangerous, in that a potential existed for it to completely substitute worker's democracy for it's own consolidatory strength.

This responds not at all to the points I made. Lenin and Trotsky NEVER expressed any regrets about any of the following:

1. Establishing a central planning body appointed from above, Vesenkha, and ensuring that workers would not even elect the majority on the various subordinate bodies of Vesenkha such as the glavki overseeing various regions or industrial groups.

2. Lenin and Trotsky never expressed any regret whatsoever about hiring 30,000 czarist officers and creating a conventional top-down army.

3. Lenin and Trotsky never expressed any regret about suppressing internal worker democracy by outlawing the other political tendencies within the working class, such as the syndicalists, maximalists, Left Mensheviks.

4. Lenin and Trotsky never expressed any regrets whatsoever about the system of one-man management over workers. If you think that Lenin's pathetic notion of workers "checking" on management is an adequate idea of worker power, then I think you are clearly wrong.

5. As Sam Farber points out, the Bolsheviks never had a principled commitment to participatory democracy. As Trotsky said at the time of the debate over the Workers Opposition in March, 1921, the "party's birthright to rule takes precedence over the passing whims of the workers democracy."

Lenin and Trotsky may have intended to create a world that would empower workers and end their oppression, somehow, but their intentions are of no consequence. What counts is what the real consequences of their programmatic and strategic orientation would be, even if they didn't clearly foresee what those consequences might be.

It is an historical fact that scarcity was rampant; the death of millions of workers and peasants to malnourishment and their resorting to cannabalism in certain regions proves that this is a simple reality that you ignored in this sentence.

It's possible that the material circumstances made a victory for the working class impossible in the Russian revolution. But I think that the strategic and programmatic orientation of Bolshevism would create a coordinator class dominated system even under more favorable conditions. As I hinted at before, I think that, if the material circumstances made a self-managed society not in the cards, it would probably have been the disorganization and illiteracy of the massive peasant population that would have been the main problem.

I was refering to engineers and technicians, who oftenly guided production and performed certain functions in the process, that basically fled the country shortly after the October Revolution?

They didn't all flea the country. Who were the engineers on Vesenkha or the glavki? Moreover, even if they did, that isn't an argument in favor of central planning. The workers had started up production after the big strike that brought down the czar in Feb. 1917, and often without managers or professionals. But they continued production.

Your comment about Argentina is a fraud, not my comment. In fact there are industrial operations that have been taken over -- the Zanon ceramics plant, there is a tractor factory, and a forging plant that makes metal parts for the tractor plant, and a meatpacking plant...these are among the most well-known.

Moreover, the Bolshevik policies of centralized state planning, state food monopoly, dissolution of soviet elections, not renewing the factory committee elections, creating a top-down army with 30,000 czarist officers occurred BEFORE the onset of the civil war in the summer of 1918. The food scheme was notoriously ineffective. The workers believed that the central planning approach was "creating choas from above".

The problems that applied to St. Petersburg should not be generalized to the whole of urban Russia. The problem there was due to the collapse of the old army and its demobilization, which brought a halt to war production. The population of St. Petersburg had swelled from 1 million before World War I to 2 million due to war production. The demobilzation and shutdown of war industry led to a drop in the population to 500,000. But this degree of collapse was not true of other cities. Moscow lost about half its population but Kharkov gained population. And people who left the cities went to live with their country relatives because in fact the peasants weren't starving...that is where the food was.

Both figures [Lenin and Trotsky], also if I may add, held that once Germany experienced a revolution, that Russia would been relieved, in that capital and supplies would flow freely into the country that would promote economic development while also removing the exponent of imperialist encirclement completely off of the map. It would, in other words, remove the necessity of having a highly-structured and disciplined standing army and police force to defend the revolution; in other words, it would eliminate the bureaucratic stratum.

This is idealism. Once a new class structure has been consolidated...one-man managers, the central planning elite, an entrenched officer caste in the military, party appartchiks in the towns ruling based on the police (Cheka), etc. Once this layer consolidates its power, it will not give it up voluntarily...that is an idealist mistake. it will simply reinterpret "socialist" ideology to justify its position...as actually happeened. And that is exactly what any consistent Marxist should expect to occur.

After the civil war came to an end at the end of 1920, workers anticipated that the measures that had been instituted during the civil war would be rescinded and the promises about worker power would be fulfilled, now that the threat from the whites had ended. But that isn't what happened. Instead even internal dissent in the Communist party was suppressed, not to mention final liquidation of revolutionary tendencies independent of the CP.

No, I am acknowledging the fact that many workplaces and neighborhoods were even unable to hold elections due to the prevailing chaos,

The suppression of soviet democracy -- refusal of election results, refusal of holding shop committee elections -- occurred BEFORE the civil war, in the first half of 1918. It didn't happen because of inability or unwillingness to hold such elections. The Left Mensheviks were able to mount a major movement to elect worker representatives to unofficial soviet-type bodies, in response to the Bolsheviks dissolving the soviets after losing elections.

Your comments on Spain completely refuse to respond to my arguments. You quote a piece from Trotsky which says that the anarchists were against the working class taking power and this is why they joined the Popular Front government. I've already refuted that, pointed out that the CNT had a program for the working class taking power.

I also pointed out that I did not agree with the decision of the CNT to join the government of Catalonia or the national government, and said that they had another option, of mobilizing the unions to take power in the eastern regions of the country where they were the majority -- Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, Murcia.

Instead of responding to these points, you only want to talk about what happened in May of 1937, six months after the CNT had decided to join the Popular Front government, and many of its leading activists had been corrupted by that collaborationist experience.

it's reformist leadership capitulated to the orders of the Negrin-Stalin through gradual appeasement; first ridding of food distribution centers, then agricultural collectives, then worker self-managed industries, and finally of the revolutionary opposition itself.

Here you have the order of events confused. Negrin came to power only AFTER the CNT had been ousted from the government, and only after the Communists had already successfully gained a foothold among the officer corps of the new Republican police and army, which they used in May 1937 to launch their offensive against autonomous working class power. The CNT had already been defeated, and the revolution put way on the defensive at that point. The CNT could only
have prevented Negrin and the Communists from gaining state power if they'd been able to derail the Communists' permeationist game plan of rebuilding the Republican army and police, mobilzing the petit bourgeois and coordinator classes to their ranks, and built up a powerful momentum. To do that, they would have needed to pose successfully an alternative strategy for the working class to mount a unified and effective military defense against the fascists. In fact Durruti, Garcia Oliver and others in the CNT did have such a program -- that was the program for a unified revolutionary people's militia controlled by working class governing councils. The problem was in their failure to effectively and consistently work to carry out that program.

Contrary to Trotsky, this failure didn't happen because they lacked an appropriate program or because of some inherent defect of anarchist politics. It was a failure of nerve on the part of some, and failure of consistency in execution.

Once a group of activists, no matter what their original ideology and intentions, become committed to working in hierarchical positions -- as certain leading CNT activists did, in the central government and government of Catalonia, and in officer positions in the new Republican army -- they would tend to develop excuses for why that was a good thing. And that is exactly what happened.

The Grey Blur

16th May 2007, 15:44

Good posts Dali.

Labor Shall Rule

16th May 2007, 22:39

Thanks Permanent Revolution and Hastalavictoria! :)

This responds not at all to the points I made. Lenin and Trotsky NEVER expressed any regrets about any of the following:

1. Establishing a central planning body appointed from above, Vesenkha, and ensuring that workers would not even elect the majority on the various subordinate bodies of Vesenkha such as the glavki overseeing various regions or industrial groups.

2. Lenin and Trotsky never expressed any regret whatsoever about hiring 30,000 czarist officers and creating a conventional top-down army.

3. Lenin and Trotsky never expressed any regret about suppressing internal worker democracy by outlawing the other political tendencies within the working class, such as the syndicalists, maximalists, Left Mensheviks.

4. Lenin and Trotsky never expressed any regrets whatsoever about the system of one-man management over workers. If you think that Lenin's pathetic notion of workers "checking" on management is an adequate idea of worker power, then I think you are clearly wrong.

Well, through my evidence that I already presented and hammered tirelessly, I don't think that they should regret any of their actions due to the delicate situation that they had to manage. I would, however, disagree with the notion that they expressed no emotional backlash as they banned factions within the party itself, suppressed the anarchists, and dismembered worker publications. Trotsky wrote in 1923, that he was entering a moment of 'mental confusion' as he became increasingly disillusioned with the course that the revolution was taking. Lenin actually joined many liberal philistines in comparing the swiftly bureaucratizing Soviet state with the former Tsarist regime towards the end of his life; which was also the moment that he called for worker's and peasant's inspections of certain officials, along with a purge of party membership. If that is not 'regret', then I simply do not know what is.

It's possible that the material circumstances made a victory for the working class impossible in the Russian revolution. But I think that the strategic and programmatic orientation of Bolshevism would create a coordinator class dominated system even under more favorable conditions. As I hinted at before, I think that, if the material circumstances made a self-managed society not in the cards, it would probably have been the disorganization and illiteracy of the massive peasant population that would have been the main problem.

Have you read my posts? Do you understand that a majority of the workers that participated in the October Revolution; the most advanced section that was conscious of their conditions and filled with revolutionary zeal, was completely wiped out along with their institutions as a result of their deprivation? What is this 'strategic and programmatic orientation'? Can you please quote something that Lenin or Trotsky wrote that would suggest that the crust of their theories was to place a managerial class in front of the workers? Explain how the material circumstances provided a basis for socialism, because from the history that I understand, Russia was not in an advanced and fufilling state at the time.

They didn't all flea the country. Who were the engineers on Vesenkha or the glavki? Moreover, even if they did, that isn't an argument in favor of central planning. The workers had started up production after the big strike that brought down the czar in Feb. 1917, and often without managers or professionals. But they continued production.

I think you are getting 'engineers' confused with 'managers'. Vesenkha was composed of party members in it's earlier stages, they had problems seeking the professional assistance of administrators.

Your comment about Argentina is a fraud, not my comment. In fact there are industrial operations that have been taken over -- the Zanon ceramics plant, there is a tractor factory, and a forging plant that makes metal parts for the tractor plant, and a meatpacking plant...these are among the most well-known.

Provide evidence that would suggest that engineers are absent.

I am not in the mood to present previous points. I would recommend that you refer to my earlier points, and try to refute them by providing a solution to the catastrophic situation that existed at the time.

Here you have the order of events confused. Negrin came to power only AFTER the CNT had been ousted from the government,

That doesn't discredit the fact that they, along with all of the other organisations of the Spanish left, to varying degrees, participated in the Popular Front government initiated by the Spanish Communist Party.

and only after the Communists had already successfully gained a foothold among the officer corps of the new Republican police and army, which they used in May 1937 to launch their offensive against autonomous working class power. The CNT had already been defeated, and the revolution put way on the defensive at that point.

It was already defeated, in that their bankrupt leadership already joined the thrust of the Popular Front by accepting their call to unite “all classes” in order to protect the republic and democracy on the one had, but limit, and indeed, stifle, the uprising of the working class on another. Keep in mind, they never called for a Congress of Factory Committees, or the creation of Soviets, but rather participation in the Anti-Fascist Committee, while allowing the revolutionary workers and peasants to do as they please with the factories and haciendas until their owners finally took it back as a result of their betraying alliance with the bourgeoisie. In 1931, Leon Trotsky wrote in Problems of the Spanish Revolution, that,

the criticism and the unmasking of Spanish anarcho-syndicalism is an extremely important task, which cannot be postponed for a single day. The top leaders of anarcho-syndicalism represent the most masked, the most treacherous, and the most dangerous form of conciliationism with and servility toward the bourgeoisie. In its rank and file, anarcho-syndicalism contains large potential revolutionary forces. Our basic task here is the same as in regard to the socialists: oppose the rank and file to the tops. This task, however, must be carefully adapted to the specific nature of the syndicalist organization and the specific character of the anarchist mask. I shall deal with this in one of my next letters.

You went on to write,

Contrary to Trotsky, this failure didn't happen because they lacked an appropriate program or because of some inherent defect of anarchist politics. It was a failure of nerve on the part of some, and failure of consistency in execution.

I don't think that you read what Trotsky wrote, or my post for that matter.

On The Slogan of Soviets (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/spain/spain09.htm)

Trotsky was desperately urging for the end of bipartisan cooperation with the Spanish Communist Party, and called for the immediate creation of Soviets, or at least the holding of a national congress that consisted of the already existant factory committees, in order to give the workers a position of political prevelance on a national-scale. This, however, was denounced by the anarchist leadership as "too “Russian” to them" and "authoritarian".

This is idealism. Once a new class structure has been consolidated...one-man managers, the central planning elite, an entrenched officer caste in the military, party appartchiks in the towns ruling based on the police (Cheka), etc. Once this layer consolidates its power, it will not give it up voluntarily...that is an idealist mistake. it will simply reinterpret "socialist" ideology to justify its position...as actually happeened. And that is exactly what any consistent Marxist should expect to occur.

Look who is talking. The Bolsheviks did not institute these measures immediately, if you paid attention to my posts, you would understand that they gradually arised as the situation detiriated.

syndicat

17th May 2007, 00:12

Lenin actually joined many liberal philistines in comparing the swiftly bureaucratizing Soviet state with the former Tsarist regime towards the end of his life; which was also the moment that he called for worker's and peasant's inspections of certain officials, along with a purge of party membership. If that is not 'regret', then I simply do not know what is.

That is not a regret. A regret is about some particular course of action. What Lenin was worried about in this case was the large mass of opportunists, ex-businessmen, managers and engineers from the old capitalist firms, who had been hired by the Bolshevik government to carry out its state centralist agenda. Lenin was worried about their potential conflict with the party. He wasn't specifically concerned with "bureaucracy" insofar as it might get in the way of workers making the decisions. And his proposal for "worker and peasant inspections" was the same as the program that in Nov. 1917 was codified in the decree on "workers control." In that case Lenin had the same idea: allow workers some rights of checking management, to preven things like sabotage of the revolution. But he was worried about sabotage of a vanguard (party)-controlled revolution.

Do you understand that a majority of the workers that participated in the October Revolution; the most advanced section that was conscious of their conditions and filled with revolutionary zeal, was completely wiped out along with their institutions as a result of their deprivation? What is this 'strategic and programmatic orientation'?

What is your evidence of this? Are you talking about casualties suffered by the Red Army in the civil war? Or what? The decline in the urban population didn't mean people were all killed off. Most of them moved to the countryside to live with their relatives. This course of action was actually recommended by Lenin to the population of St. Petersburg.

Moreover, it's no good saying that worker democracy was eliminated by this when in fact actions undermining worker democracy were understaken by the Bolsheviks before the civil war, such as disallowing the meeting of the proposed regional and national factory committee congresses (proposed in Nov 1917), not renewing the elections of the factory committees in 1918, disbanding soviets in the spring of 1918 after losing elections, or opposing the expropriation by the workers of all the businesses in Kronstadt carried out by the Kronstadt soviet in Jan 1918 (against the "no" votes of the Bolsheviks).

Can you please quote something that Lenin or Trotsky wrote that would suggest that the crust of their theories was to place a managerial class in front of the workers? Explain how the material circumstances provided a basis for socialism, because from the history that I understand, Russia was not in an advanced and fufilling state at the time.

I didn't say they had an explicit understanding of their program and strategy leading to the consolidation of a new professional/managerial dominating class. I'm saying this was the actual effect of policies they pursued, which flowed out of their politics. i'm sure many Bolsheviks did not intend this to be the outcome of the revolution.

Russia's industrial infrastructure was fairly advanced for that time because it was of recent origin. But i think this whole idea of some level of material productivity that is somehow a line that has to be crossed to make a society self-managed by the immediate producers feasible is completely unsupported. Moreover, the Bolsheviks in Oct 1917 did not suppose that constructing socialism was an impossibility.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the level of material productivity made a society without class division an impossibility, that tells us that a revolution of self-liberation by the producers would fail. But there are diffferent ways that revolutions can fail. And the "low material level" argument doesn't explain why the Russian revolution failed in the peculiar way it did, that is, by eliminating the capiitalist class but replacing them with a new coordinator class, based on state or common property. The specific prgrammatic direction pursued by the Bolsheviks, in a context where other groups were not able to impose a different solution, is what accounts for this peculiar way the revolution failed.

re: Argentina:

Provide evidence that would suggest that engineers are absent.

There are several videos available. One is available from Z mag. Another is the movie "The Take". And a third is available from Agora TV in Argentina (it's a web-based TV station). People who have visited these factories and asked questions have told me that they took over without the old management and engineers.

It was already defeated, in that their bankrupt leadership already joined the thrust of the Popular Front by accepting their call to unite “all classes” in order to protect the republic and democracy on the one had, but limit, and indeed, stifle, the uprising of the working class on another.

The "Popular Front" was based on unity between the petit bourgeoisie, professional/managerial strata, etc. and the working class. This is true. The CNT did not advocate this. In fact, every Marxist party in Spain accused the CNT of not being accomodating enough to the petit bourgeoisie -- this is true of the POUM, PSOE and PCE.

I explained that the CNT proposed a working class-only government. Your reference to "stifling an uprising of the working class" can only be a reference to the May 1937 events. This happened six months AFTER the CNT had been manipulated into joining the Popular Front government, after the Left Socialists had refused to accept the CNT's proposal of a working class government. As I said before, you only want to talk about what happened in May of 1937. You also fail to note that the CNT itself was internally split over the May 1937 events.

Keep in mind, they never called for a Congress of Factory Committees, or the creation of Soviets, but rather participation in the Anti-Fascist Committee,

Do you not read my posts? On Sept 3, 1936 the CNT held a national plenary where they approved a program that included the following:

a. regional and national Worker Congresses, elected from the assemblies at the base. this was part of the Zaragoza program, adopted by the CNT in May, 1936. they built a regional workers congress in the region of Aragon in Sept. 1936, after adopting the program I am here referring to.

b. a unified people's militia with unified command controlled by committees elected by the unions

c. National and Regional defense councils of delegates elected by the unions -- working class only bodies -- to control the social-self-defense function -- military, police, courts, to replace the Popular Front government.

The CNT mounted a major campaign for this program in its two big daily papers in Barcelona and Madrid in Sept and October. This is the origin of the program the Friends of Durruti group defended during the May 1937 events.

while allowing the revolutionary workers and peasants to do as they please with the factories and haciendas until their owners finally took it back as a result of their betraying alliance with the bourgeoisie.

Nonsense. All of the industrial expropriations were carried out by the unions, and were done in the name of the whole people. They were socializations from below. Their aim was to federation all these industrial organizations together into a socially planned economy. When the Communists gained power, they only gave some of the land back to landowners. To the degree they ousted or suppressed worker management, it was in favor of state control. That's because their aim was to create a state-run economy, as in the USSR. Documents from the Soviet archives that show this as their aim have been translated in the book "Spain Betrayed".

Another typical Leninist falsification is to portray the anarcho-syndicalist program as advocating workers running isolated workplaces in a completely unilateral fashion, or as collective private property of the workers. That was not the CNT's program. their program was libertarian communism.

me: "Once a new class structure has been consolidated...one-man managers, the central planning elite, an entrenched officer caste in the military, party appartchiks in the towns ruling based on the police (Cheka), etc. Once this layer consolidates its power, it will not give it up voluntarily...that is an idealist mistake. it will simply reinterpret "socialist" ideology to justify its position...as actually happeened. And that is exactly what any consistent Marxist should expect to occur."

The Bolsheviks did not institute these measures immediately, if you paid attention to my posts, you would understand that they gradually arised as the situation detiriated.

Nope, not "as the situation deteriorated." Central planning was set in motion
in Nov 1917 with creation of Vesenkha, giving it responsibility to construct a plan for the whole national economy. That in itself is inconsistent with worker self-management. Cheka was also created around beginning of Dec. 1917. The czarist officers were hired beginning around March-April 1918. Trotsky began beating the drum for one-man management around that time. This is before the civil war, which didn't get underway til around June-July 1918.

Neither Trotsky nor Lenin ever said these things were "unfortunate but we're forced to do this". As I said, they didn't express regret. In Emma Goldman's interviews with leading Bolsheviks, reported in "My Disillustionment in Russia" she reported them as saying that the reason for things like the central state grain monopoly was because this "fits in with our centralist approach."

syndicat

17th May 2007, 00:34

me: "c. National and Regional defense councils of delegates elected by the unions -- working class only bodies -- to control the social-self-defense function -- military, police, courts, to replace the Popular Front government."

Actually, this isn't quite right. There were actually two parts to this:

1. National and regional defense councils elected by, and accountable to, the national and regional worker congresses. But only the unions would be represented on these councils. The political tendencies or parties would only be represented informally via their supporters within the unions. as the CNT put it at the time, "doctrines" would be represented, not parties.

2. CNT-UGT "joint commissions" to control the varous parts of the people's revolutionary army, including delegates elected by members of the militia, and delegates elected by the two union federations.

There were some other components to the CNT's program:

1. declare Spanish Morrocco independent and provide arms to the Morroccan independence forces. On the initiative of Garcia Oliver, contact was made, and negotiations begun, with the Moroccan Action Committee, to provide them with arms to fight for independence. this was veto'd by Largo Caballero after the French government got wind of the negotiations and put heavy pressure on Caballero.

2. Seizure of the banks and authorization of complete socialization of the economy under workers self-management. The Defense Councils would have no authority over the economy. There would be comparable committees, called Economics Councils, also elected by the worker congresses, to effect economic coordination, in keeping with economic plans that were to be developed by the congresses, based on input from the industrial federations and free municipalities. "industrial federation" was the CNT's term for an organization of the workers that would manage an entire industry. a number of these were constructed during the revolution of 1936.

3. Free municipalities. These were to be based on assemblies of the residents in villages and urban neighborhoods. These would have control over inputs to the social planning process in regard to public goods such as education, health care, and housing. These would be responsible for overseeing areas of consumption such as food supply and housing. a number of "free municipalities" were built in the Aragon villages in the summer of 1936.

Trotsky's call for "soviets" does indicate he was out of touch with the revolutionary traditions of the Spanish working class. The mass democratic instruments of the workers in the revolution were the unions.

Labor Shall Rule

17th May 2007, 03:45

What is your evidence of this? Are you talking about casualties suffered by the Red Army in the civil war? Or what? The decline in the urban population didn't mean people were all killed off. Most of them moved to the countryside to live with their relatives. This course of action was actually recommended by Lenin to the population of St. Petersburg.

The Soviets Against the Capitalist World (http://www.js-ww1.bham.ac.uk/fetch.asp?article=issue2_birrer.pdf)

Before Stalinism: The Rise and Fall of Soviet Democracy (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Grain+blockade+1917) (Yes, I would refer you to the same source. He goes into a tangent, from what I have read, on the blockade, which he compared to the fierceness of the economic gagging of Germany)

Daniel Guerin, in discussing Kronstadt, even brought up the fact that workers were impoverished as a result of the grain blockade and the economic war that the imperialist powers were waging.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the level of material productivity made a society without class division an impossibility, that tells us that a revolution of self-liberation by the producers would fail.

Assuming that millions upon millions of people are starving, and are fighting each other in the streets in order to have access to the resources that we take for granted, it is common sense that a test subject such as this would not of made 'equality' possible.

Russia's industrial infrastructure was fairly advanced for that time because it was of recent origin.
r
Relative to the size of the entire population, the working class was numerically small. However, it was highly concentrated. Over 70 percent of the workers in Petrograd were employed in enterprises consisting of more than 1,000 workers. Two-thirds of Ukrainian workers were in enterprises that employed more than 500 workers. It was the same in the Urals.

I am dropping the debate on Lenin and the Bolsheviks. I don't think you have a grasp of the material conditions in Russia, and that you have otherwise refused to listen to anything that I have written on this subject. I am guessing that you have only read anarchist interptations of these events; utterly dismissing any other sources as 'propaganda'. By admitting that you are unaware of the theories proposed by Lenin and Trotsky, you are conceding to the fact that you have no other perspective from the one that you were originally told.

There are several videos available. One is available from Z mag. Another is the movie "The Take". And a third is available from Agora TV in Argentina (it's a web-based TV station). People who have visited these factories and asked questions have told me that they took over without the old management and engineers.

Why are you equating engineers to 'old management'? I thought I told you that it has no relation to being a 'technician' or 'administrator'? They are wage-laborers; they receive more benefits and higher wages, so they normally do not possess the same militancy that the other workers have. I am talking about engineers.

The "Popular Front" was based on unity between the petit bourgeoisie, professional/managerial strata, etc. and the working class. This is true. The CNT did not advocate this. In fact, every Marxist party in Spain accused the CNT of not being accomodating enough to the petit bourgeoisie -- this is true of the POUM, PSOE and PCE.

"Every marxist party"? I think it is funny that you are now desperately resorting to lies in order to build on to the validity of your arguments. The Bolshevik-Leninists, as well as the Party for Marxist Unification (POUM) for a short time, demanded that an independent role be pursued ever since Primo De Revera was ousted from power in 1930. As you have seen, in the online text that I provided, Trotsky was calling for a seperation from frontist tactics ever since 1931--a longevity of 5 years prior to the fascist uprising and the sectarian conflict that arised between certain 'socialist' groups.

I explained that the CNT proposed a working class-only government. Your reference to "stifling an uprising of the working class" can only be a reference to the May 1937 events. This happened six months AFTER the CNT had been manipulated into joining the Popular Front government, after the Left Socialists had refused to accept the CNT's proposal of a working class government. As I said before, you only want to talk about what happened in May of 1937. You also fail to note that the CNT itself was internally split over the May 1937 events.

As I have told you, several of times, there was certain groups that were calling for this 'working class-only government' ever since 1930, such as the Bolshevik-Leninists and POUM. They had been calling for the foundation of the congress of either newly-founded soviets, or of already existant factory committees. CNT-FAI had not called for this during this entire timespan, and they immediately confined themselves to the Anti-Fascist Committee.

Do you not read my posts? On Sept 3, 1936 the CNT held a national plenary where they approved a program that included the following:

a. regional and national Worker Congresses, elected from the assemblies at the base. this was part of the Zaragoza program, adopted by the CNT in May, 1936. they built a regional workers congress in the region of Aragon in Sept. 1936, after adopting the program I am here referring to.

b. a unified people's militia with unified command controlled by committees elected by the unions

c. National and Regional defense councils of delegates elected by the unions -- working class only bodies -- to control the social-self-defense function -- military, police, courts, to replace the Popular Front government.

Too bad it was too late--and that it was not even implemented. By this moment, they were already participating in the Anti-Fascist Committee, and in that same plenum that occured in August and September, the leadership made the conscious decision to join the bourgeois government.

syndicat

17th May 2007, 05:57

I am dropping the debate on Lenin and the Bolsheviks. I don't think you have a grasp of the material conditions in Russia, and that you have otherwise refused to listen to anything that I have written on this subject. I am guessing that you have only read anarchist interptations of these events; utterly dismissing any other sources as 'propaganda'. By admitting that you are unaware of the theories proposed by Lenin and Trotsky, you are conceding to the fact that you have no other perspective from the one that you were originally told.

Nope. Farber is a supporter of Solidarity, a Trotskyist group of sorts. Also, Vladimir Brovkin's "The Mensheviks After October" and another book, "Workers Against Lenin." These are not anarchist sources. Other sources I've read recently include Sheila Jackson's "The Russian Revolution". In other words, a variety of non-anarchist sources.

Anyway, i already said that it was possible that material conditions made it impossible for a society based on self-management by the producers to come into existence. I don't think you've proven that but, as I said, even if, for the sake of argument, I grant that, it is still true that revolutions can fail in a variety of ways, and reference to the "material conditions" doesn't explain the peculiar way that the revolution was defeated, by consolidating a coordinator ruling class, based on public or state property. Moreover, I think that the strategy and program of the Bolsheviks would have led to such a result even under more favorable circumstances, assuming they got the chance to carry it out.

me: "The "Popular Front" was based on unity between the petit bourgeoisie, professional/managerial strata, etc. and the working class. This is true. The CNT did not advocate this. In fact, every Marxist party in Spain accused the CNT of not being accomodating enough to the petit bourgeoisie -- this is true of the POUM, PSOE and PCE. "

"Every marxist party"? I think it is funny that you are now desperately resorting to lies in order to build on to the validity of your arguments. The Bolshevik-Leninists, as well as the Party for Marxist Unification (POUM) for a short time, demanded that an independent role be pursued ever since Primo De Revera was ousted from power in 1930. As you have seen, in the online text that I provided, Trotsky was calling for a seperation from frontist tactics ever since 1931--a longevity of 5 years prior to the fascist uprising and the sectarian conflict that arised between certain 'socialist' groups.

See, this is the thinking of a sect. the "Bolshevik/Leninists" had maybe 150 members. I guess I could have said, "Every significant Marxist party". The
CNT-FAI also called for an independent course. What do you think the Zaragoza Congress program called for? It called for workers congresses, overthrow of the state, etc.

re: Argentina:

Why are you equating engineers to 'old management'? I thought I told you that it has no relation to being a 'technician' or 'administrator'? They are wage-laborers; they receive more benefits and higher wages, so they normally do not possess the same militancy that the other workers have. I am talking about engineers.

Not just without engineers, without accountants, too. The workers had to teach themselves bookkeeping. I explicitly asked the people who made the Z video about this.

me: "I explained that the CNT proposed a working class-only government. Your reference to "stifling an uprising of the working class" can only be a reference to the May 1937 events. This happened six months AFTER the CNT had been manipulated into joining the Popular Front government, after the Left Socialists had refused to accept the CNT's proposal of a working class government. As I said before, you only want to talk about what happened in May of 1937. You also fail to note that the CNT itself was internally split over the May 1937 events."

As I have told you, several of times, there was certain groups that were calling for this 'working class-only government' ever since 1930, such as the Bolshevik-Leninists and POUM. They had been calling for the foundation of the congress of either newly-founded soviets, or of already existant factory committees. CNT-FAI had not called for this during this entire timespan, and they immediately confined themselves to the Anti-Fascist Committee.

Then why did the POUM join the Popular Front? POUM never called for "soviets". what do you mean by "already existent factory commitees"? Are you referring to the industrial federations the CNT created in July-Aug 1936? These were not independent of the unions.

And your statement about the CNT is simply false. I've already provided plenty of evidence of this. The CNT's Zaragoza Program, adopted at their congress in May 1936, called for workers congresses. The worker congresses and the free municipalities were to be the basis of social planning under a socialized economy, for the CNT.

You are apparently quite ignorant about how the CNT's joining the Anti-fascist Committee came about. There was a debate at a regional plenary of the CNT regional federation of Catalonia on July 23, 1936. The issue of the Companys proposal for an Anti-fascist Militia Commtitee was debated there. The unions of Baix Llobregat and the Nosotros group (Durruti, Garcia Oliver and others) advocated overthrowing the Commonwealth of Catalonia and the unions taking power. This was the CNT's program -- a point you conveniently ignore.

However, certain influential writers from the FAI, Montseny and de Santillan, were able to persuade the assembled delegates to "temporarily" join the Anti-fascist Militia Committee.

What you conveniently leave out is that this was a decision to not carry out the CNT's program.

Moreover, this didn't settle the question. The debate in the union continued for another six weeks, and the moves of the Communist Party for the rebuilding of a conventional army prompted them to propose overthrowing the Republican government in Sept. 1936, as I pointed out. You say that was too late but you've not provided any evidence of this.

Too bad it was too late--and that it was not even implemented. By this moment, they were already participating in the Anti-Fascist Committee, and in that same plenum that occured in August and September, the leadership made the conscious decision to join the bourgeois government.

Why do you say it was too late? I think not. The Republican army and police had not yet been rebuilt. the CNT still held de facto armed power in Catalonia. The unions had expropriated most of the countries industries and were running these industries. The "factory committees" you refer to were the union committees. Typically the shop stewards committee was converted into the workplace administrative council, accountable to a general assembly.

Moreover, you are totally wrong when you say a decision was made in "August and September" to join the "bourgeois" government. They made in fact exactly the opposite decision, and what do you mean by "leadership"? A plenary is a large meeting of rank and file delegates.

It was at the national plenary in Sept. 3 they adopted the program to overthrow the national Popular Front government and replace it with a National Defense Council, accountable to a National Workers Congress. I've already explained this.
You seem to not know what you're talking about. The exact dates of these plenaries and the National Defense Council proposal are described in "Los anarquistas y el poder" by Cesar Lorenzo.

The decision to join the national Popular Front government wasn't made til November 1936, and the decision to join the Commonwealth of Catalonia government wasn't made til Sept 26 1936. So you simply have your facts wrong.
Throughout Sept and Oct Solidaridad Obrera in Barcelona and Castilla Libre in Madrid were making a major campaign in favor of the National Defense Council and the unified revolutionary militia. This campaign didn't end til the joining of the Popular Front government in November. The switch in line in November was why Liberto Callejas and Jaime Balius were fired, two journalists at Solidaridad Obrera who refused to go along with the Popular Front collaboration decision. A few months later they played a key role in setting up the Friends of Durruti group, to revive the push for the defense council proposal.

The CNT's really big mistake was joining the Commonwealth of Catalonia government on Sept. 26. That sent exactly the wrong message to the UGT leadership and the Left Socialists, who tended to waver.

In his biography of Durruti, Abel Paz points out that Durruti knew they had to force the hand of Largo Caballero, due to his tendency to waver. That is why Durruti thought setting up a union government in Aragon was so important. And on the initiative of the CNT unions, the Defense Council of Aragon was set up in Sept. and a regional workers congress was invoked, which elected the defense council, which was effectively the government of the region. The problem was that they didn't do this in Catalonia where they had the power. Doing so was called for in the program they had agreed to in early Sept 1936. It was a failure to carry out their own program.

But you falsely assert they had no program for workers replacing the state with their own institutions of power.

syndicat

17th May 2007, 19:59

Just to elaborate on one point, i pointed out that the POUM did not call for "soviets". This is one of the points where the POUM chided Trotsky for being out of touch with the revolutionary working class tradition in Spain. The soviets of 1905 had arisen in Russia in a context where unions hadn't existed, they were illegal under the czarist police state. but in Spain there was a long tradition of a very anti-bureaucratic form of radical unionism.

the POUM were ex-anarcho-syndicalists. after WWI when they became Bolshevik supporters, they still had syndicalist leanings and were "syndicalist-Communists". in the USA, UK, France and some other countries there were "syndicalist-Communists" also but they eventually adopted conventional Leninist ideas. but in Catalonia the "Communist-syndicalists" ended up outside the 3rd International, and that is the origins of the POUM. in the revolution of 1936 they constructed a union government in their stronghold of Lleida. this is similar to the CNT's orientation.

in the debate at the regional CNT plenary of July 23rd over whether to overthrow the government, the issue was whether the unions should take over (tho they didn't use the language of "taking power" that's what it would have amounted to). The group pushing for overthrow of the regional government of Catalonia and for carrying out their libertarian communist program were the unions of Baix Llobregat, an industrial working class suburban region south of Barcelona, an area of blast furnaces, metal-working plants and textile mills. when their proposal was defeated at the regional plenary, they walked out in anger. They proceeded to overthrow the city government in Hospitalet de Llobregat, the main city in their area, and they replaced it with a revolutionary committee elected by the CNT unions. they also expropriated the economy of the city and equalized all wages.

so, it was a union government, just as the POUM did in Lleida.

Question everything

17th May 2007, 22:57

Instead of arguing, Lets all be friends :D

ReDSt4R

19th May 2007, 07:29

Originally posted by apathy maybe+April 27, 2007 03:39 pm--> (apathy maybe @ April 27, 2007 03:39 pm)
Zampanò@April 26, 2007 05:08 am

By who?

The bourgeoisie? Foreign intervention as well as bourgeois agents within the country. It seems like you think that after the proletariat gains power, everything will be completely peaceful. You don't find anything wrong with that?
The bourgeoisie will be in no position to do anything more then random acts of terrorism or similar. They are tiny majority, and once they do not control the army or police they will be no threat that requires a state. You do not need a state to defend against foreign enemies, this was shown by the anarchist militias in Catalonia and Aragon during the Spanish Civil War.

Of course there will still be violence after the revolution, but not the sort that requires a state, the source of so much violence, to prevent it.

In the only revolution I can envision, all people, everywhere will be armed and fighting to fully crush the 'state apparatus' themselves. AFTER the revolution, I assume that we would mostly still be armed. Anyone participating in the set-up of a new state structure should expect that some (hopefully most) people will be intent on a full revolution, and will only keep on fighting.

Why would the proletariat fight against their own creation of their own state?
Of course, so much of this discussion is semantical, what is the state? Anarchists don't believe that there can be such a thing as a majority state, and thus the proletariat in those place where it is the majority, cannot form a state. Though certainly people claiming to represent the working class could form a state.

reeks of state-capitalism. It reeks of fascim. We all agree that the end goal is no state (well, probably most of the Marxists, C/communists and anarchists). In striving toward that goal, it is outrageuos to simply let another state structure develop out of the ashes the revolution.

It's not outrageous at all, if you understand Marxist theory.Again, semantics. Different definition of a state. I'm sure you would agree that it would be outrageous for a new state to develop that was controlled by a small minority of the proletariat.

Imposition of a state after a revolution has never proven to lead to communism.

Nothing has lead to communism. This argument is shit.The argument isn't shit, because the imposition of a state after a revolution, has been tried. Tried and failed. But otherwise, yes I agree. [/b]
So what did happen to those anarchist militias in Catalonia and Aragon during the Spanish Civil War?

Why didn't the Paris commune last?

I promise you ,you just can't kill everyone who disagrees with you and hope your stateless society will hold. There will always be terrorism or the possibility of foreign intervention and internal army/militia coup as long as there is instability in the air. There must be a system in which people have become accustomed to and depend on to be pacified. Then peace will hold in a stateless society when it is in everyones interest to maintain that society. But this requires healthy democracy within the state and party for it to eventually become as useful as the monarchy in Europe today. Not to mention you'll just be a really big target for the capitalists all over the world to shoot at.

syndicat

19th May 2007, 15:40

So what did happen to those anarchist militias in Catalonia and Aragon during the Spanish Civil War?

They were absorbed into a rebuilt conventional army...which performed very poorly, partly because the manipulation and sectarianism of the Communists was demoralizing. It was the Communist-controlled Republican state that lost to the fascists. And the Communists made the same arguments you do as to why such a state was needed.

apathy maybe

19th May 2007, 20:57

Originally posted by ReDSt4R

So what did happen to those anarchist militias in Catalonia and Aragon during the Spanish Civil War?

Why didn't the Paris commune last?Hey and welcome to the board. Interesting first post that seems to put your political position (I assume that you are a Leninist or similar).

Anyway, the anarchist militias were defeated by outside forces, because they had ancient weapons and were being sabotaged behind the lines as well. The Communist Party is at least partly indirectly responsible for both of these. The modern weapons that found their way to the Republicans (from the USSR) were controlled by the Communist Party ...

So, it wasn't the lack of a state that did them in...

In the case of the Paris Commune, again it wasn't the lack of a state, but rather external forces.

I promise you ,you just can't kill everyone who disagrees with you and hope your stateless society will hold. There will always be terrorism or the possibility of foreign intervention and internal army/militia coup as long as there is instability in the air. There must be a system in which people have become accustomed to and depend on to be pacified. Then peace will hold in a stateless society when it is in everyones interest to maintain that society. But this requires healthy democracy within the state and party for it to eventually become as useful as the monarchy in Europe today. Not to mention you'll just be a really big target for the capitalists all over the world to shoot at.And I fail to see how what you say will not also be the case in a "state society".

Labor Shall Rule

19th May 2007, 23:20

but in Spain there was a long tradition of a very anti-bureaucratic form of radical unionism.

That is where I draw my criticism; they denied all political participation, and as so they failed to establish an independent position from the other classes that participated in the Civil War.

in the debate at the regional CNT plenary of July 23rd over whether to overthrow the government, the issue was whether the unions should take over (tho they didn't use the language of "taking power" that's what it would have amounted to). The group pushing for overthrow of the regional government of Catalonia and for carrying out their libertarian communist program were the unions of Baix Llobregat, an industrial working class suburban region south of Barcelona, an area of blast furnaces, metal-working plants and textile mills. when their proposal was defeated at the regional plenary, they walked out in anger. They proceeded to overthrow the city government in Hospitalet de Llobregat, the main city in their area, and they replaced it with a revolutionary committee elected by the CNT unions. they also expropriated the economy of the city and equalized all wages.

They didn't use the language of 'taking over'? Their proposal was defeated at the regional plenary? I think that shows that there was class forces present at the plenary that did not hold the resolutions proposed by the revolutionary workers close to their heart, it shows the inherent unwillingness and weakness of the leadership, and their compromising attitude to the Republicans. It shows bankruptcy at it's best, a complete betrayal of the working people of Spain.

Durruti, though I will not discredit him as a 'class traitor', presented this weakness since he knew the State had not been destroyed, and he ignored the fact that they were entering a bipartisan alliance with the P.C.E. He stated that "we have only one purpose: to destroy the fascists". Durruti continues to put it well: "our militia will never defend the bourgeoisie, they just do not attack it". A fortnight before his death (November 21, 1936), Durruti stated:

Durruti:
"A single thought, a single objective...: destroy fascism.... At the present time no one is concerned about increasing wages or reducing hours of work... to sacrifice oneself, to work as much as required... we must form a solid block of granite. The moment has arrived for the unions and political organizations to finish with the enemy once and for all. Behind the front, administrative skills are necessary.... After this war is over, let's not provoke, through our incompetence, another civil war among ourselves.... To oppose fascist tyranny, we must present a single force: there must exist only a single organization, with a single discipline."

In other words, the leadership, though they might not be 'bourgeois' or 'counterrevolutionary', put their confidence in the capitalist state, and faced the concequences of being striked and poisoned with the dagger of class collaborationism since the bourgeoisie easily took advantage of their position to subordinate the anarchists to their demands. They made no efforts to gain a position of independent political superiority; relying to their 'radical unionism', instead of working within the preexisting parliamentarian bodies, and instead forming organs of power prior to the events of the fascist uprising. Even if the objective factors existed for forming such working class organizations, the subjective factor of the leadership failed to take it a step farther, under the fallacious pretext of soviet organization "being too Russian" for them.

syndicat

20th May 2007, 01:28

Look, you confuse the reality with the language. Because they refuse to use your language, you won't look at the actual content of what they were proposing? that is a sectarian method.

let's look carefully at what the actual program of the CNT was as decided at the national plenary Sept. 3, 1936:

1. replace the national Republican government with a National Defense Council composed of an equal number of delegates elected by the UGT and CNT union federations. This Council would be elected by, and accountable to, a National Workers Congress, which would replace the parliament. The Congress would consist of delegates elected by worker assemblies at the base. In the case of controversial or important questions, decisions could be referred back to the base assemblies for decision.

There would also be regional defense councils elected by, and accountable to, regional congresses.

2. The National Defense Council would have authority only over the social self-defense function: police, the unified people's militia (armed forces), and courts. The industries would be managed by the workers through industrial federations. The industrial federations would adhere to social plans developed by the regional and national worker congresses and local community assemblies ("free municipalities").

3. The various components of the unified people's militia would be controlled by "CNT-UGT joint commissions", delegates elected by the two union federations, and delegates elected by the militia members. This was to ensure control of the armed forces by organized labor.

Now, this structure, if implemented, would have meant that the organized working class would have had a monpoly of political, economic and armed power. They didn't speak in the language of "taking power", however. Nor would political parties have had any formal representation in this at all, tho they would have had informal influence via their supporters in the unions.

It seems obvious to me that, if this program had been implemented, the working class would have had power. do you agree?

now, as to the alleged views of Durruti, you don't say what source you are using or where the quotes are from. in fact i think you have misrepresented his view.

I'd like to point out that one of the main advocates for the National Defense Council proposal, which I described above, was Durruti. This is why, in Sept. 1936, he backed the CNT setting up a regional assembly of delegates from the village assemblies in Aragon, and a CNT regional defense council of Aragon, elected by this congress. This is pointed out in Abel Paz's biography of Durruti, recently published by AK Press. Durruti is quoted as saying that it was critical for the unions to set up this governing structure in Aragon to put pressure on Caballero and his associates -- the Left Socialist leaders of the UGT -- to get their agreement to the national defense council proposal.

this directly contradicts the view that you attribute to him, as does in fact a lot of the material in Abel Paz's biolgraphy.

it shows the inherent unwillingness and weakness of the leadership, and their compromising attitude to the Republicans.

You're saying this of a group who advocated overthrowing the Commonwealth of Catalonia government, controlled by the Left Republicans of Catalonia, and who wanted the unions to take over the running of the region?? During the debate at that plenary on July 23, 1936, Garcia Oliver, speaking for the group from Baix Llobregat, argued that a "revolution has to be governed" and that it was the responsibility of the CNT, as the majority labor organization, to do this.

In a letter he sent to Abel Paz in the 1970s Garcia Oliver notes, however, that he didn't use the language of "taking power". To the anarchists the language of "taking power" would suggest the setting up of a state in which political party leaders would run things, and that is not what they were proposing. They were proposing that the mass organizations of workers be in control. There is a distinction between institutions of popular power based on assemblies at the base versus a state, where political party leaders try to implement a program topdown thru a state hierarchy.

Labor Shall Rule

20th May 2007, 14:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:28 am
Look, you confuse the reality with the language. Because they refuse to use your language, you won't look at the actual content of what they were proposing? that is a sectarian method.

let's look carefully at what the actual program of the CNT was as decided at the national plenary Sept. 3, 1936:

1. replace the national Republican government with a National Defense Council composed of an equal number of delegates elected by the UGT and CNT union federations. This Council would be elected by, and accountable to, a National Workers Congress, which would replace the parliament. The Congress would consist of delegates elected by worker assemblies at the base. In the case of controversial or important questions, decisions could be referred back to the base assemblies for decision.

There would also be regional defense councils elected by, and accountable to, regional congresses.

2. The National Defense Council would have authority only over the social self-defense function: police, the unified people's militia (armed forces), and courts. The industries would be managed by the workers through industrial federations. The industrial federations would adhere to social plans developed by the regional and national worker congresses and local community assemblies ("free municipalities").

3. The various components of the unified people's militia would be controlled by "CNT-UGT joint commissions", delegates elected by the two union federations, and delegates elected by the militia members. This was to ensure control of the armed forces by organized labor.

Now, this structure, if implemented, would have meant that the organized working class would have had a monpoly of political, economic and armed power. They didn't speak in the language of "taking power", however. Nor would political parties have had any formal representation in this at all, tho they would have had informal influence via their supporters in the unions.

It seems obvious to me that, if this program had been implemented, the working class would have had power. do you agree?

now, as to the alleged views of Durruti, you don't say what source you are using or where the quotes are from. in fact i think you have misrepresented his view.

I'd like to point out that one of the main advocates for the National Defense Council proposal, which I described above, was Durruti. This is why, in Sept. 1936, he backed the CNT setting up a regional assembly of delegates from the village assemblies in Aragon, and a CNT regional defense council of Aragon, elected by this congress. This is pointed out in Abel Paz's biography of Durruti, recently published by AK Press. Durruti is quoted as saying that it was critical for the unions to set up this governing structure in Aragon to put pressure on Caballero and his associates -- the Left Socialist leaders of the UGT -- to get their agreement to the national defense council proposal.

this directly contradicts the view that you attribute to him, as does in fact a lot of the material in Abel Paz's biolgraphy.

it shows the inherent unwillingness and weakness of the leadership, and their compromising attitude to the Republicans.

You're saying this of a group who advocated overthrowing the Commonwealth of Catalonia government, controlled by the Left Republicans of Catalonia, and who wanted the unions to take over the running of the region?? During the debate at that plenary on July 23, 1936, Garcia Oliver, speaking for the group from Baix Llobregat, argued that a "revolution has to be governed" and that it was the responsibility of the CNT, as the majority labor organization, to do this.

In a letter he sent to Abel Paz in the 1970s Garcia Oliver notes, however, that he didn't use the language of "taking power". To the anarchists the language of "taking power" would suggest the setting up of a state in which political party leaders would run things, and that is not what they were proposing. They were proposing that the mass organizations of workers be in control. There is a distinction between institutions of popular power based on assemblies at the base versus a state, where political party leaders try to implement a program topdown thru a state hierarchy.

Look, you confuse the reality with the language. Because they refuse to use your language, you won't look at the actual content of what they were proposing? that is a sectarian method.

Well, as the state 'taken over'? Did they 'smash' it? That is the reality, and I think the reformist diatribe on not 'taking over' certainly asserts itself to the realm of truth.

Now, this structure, if implemented, would have meant that the organized working class would have had a monpoly of political, economic and armed power. They didn't speak in the language of "taking power", however. Nor would political parties have had any formal representation in this at all, tho they would have had informal influence via their supporters in the unions.

Notice what you wrote, 'if implemented'! These weren't implemented, and you have plainly admitted to it without any emphasis or in respective correlation to what I wrote earlier. As such, since they didn't use the language of 'taking over', and they never did, I think that we can come to the realization that this was not a matter of heroic revolutionism, but cowardly reformism that reached a point of mere dialogue at a moment in which the working class was at it's most vulnerable point of either bourgeois absorption or fascist destruction was taunted fluently at these plenaries. While the Bolsheviks and anarchists of Russia had called for 'all power to the soviets', a slogan that urged for the workers to seize the political power for themselves, the Spanish anarchists flatly denied this proposition, and as such, they never 'took power' and their flowerly language expelled from their mouths at this plenary was all talk, and was never taken into effect.

now, as to the alleged views of Durruti, you don't say what source you are using or where the quotes are from. in fact i think you have misrepresented his view.

Fascism/Anti-fascism (http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/fasant06.htm)

I'd like to point out that one of the main advocates for the National Defense Council proposal, which I described above, was Durruti. This is why, in Sept. 1936, he backed the CNT setting up a regional assembly of delegates from the village assemblies in Aragon, and a CNT regional defense council of Aragon, elected by this congress. This is pointed out in Abel Paz's biography of Durruti, recently published by AK Press. Durruti is quoted as saying that it was critical for the unions to set up this governing structure in Aragon to put pressure on Caballero and his associates -- the Left Socialist leaders of the UGT -- to get their agreement to the national defense council proposal.

this directly contradicts the view that you attribute to him, as does in fact a lot of the material in Abel Paz's biolgraphy.

It's hilarious, because the source I just provided quoted Durruti's last words from Durruti: The People Armed by Abel Paz.

syndicat

20th May 2007, 16:11

You didn't answer my question. if implemented, would that program have amounted to a taking of power by the working class? i think it obviously would have. their program was obviously not "reformist".

I explained why they didn't use the language of "taking power." That's because, for them, that referred to the authoritarian method of a political party taking state power, and then implementing its program top down through the state. That's inconsistent with building working class power from below.

the method of a PARTY "taking power", as practiced by the Bolsheviks in Russia, inevitably leads to the emergence of a new dominating class, a coordinator class of managers and professionals ruling over the workers. this is different than the working class acquring the power to run the society. that requires a different kind of structure.

as to the quote from Durruti, "we don't defend the bougesoisie, we just don't attack it", that's taken out of context. to know what it means we'd have to know the context.

the CNT expropriated more than 18,000 enterprises in Spain, thousands of urban buildings including the mansions of the rich, millions of acres of agricultural land. that is hardly "not attacking the bourgeoisie."

but the CNT could not consolidate the revolution in Spain without the cooperation of the UGT. and the Marxist parties in the UGT vetoed the CNT's proposal for overthrowing the national Republican government.

Rawthentic

20th May 2007, 19:26

I explained why they didn't use the language of "taking power." That's because, for them, that referred to the authoritarian method of a political party taking state power, and then implementing its program top down through the state. That's inconsistent with building working class power from below.
Revolution is the most authoritarian act one can commit. The working class takes power and implements its power from the bottom, like soviets or worker's councils, and builds its state to protect the revolution.

syndicat

21st May 2007, 01:31

You're paraphrasing Engels. But "authoritarian", as I am using it, means a method that sets up a power hierarchy, concentrating power in the hands of some over others. "Authoritarian" doesn't mean merely that authority is being exercised. If you look at the modern state, what is characteristic of it is a corporate-style hierarchy of professionals and managers presiding over public workers, and chain-of-command hierarchies over bodies of professional armed forces.

when your boss tells you what to do, that relationship is "authoritarian". get the idea?

I described what the program of the CNT was. Power of the working class in that program would be based on an egalitarian unified people's militia, controlled directly by the workers' mass organizations. By "egalitarian" i mean an absence of special priviledges for officers. The power of the working class would be based on regional and national worker assemblies, made up of delegates elected by the assemblies at the base. The congresses would elect defense councils to oversee the militia and courts. But the defense councils would not control a hierarchy controlling production. These defense councils and assemblies were to be organized by the workers' mass organizations, the unions. This structure is what would replace the state.

Rawthentic

21st May 2007, 02:31

I agree with what you say, except that you are describing for a state in its political form, but I might add that its purpose is the suppression of counterrevolutionary forces.

Its also what we in the Communist League fight for; just what you described, direct worker's control of society, none of that "specialist" crap.

Labor Shall Rule

21st May 2007, 04:12

You didn't answer my question. if implemented, would that program have amounted to a taking of power by the working class? i think it obviously would have. their program was obviously not "reformist".

You never asked me a question, refer to your prior posts before you throw around something like that. It doesn't matter what the content of the program was, if it was never implemented; if the workers never 'took power' through these organizations, if they never moved up the political chain of dominance in a moment of intense competition between dueling classes, then the program has ultimately rendered itself completely useless, and reveals the incompetence and weakness of the leadership to up the ante. As Trotsky said in The Lessons of Spain-The Last Warning, those who "renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters". Their cooperation--and eventual alliance with the Popular Front, had left them vulnerable, and lead to the demoralization, and continued disenfranchisement of the working class as factories and haciendas were returned to their owners.

the CNT expropriated more than 18,000 enterprises in Spain, thousands of urban buildings including the mansions of the rich, millions of acres of agricultural land. that is hardly "not attacking the bourgeoisie."

A number of foreign-owned plants were not confiscated; 87 British enterprises were protected by agreement with the British Consulate. They also willingly accepted the slogan of the Spanish Communist Party to "respect the land of the small industrialist and small farmer", distributing posters and pamphlets that were meant to relax and pacify the revolutionary zeal of the workers in Barcelona and elsewhere. The fact that they did not even choose to take it higher, to smash the bourgeois state, but rather, to cooperate and later enter it, had left them in a position of "not attacking the bourgeoisie", whether you like it or not.

but the CNT could not consolidate the revolution in Spain without the cooperation of the UGT. and the Marxist parties in the UGT vetoed the CNT's proposal for overthrowing the national Republican government.

If Soviets were formed years prior to this event, in 1931 when the material basis for them originally existed, they would of been binded by the representatives of all the toilers of both the city and country, including the most oppressed strata, who never joined the trade unions. The revolutionary workers; the most advanced and militant sections, would of naturally posessed the the dominant position in these soviets. It would of binded the two rivaling unions under a single form of organization, removing the factor of partisan unionism and granting them a position of invincible strength that would of put them in the saddle. As Trotsky went on to say, "one strong blow would have sufficed to pulverize this apparatus", which is certainly true when examing this situation. The spasm initiated in 1936 was something that the world had never witnessed in the past, with workers seizing their factories, peasants seizing their land, for the first time since the Russian Revolution, but without the proper forms of political and economic inner-organization and accountable leadership, they were simply pulverized and it became an abortive failure.

I think that CNT should of went on past their request--if they truly represented the revolutionary workers and layers of the peasantry, they would of ignored this restriction placed on them, and put the working class in the position of the state power, but they never did! The Bolsheviks did that, even if the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries were bitterly opposed.

syndicat

21st May 2007, 07:10

the soviets, as formed in 1905, were an inter-workplace strike committee, a kind of labor council of the organizations formed by the workers in the workplaces. the reason this type of organization was formed as the expression of worker class struggle was the existence of the czarist police state, which prevented the formation of ongoing union organizations.

the situation in Spain was quite different. following Trotsky you impose a model from another country on a situation that was different. how this is consistent with Marx's materialiist method i will leave you to explain.

in Spain the workers had a long tradition of forming highly unbureaucratic workplace union organizations. the unions of the CNT were really the equivalent of the factory committee movement in the Russian revolution. and it is worth noting that the Russian factory committees existed because of the inadequacies of the soviets as organs of worker struggle -- as described by Pete Rachleff in "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian revolution." But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your Trot dogma.

so you're proposing a less democratic type of organization -- the Russian soviets of 1917 as a replacement for the directly democratic mass unions of the CNT of the 1930s. sorry, that's a laugh.

again, you refused to answer my question. and i did explicitly pose this question to you. is the CNT's program of Sept 1936 a program for the working class taking power in Spain or not? I think it obviously is. If it is, then Trotsky is full of shit when he says they had no such program.

now you said it doesn't matter if they did nothing to implement it. here my answer is more complex. i've agreed that joining the government of the Generalitat Sept 26 1936 was a big mistake. They should have destroyed the Generalitat and carried out their program.

but it's not entirely true they did nothing to implement the program. i've already mentioned they carried out the program in Aragon in Sept. 1936, setting up a union government in that region. the problem was they needed to do this in Catalonia.

Now, where we seem to disagree is over the explanation for that failure. you suggested, as did Trotsky, that it was due to lacking a program for worker power. I've already refuted that.

the problem was a personal failure of the leading FAI people in the CNT of Catalonia, that they set themselves against the CNT, at that crucial moment, carrying out its own program.