What made me stop calling myself an anarchist.

[black magick hustla]

I am an authoritarian.

Clearly every communist that believes in revolutionary change is an authoritarian. You don't have a tea party with a bunch of dangerous fascists--you confront them violently.

When Makhno shot that antisemite fuck, he was being an authoritarian.

When the spanish anarchists killed thousands of nuns and priests for concretely supporting fascism, they were authoritarians.

We communists are willing to impose our subjectivity upon others, for we are not liberals.

We don't believe that every point of view holds equal weight.

[JazzRemington]

Destroying authority to liberate one's self is not authoritarian.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, as Engel's said, a revolution is indeed authoritarian.. it is one of the most authoritarian things on earth..

[Rawthentic]

Its one class imposing its entire will on another.

I agree with Engels.

[Taboo Tongue]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:34 pm
Destroying authority to liberate one's self is not authoritarian.
I agree with the others.
If we look at revolutions objectively it is essentially [one] class[es] saying to the other[s] "fuck you, your time is through, bow down or be mowed down."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:15 am
I am an authoritarian.
There, there. Separate yourself a little more from the "fun" anarchists and become a full-fledged "Leninist." ;)

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] May 22, 2007, 11:15 pm
You don't have a tea party with a bunch of dangerous fascists--you confront them violently.

Well said. You don't have tea with members of the bourgeois class setting their sights on capitalist restoration, you put them to work in labor camps if they cause too much trouble. You don't have tea with bureaucrats ignorant of the principles of criticism and self-criticism and who abuse their power, you purge them from the proletarian dictatorship.

It's nonsense to think that revolution on all levels of society will happen peacefully.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+May 23, 2007 05:33 am--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ May 23, 2007 05:33 am)
[email protected] May 22, 2007, 11:15 pm
You don't have a tea party with a bunch of dangerous fascists--you confront them violently.

Well said. You don't have tea with members of the bourgeois class setting their sights on capitalist restoration, you put them to work in labor camps if they cause too much trouble. You don't have tea with bureaucrats ignorant of the principles of criticism and self-criticism and who abuse their power, you purge them from the proletarian dictatorship.

It's nonsense to think that revolution on all levels of society will happen peacefully. [/b]
How many Stalin's clones are all over the world still. It's deadlock way for proletarian revolution. The only possible way is Proletarian Socialism i.e. DofP i.e. Proletarian Parliament which is Dictatorship and Democracy simultaneously and "three in one" economy i.e. three immiscible economic sectors: the usual bourgeois, the state capitalist and the nonmarket (without money) communist sectors.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+May 23, 2007 03:33 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ May 23, 2007 03:33 pm)
[email protected] May 22, 2007, 11:15 pm
You don't have a tea party with a bunch of dangerous fascists--you confront them violently.

Well said. You don't have tea with members of the bourgeois class setting their sights on capitalist restoration, you put them to work in labor camps if they cause too much trouble. You don't have tea with bureaucrats ignorant of the principles of criticism and self-criticism and who abuse their power, you purge them from the proletarian dictatorship.

It's nonsense to think that revolution on all levels of society will happen peacefully. [/b]
You say this as if it's even remotely controversial???

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:15 am
I am an authoritarian.

Clearly every communist that believes in revolutionary change is an authoritarian. You don't have a tea party with a bunch of dangerous fascists--you confront them violently.

When Makhno shot that antisemite fuck, he was being an authoritarian.

When the spanish anarchists killed thousands of nuns and priests for concretely supporting fascism, they were authoritarians.

We communists are willing to impose our subjectivity upon others, for we are not liberals.

We don't believe that every point of view holds equal weight.
Is it authoritarian to defend yourself?

[R_P_A_S]

damn. this opens up a new can of worms for me. because I feel that yes.. we need to be authoritarian...during revolution to get rid of the counter revolutionaries and reactionaries.. but for how long? and aren't the bourgeoisie authoritarian them selves? towards revolutionaries?

why do WE get the bad rep of being authoritarian? more than they do? and they being doing it for years.

because they give us "freedom".. ahh yes that thing called having money.. <_<

[KC]

Destroying authority to liberate one&#39;s self is not authoritarian.

You can&#39;t "destroy authority" until you destroy classes.

[apathy maybe]

I call myself an anarchist for a simple reason. I want an anarchistic society, and I believe that the way to get there is though using anarchistic methods.

Whatever that means.

[Sentinel]

While a revolution entails deeds by the proletarian class which are authoritarian, it&#39;s striving for a revolutionary uprising, change and society without involving a central authority which differentiates anarchists from other revolutionary leftists.

[The Grey Blur]

How is the use of a central organisation "authoritarian"?

Or is it just a buzz word that you can throw at anything you don&#39;t agree with.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:15 pm
I am an authoritarian.

I don&#39;t buy it&#33; :D

The label &#39;authoritarian&#39; as used by libcoms and anarchists, i.e. in the ye olde &#39;authoritarian communists vs. anti-authoritarian communists&#39; binary, has a different meaning to the one you are giving it here.

When the term &#39;authoritarian&#39; is used it usually applies to the philosophy or approach taken by some communists to revolutionary organisation (as perceived by libcoms/anarchists anyway); specifically the centralising of decision making power (common in highly hierarchal organisation), as well the seizing or use of state power &#39;in the name of the working class&#39; or of a communist party. It is these structures/actions which are regarded from a libcom/anarchist perspective as &#39;authoritarian.&#39; Ones that don&#39;t empower ALL working class people, but rather a state or specific political authority which may have the authority to make decisions on peoples behalf, and which may lack broad accountability to the class as a whole. With &#39;anti-authoritarian&#39; organisation focusing on the de-centralising of power (whilst retaining organisation obviously) and autonomy of action.

So in this sense i think the meaning you&#39;re attaching to the term differs to the usual meaning implied by libcoms/anarchists in political rhetoric.

Anarchists or libcoms may even admit that revolution is an &#39;authoritarian&#39; act; though obviously as you can read in some of the libcom/anarchists responses already, some people would dispute that as well, i.e. &#39;the abolition of authority is inherently anti-authoritarian&#39; because it&#39;s not replacing one authority with a new one, but abolishing authority all together etc. ... But in the literal sense you are using the term &#39;authoritarian&#39; - i.e. arguably the working class is &#39;imposing it&#39;s will&#39; on the bourgeoisie via armed struggle, an &#39;authoritarian&#39; act - some libcoms/anarchist may agree in that context with describing armed struggle as &#39;authoritarian&#39;... but that wouldnt make them &#39;authoritarian communists&#39;; merely revolutionaries. Because when they use the term &#39;authoritarian&#39; it has specific connotations (this type of semantic wrangling is common in libcom/anarchist/marxist debates).

As i said before, the label &#39;authoritarian&#39; is being used to describe something broader, a political approach or philosophy to revolutionary organisation - not class war itself but the way people organise for class war and how they wish to organise a post-capitalist society. You don&#39;t have to agree with that perspective, but that&#39;s the way the term is usually applied, it&#39;s politically specific.

So from that point of view, unless you&#39;re politics have changed dramatically, i&#39;d wager that you&#39;re still an &#39;anti-authoritarian&#39;, and thus still an &#39;anarchist&#39; or whatever ideological label you &#39;used&#39; to identify with.

[Rawthentic]

Well said. You don&#39;t have tea with members of the bourgeois class setting their sights on capitalist restoration, you put them to work in labor camps if they cause too much trouble. You don&#39;t have tea with bureaucrats ignorant of the principles of criticism and self-criticism and who abuse their power, you purge them from the proletarian dictatorship.

It&#39;s nonsense to think that revolution on all levels of society will happen peacefully.

Last time that happened workers were being put into them. ;)

[The Author]

Originally posted by sanpal+ May 23, 2007, 02:50 am--> (sanpal &#064; May 23, 2007, 02:50 am)How many Stalin&#39;s clones are all over the world still. It&#39;s deadlock way for proletarian revolution. The only possible way is Proletarian Socialism i.e. DofP i.e. Proletarian Parliament which is Dictatorship and Democracy simultaneously and "three in one" economy i.e. three immiscible economic sectors: the usual bourgeois, the state capitalist and the nonmarket (without money) communist sectors.[/b]

We "Stalinists" (Marxist-Leninists) are just as much for democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat as you are. And as for economics, as Marx said, some of the factors of capitalism will survive in socialism, that&#39;s why it is the first phase of communism, in preparation for the second phase- the classless, resource fulfilled society that will satisfy everyone&#39;s needs.


Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] May 23, 2007, 02:54 am

You say this as if it&#39;s even remotely controversial???

Do I? That was not my intention if you think so.


[email protected] May 23, 2007, 10:31 a.m.
Last time that happened workers were being put into them. ;)

Oh, but you don&#39;t really know if these prisoners were really "workers," do you? I mean, it&#39;s not like you read the criminal reports or analyzed the cases of each of these convicts. It would be better to assume that some were workers who committed the worse offense, and then some were serious class enemies, rather than saying with certainty that the people in the labor camps were 100% of the working class.

Anyway, back on topic, authoritarian points out to violence used by the dictatorship of the proletariat in ensuring that the bourgeois class never retakes power, for they can and will do so. Sometimes mistakes will be made in administering power in this dictatorship, but we are not utopians (or at least I do not think we are, the last time we checked). We cannot expect to carry out the revolution to perfection when it is in motion. There are definitely going to be instances when mistakes are made and the proletariat will have to learn from those mistakes in order to improve themselves in the construction of socialism and communism.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 23, 2007 02:18 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 23, 2007 02:18 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 04:15 am
I am an authoritarian.

Clearly every communist that believes in revolutionary change is an authoritarian. You don&#39;t have a tea party with a bunch of dangerous fascists--you confront them violently.

When Makhno shot that antisemite fuck, he was being an authoritarian.

When the spanish anarchists killed thousands of nuns and priests for concretely supporting fascism, they were authoritarians.

We communists are willing to impose our subjectivity upon others, for we are not liberals.

We don&#39;t believe that every point of view holds equal weight.
Is it authoritarian to defend yourself? [/b]
It is not if it done by an Anarchist. But it is when it is done by 3V&#33;L Leninists.:lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by g.ram+May 23, 2007 04:14 pm--> (g.ram @ May 23, 2007 04:14 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 23, 2007 02:18 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 04:15 am
I am an authoritarian.

Clearly every communist that believes in revolutionary change is an authoritarian. You don&#39;t have a tea party with a bunch of dangerous fascists--you confront them violently.

When Makhno shot that antisemite fuck, he was being an authoritarian.

When the spanish anarchists killed thousands of nuns and priests for concretely supporting fascism, they were authoritarians.

We communists are willing to impose our subjectivity upon others, for we are not liberals.

We don&#39;t believe that every point of view holds equal weight.
Is it authoritarian to defend yourself?
It is not if it done by an Anarchist. But it is when it is done by 3V&#33;L Leninists.:lol: [/b]
Very true.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:15 am
We don&#39;t believe that every point of view holds equal weight.
So why are you not an anarchist? that&#39;s a perfectly anarchic position, we&#39;re against centeralised power. Not "authority" authority exists in everything.

By sitting here, I prevent others from doing so, so im authorotarian. It&#39;s an absurd position.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:14 pm
It is not if it done by an Anarchist. But it is when it is done by 3V&#33;L Leninists.:lol:
Depends what&#39;s being defended, a centeralised state? or the working class?

[syndicat]

Just as there are different interpretations of "socialism," there are different interpretations of "anarchism". Anarchism, as I interpret it, is not opposed to the existence of "authority." The real issue is how authority is to be organized. If a community governs itself, is self-managing of its affairs, it is exercizing collective authority. Some people may think that one should be free to do anything, but that&#39;s not a possibility in real life because it is inevitable that the freedom of one person can conflict with the freedom of another person.

In particular, the freedom of the capitalists conflicts with the freedom of the working class. Capitalism is authoritarian in the sense that it denies self-management, control over their lives, to the working class. The working class is converted into instruments for the realization of the power and profit-seeking of the elite classes. This is what Marx called "alienation". Structures or institutions are "authoritarian", then, when they deny self-management, are institutions of oppression, enforce alienation.

A revolution by the working class to overthrow the bosses is liberatory, not authoritarian, insofar as it is successful in actually realizing self-management of work and public affairs by the working masses. It would be "authoritarian" only if it ends up empowering some new elite class, so that the working class remains a subjugated class.

[rebelworker]

Though its true that some anarchists have pretty weak politics, especially around dealing with our class enemies during a revolutionary period (or even facistst today), dont buy the hype that anarchism is against "authority".

We use the term "authoritarian communists" to describe the politics of some so called revolutionaries who used state violence to subdue the working class.

If you want examples of this I can give them, but most sensible people can see the fact that just because you declare yourself for the workers, dose not mean you are the workers, or even acting in our interests.

Many anarchist are even willing to use the term dictatorship of the proletariate, despite the increadibly bad rap it has gotten from the work of Trotsky and Lenin, or worse.

Anarchist Communists (most of us) argee on the need for the working class to organise to supress our enemies, we just think the working class should decide how this is to be done, not dictated to us from above.

Dont get me wrong, i understant your wearryness of the label anarchist, but dont give up on the increadible politics that are at the heart of this often misrepresented ideology.

[Sickle of Justice]

waaaiiit.. so doing pretty muchanything is authoritarian? revolution is the taking back of collective authority. authoritarianism, in the sense that anarchists oppose, means a form of ruler. Hierarchical power. it is a common misconception that anarchism means "without rules/rule" but in fact it means "without rulers" (i hope and assume you know this) implying that every decision is made collectively, and in a case sensative way.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It&#39;s not doing &#39;anything&#39; that is authoritarian, it is forcing the interests of one specific group or individual on another that is authoritarian. I think that any form of organization is inherently hierarchal, since it requires subordination of some kind either by the majority to the minority, or the minority to the majority, which predisposes submission to some sort of authority. Whenever you give up your individual will, your autonomy, to participate in a group effort, you are submitting yourself to an authority, to a will that is not your own, that has been vested by the people involved with the power to make and carry out decisions.

[Pirate Utopian]

I once claimed anarchism, but when I found out what it was and it&#39;s possibility of working I quickly neglected it.

[PRC-UTE]

I used to consider myself an anarchist, until I found out what the Marxist definition of a state is - an organ of power used by one class to suppress another.

So anarcho-syndicalists, any revolutionary anarchist communist who proposes any means of suppressing the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution is advocating a kind of state, even if it is a radically decentralised form.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 07:34 pm
I used to consider myself an anarchist, until I found out what the Marxist definition of a state is - an organ of power used by one class to suppress another.

So anarcho-syndicalists, any revolutionary anarchist communist who proposes any means of suppressing the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution is advocating a kind of state, even if it is a radically decentralised form.
Sure, often this is a debate around semantics, but what we really oppose is the dictatorship, of an eliet over the working class, what is infact what happened in Russia, China ect...

If people want to argue semantics thats fine, but the point is, the defenition anti authoritarian has become nessesary among the left because some people are still holding up brutally anti working class goverments as communist or socialist.

Im a communist, but one that thinks the working clas should decide our fate (as marx once pointed out), not an apologist for a failed burocratic class society with a dictator wearing a red hat.

Workers power is central to communism, it ceased to exist in the USSR from very early on.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by rebelworker+May 23, 2007 07:41 pm--> (rebelworker @ May 23, 2007 07:41 pm)
PRC&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 07:34 pm
I used to consider myself an anarchist, until I found out what the Marxist definition of a state is - an organ of power used by one class to suppress another.

So anarcho-syndicalists, any revolutionary anarchist communist who proposes any means of suppressing the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution is advocating a kind of state, even if it is a radically decentralised form.
Sure, often this is a debate around semantics, but what we really oppose is the dictatorship, of an eliet over the working class, what is infact what happened in Russia, China ect...

If people want to argue semantics thats fine, but the point is, the defenition anti authoritarian has become nessesary among the left because some people are still holding up brutally anti working class goverments as communist or socialist.

Im a communist, but one that thinks the working clas should decide our fate (as marx once pointed out), not an apologist for a failed burocratic class society with a dictator wearing a red hat.

Workers power is central to communism, it ceased to exist in the USSR from very early on. [/b]
I agree with the basics of what you&#39;re saying, such as the USSR being taken over by a bureaurcracy early on and so on, but I think it&#39;s potentially problematic to draw a line in the sand and say, we&#39;re the &#39;anti-authoritarians&#39; and they&#39;re the &#39;authoritarians&#39;. In reality the CNT-FAI had a worse problem with unnaccountable leadership (and cult of leadership) than the Leninist POUM did. This is not a problem with one faction in the workers&#39; movement but a problem the entire workers&#39; movement will have to deal with, and blaming it one faction or another just masks the true problem, imo.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 07:34 pm
I used to consider myself an anarchist, until I found out what the Marxist definition of a state is - an organ of power used by one class to suppress another.

So anarcho-syndicalists, any revolutionary anarchist communist who proposes any means of suppressing the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution is advocating a kind of state, even if it is a radically decentralised form.
But even if you do consider anarchism as some sort of &#39;state&#39;, why did you reject it if its decentralised and empowering to workers and communities? What about the end of class and the state withering away? Marx clearly seen past &#39;states&#39;.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+May 23, 2007 08:45 pm--> (The Dissenter @ May 23, 2007 08:45 pm)
PRC&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 07:34 pm
I used to consider myself an anarchist, until I found out what the Marxist definition of a state is - an organ of power used by one class to suppress another.

So anarcho-syndicalists, any revolutionary anarchist communist who proposes any means of suppressing the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution is advocating a kind of state, even if it is a radically decentralised form.
But even if you do consider anarchism as some sort of &#39;state&#39;, why did you reject it if its decentralised and empowering to workers and communities? What about the end of class and the state withering away? Marx clearly seen past &#39;states&#39;. [/b]
He never said he rejected a body that oppressed the bourgeoisie; this seems like a low-life attack.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by RedDali+May 23, 2007 10:37 pm--> (RedDali @ May 23, 2007 10:37 pm)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 23, 2007 08:45 pm

PRC&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 07:34 pm
I used to consider myself an anarchist, until I found out what the Marxist definition of a state is - an organ of power used by one class to suppress another.

So anarcho-syndicalists, any revolutionary anarchist communist who proposes any means of suppressing the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution is advocating a kind of state, even if it is a radically decentralised form.
But even if you do consider anarchism as some sort of &#39;state&#39;, why did you reject it if its decentralised and empowering to workers and communities? What about the end of class and the state withering away? Marx clearly seen past &#39;states&#39;.
He never said he rejected a body that oppressed the bourgeoisie; this seems like a low-life attack. [/b]
Thanks, RedDali.

Yeah, my point wasn&#39;t rejecting anarchists but pointing out that in practice there are less differences between many Marxist communists (including some Leninists) and revolutionary anarchist communists than it is usually portrayed, imo.

[KC]

While a revolution entails deeds by the proletarian class which are authoritarian, it&#39;s striving for a revolutionary uprising, change and society without involving a central authority which differentiates anarchists from other revolutionary leftists.

There is nothing wrong with centralization; centralization doesn&#39;t entail hierarchy. A central authority could be subordinate to a democratic majority, for example, yet there is still centralization. Treating centralization on principle is a bad idea.

[syndicat]

The repression of the bourgeoisie in a revolution doesn&#39;t presuppose the existence of a state. When the workers seize the means of production, create a workers militia, replace the state with a workers congress and committees accountable to the congresses of deleagates and assemblies at the base, this is not a state. "Centralization" is a vague term. The issue really is unity and coordination. but this can be accomplished by setting up a new elite of managers over the working class in production and in public affairs. The mere distinction between minorities and majorites does not require the setting up of a hierachy of power as in a managerial hierarchy or a conventional army or a system of central planning. When decisions are made in an assembly by workers in a workplace, the minorty who disagree can reasonably be required to not disobey or undermine the majority decision. that doesn&#39;t require a hiearchy in the sense explained here.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 24, 2007 12:41 pm

While a revolution entails deeds by the proletarian class which are authoritarian, it&#39;s striving for a revolutionary uprising, change and society without involving a central authority which differentiates anarchists from other revolutionary leftists.

There is nothing wrong with centralization; centralization doesn&#39;t entail hierarchy. A central authority could be subordinate to a democratic majority, for example, yet there is still centralization. Treating centralization on principle is a bad idea.
If a &#39;central authority&#39; is subordinate to a democratic majority then it&#39;s not a &#39;central authority.&#39; The authority, the decision-making power, lies with the democratic majority. Centralising authority entails the centralisation of decision-making power, which means taking it out of the hands of individual collectives and entrusting it to a body (a &#39;central authority&#39;), who will make decisions on behalf of the body of collectives.

[apathy maybe]

A parliament for example. And I know that all the anarchists would agree that such an institution is not and cannot be democratic (no matter how much the state is a "workers state").

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+May 23, 2007 05:25 pm--> (Urban Spirit &#064; May 23, 2007 05:25 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 03:15 am
We don&#39;t believe that every point of view holds equal weight.
So why are you not an anarchist? that&#39;s a perfectly anarchic position, we&#39;re against centeralised power. Not "authority" authority exists in everything.

By sitting here, I prevent others from doing so, so im authorotarian. It&#39;s an absurd position. [/b]
That is most deviated and bullshit opinion I have ever read in my entire life.

Authority has a specific meaning to anarchists as being the ability to determine and control. As anarchists we oppose any individual or collective ability for that to happen because it is antithetical to the freedom of others.

If you fail to grasp or agree with that very simple anarchist concept how is it possible for you to call yourself an anarchist?


By sitting here, I prevent others from doing so, so im authorotarian.

How on earth does that even make sense? What is the purpose of this opinion?

[syndicat]

Authority has a specific meaning to anarchists as being the ability to determine and control. As anarchists we oppose any individual or collective ability for that to happen because it is antithetical to the freedom of others.

I&#39;m not sure it&#39;s so clear what its meaning is for anarchists. It&#39;s meaningless to say one is for "freedom" in the abstract because the freedom of some can conflict with the freedom of others. at present the freedom of the bosses conflicts with the freedom of the workers.

My understanding of self-management is that it means control over the decisions that affect you. But most decisions that affect you don&#39;t just affect you but also affect others. That&#39;s because we&#39;re inherently social beings. Most self-management would necessarily be collective self-management.

When a social collectivity makes a decision, sets up rules, then that affects the people in that collectivity, and exerts control over areas that affect them. thus it exercizes authority in that area. but this is not inconsistent with self-management, but is a requirement of self-management. thus to say that one is "against authority" therefore seems to me to be a meaningless statement.

if someone tells me that the individual should be able to veto any decision of the collectivity they disagree with, this tells me that person has an individualist viewpoint, which seems to me to fail to recognize the inherent sociality of humans. the social groups you have grown up with and live as a part of partly shape who you are. it is a mistake to view the individual as a social atom prior to society, as individualism does.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 07:51 pm

I agree with the basics of what you&#39;re saying, such as the USSR being taken over by a bureaurcracy early on and so on, but I think it&#39;s potentially problematic to draw a line in the sand and say, we&#39;re the &#39;anti-authoritarians&#39; and they&#39;re the &#39;authoritarians&#39;. In reality the CNT-FAI had a worse problem with unnaccountable leadership (and cult of leadership) than the Leninist POUM did. This is not a problem with one faction in the workers&#39; movement but a problem the entire workers&#39; movement will have to deal with, and blaming it one faction or another just masks the true problem, imo.
Yes and No,

First off, the CNT was a union with 2 million members, the POUM was a small party with a few thousand (20 I think). You canot sompare the two.

Did the CNT have a crisis of leadership? Yes clearly, this is the anarchist point about burocracy and power. One you become Isolated in you capacity as a decision maker, even the best intentions become corrupted.

The major political difference between the CNT and the Bolsheviks for example (also difficult to compare) is that the CNT was based on local workers mamangement, the membership still held ultimate controll of the organisation because the leadership had a limited mandate. The inverse is the centralist and vanguardist Bolshviks who workerd to supress the poweres of the Rank and file and consolidate all desicion making power in the hands of a few "learned men" with no proletarian bckground.

I agree that there is more in common with Revolutionary Anaarchist Communists and some Marxists than many would let on, but in the end the Anarchist Communist position is correct and dedicated Lenininists and marxists should should admit the errors of the Bolshevik tragectory and bring the good elements of their movement over to the directly democratic Anarchist Communist camp. Our movement is flexible, capable of growing politically with the influx of new ideas and tactics, as long as they dont contradict our "anti authoritarian" vision.

[abbielives!]

i look at it this way, you have the right to do what you want so long as you don&#39;t infringe on other peoples rights, at the point that you do you become an &#39;authoritatian&#39;.
let me ask you this : do the capitalists have a right to their wealth/power?
i thought it was well established that they get their wealth through exploitation
thus resdistributing their wealth is not authoritarianism, but liberation
they are violating your rights and so cannot be allowed to continue

[Vargha Poralli]

The inverse is the centralist and vanguardist Bolshviks who workerd to supress the poweres of the Rank and file and consolidate all desicion making power in the hands of a few "learned men" with no proletarian bckground.

A good example of Bullshit rhetoric. Bolsheviks never suppressed their Rank and File. If the few learned man with no proletarian background you mean Lenin and Trotsky(who was not even a Bolshevik till 1917) then how in the world they(Bolsheviks) could have grown strong in 1917 ? For most part from 1905-1917 both Lenin and Trotsky and majority of the Bolsheviks spent their time outside Russia in exile. And in October they did the right thing by joining rank and file along with masses against the provisional government.


I agree that there is more in common with Revolutionary Anaarchist Communists and some Marxists than many would let on, but in the end the Anarchist Communist position is correct and dedicated Lenininists and marxists should should admit the errors of the Bolshevik tragectory and bring the good elements of their movement over to the directly democratic Anarchist Communist camp. Our movement is flexible, capable of growing politically with the influx of new ideas and tactics, as long as they dont contradict our "anti authoritarian" vision.

But History says otherwise. Lenin never admitted that Soviet Russia was a true workers paradise or something. Lenin and Bolsheviks took their theory in to practice and did some mistakes because they acted.

On the contrary Anarchists never took their theory in to practice. The failure of CNT is a good example for it.

[bcbm]

This argument seems like a lot of boring and silly semantics.


On the contrary Anarchists never took their theory in to practice.

What are you talking about?


The failure of CNT is a good example for it.

How could they fail if they never acted? Your logic makes no sense.

[black magick hustla]

Also everyone. Keep in mind I still consider anarchists communists and people I am willing to work with.

I also think it is more of a semantics issue.

[RebelDog]

I agree that there is more in common with Revolutionary Anaarchist Communists and some Marxists than many would let on, but in the end the Anarchist Communist position is correct and dedicated Lenininists and marxists should should admit the errors of the Bolshevik tragectory and bring the good elements of their movement over to the directly democratic Anarchist Communist camp. Our movement is flexible, capable of growing politically with the influx of new ideas and tactics, as long as they dont contradict our "anti authoritarian" vision.


I agree. In my view the proletarian movement must have as its ultimate aim the destruction of all forms of hierarchy. This, for me, sits with the classless, stateless concept that all Marxists surely, ultimately, envision. Why, ultimately, would workers with advanced class consciousness and control of production want different bosses to replace the old ones? Why when it becomes materially possible to end markets, class, nations and hierarchy across the world would any entity of the proletarian movement preserve hierarchy? Surely all communists have as their ultimate aim the complete emancipation of the working class. Humans are capable of co-operative society without a managing/controlling class.

[Rawthentic]

Humans are capable of co-operative society without a managing/controlling class.
Definitely agree comrade. We workers are smart enough to "get it", we don&#39;t need petty-bourgeois managers to tell us how much to produce or when to produce or what to produce.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:32 am
I also think it is more of a semantics issue.
Then why did you &#39;stopping calling [yourself] an anarchist&#39;? :mellow:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+May 28, 2007 03:38 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ May 28, 2007 03:38 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 09:32 am
I also think it is more of a semantics issue.
Then why did you &#39;stopping calling [yourself] an anarchist&#39;? :mellow: [/b]
Because I realized I am too loud and angry and sometimes "undemocratic" (in the sense that I dont tolerate a lot of opinions that are obviously shit even if many people have them) to consider myself a "libertarian".

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Marmot+May 28, 2007 04:22 am--> (Marmot @ May 28, 2007 04:22 am)
Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 28, 2007 03:38 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 09:32 am
I also think it is more of a semantics issue.
Then why did you &#39;stopping calling [yourself] an anarchist&#39;? :mellow:
Because I realized I am too loud and angry and sometimes "undemocratic" (in the sense that I dont tolerate a lot of opinions that are obviously shit even if many people have them) to consider myself a "libertarian". [/b]
But we are a &#39;libertarian communists&#39; in this sense. We do not give &#39;equal weight&#39; to differing views we are concerned with the complete emancipation of our class from the tyranny of class and state. We are concerned with our interests and no other, we are libertarians for the working class.

[abbielives!]

ok, ill say it again- revolution is not an authoritarian exersise unless you belive the capitalists have a right to their wealth/power

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by abbielives&#33;@May 28, 2007 05:23 am
ok, ill say it again- revolution is not an authoritarian exersise unless you belive the capitalists have a right to their wealth/power
I couldn&#39;t put it better myself. If you accept that change will not come through anything other than the working class embracing violence and &#39;imposing its will&#39; then you accept an idealist position on history and effectively embrace authority and will as a bourgeois right. Anarchist or communist, the future of humanity lies with the producing class overthrowing the bourgeoisie and &#39;enforcing its agenda&#39;.

[Lark]

There&#39;s no need to complicate this, no anarchist is going to oppose legitimate authority, anarchism is only opposed to illegitimate authority and authoritarianism is usually illegitimate authority.

All that talk about revolutionary overthrows and imposition of will, it that&#39;s how its going to be then it&#39;ll all end in dictatorship and disaster, that sort of thing would only be necessary if social change was hopelessly unpopular.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Marmot+May 28, 2007 02:22 pm--> (Marmot @ May 28, 2007 02:22 pm)
Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 28, 2007 03:38 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 09:32 am
I also think it is more of a semantics issue.
Then why did you &#39;stopping calling [yourself] an anarchist&#39;? :mellow:
Because I realized I am too loud and angry and sometimes "undemocratic" (in the sense that I dont tolerate a lot of opinions that are obviously shit even if many people have them) to consider myself a "libertarian". [/b]
Can you give me a real-life example? I&#39;m not sure if i really understand what you&#39;re talking about in practice.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 28, 2007 04:28 am
This argument seems like a lot of boring and silly semantics.


On the contrary Anarchists never took their theory in to practice.

What are you talking about?


The failure of CNT is a good example for it.

How could they fail if they never acted? Your logic makes no sense.
Yeah they did sell out to the Republicans and Stalinists.

They didn&#39;t smash the "State" instead subordinated themselves to it betraying workers. So the didn&#39;t take their theory to practice.

[syndicat]

The failure of CNT is a good example for it.

"How could they fail if they never acted? Your logic makes no sense."


Yeah they did sell out to the Republicans and Stalinists.

They didn&#39;t smash the "State" instead subordinated themselves to it betraying workers. So the didn&#39;t take their theory to practice.

The reality was a bit more complicated than this. They did smash the old armied bodies of the state in July 1936. They expropriated over 18,000 enterprises, most of Spain&#39;s economy, built a revolutionary army, a large union-controlled militia.

They couldn&#39;t take power in Spain as a whole without the UGT union. the CNT and UGT were each half of the organizing working class, and the UGT was the majority in important areas like Madrid. The CNT proposed replacing the Republican state with a working class controlled governance structure, and they did carry this out in one region, Aragon. But the Left Socialists veto&#39;d the proposal at the national level. The Left Socialists were the largest Marxist tendency to the left of the Stalinists. Perhaps the anarchists could have done a better job of pressuring the Left Socialists, but it wasn&#39;t a question of "selling out to the Republicans and Stalinists" in 1936. the actions of certain CNT leading committees in May 1937 can reasonably be described as "selling out to the Republicans and Stalinists" but that is due to the corrupting influence of being in the state for six months.

So, it wasn&#39;t a question of their politics being mistaken, but of poor execution due to internal confusions and disagreemennts, probably in part due to lack of adequate preparation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:56 pm

Authority has a specific meaning to anarchists as being the ability to determine and control. As anarchists we oppose any individual or collective ability for that to happen because it is antithetical to the freedom of others.

I&#39;m not sure it&#39;s so clear what its meaning is for anarchists.
Don&#39;t be fucking ridiculous. It&#39;s practically the fucking basis of anarchism.

Get the fuck out-a-here&#33;

[Anarchovampire]

Sometimes it is not what happens during the revolution as much as what happens after the revolution that counts.

A Stalinist will keep the war-time powers of the government, and the revolution will ultimately fail.

An anarchist will not keep the war-time powers of the government, and the revolution would have succeeded.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

An anarchist will not keep the war-time powers of the government, and the revolution would have succeeded.

examples? or should we just take your word for it?

[Idola Mentis]

Huh. Why would an anarchist take up wartime powers in the first place?

[syndicat]

Authority has a specific meaning to anarchists as being the ability to determine and control. As anarchists we oppose any individual or collective ability for that to happen because it is antithetical to the freedom of others.



I&#39;m not sure it&#39;s so clear what its meaning is for anarchists.



Don&#39;t be fucking ridiculous. It&#39;s practically the fucking basis of anarchism.

Well, i have to disagree. Absolute autonomy of the individual is an INDIVIDUALIST position, not a SOCIAL anarchist position.

if a self-managed workplace in the Spanish revolution made a collective decision, you, as an individual member, were not at liberty to not go along just because you&#39;d been outvoted in the assembly. The workers assembly had the authority to make decisions for the management of that facility.

There will always be conflicts between the freedom of some and the freedom of others. To say you are for everyone being able to do what they want is not a viable concept of social organization.

From a social anarchist point of view, freedom is self-management. This means controlling the decisions that affect you. Most decisions in modern society affect social groupings. Self-management therefore needs to be collective.

The opposite of authoritarian power hierarchy is precisely self-management. But collective self-management does involve the exercise of authority. It&#39;s just not a form of oppression, of power hierarchy that stratifies society into groups that dominate and groups that are dominated.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:04 pm

Authority has a specific meaning to anarchists as being the ability to determine and control. As anarchists we oppose any individual or collective ability for that to happen because it is antithetical to the freedom of others.



I&#39;m not sure it&#39;s so clear what its meaning is for anarchists.



Don&#39;t be fucking ridiculous. It&#39;s practically the fucking basis of anarchism.

Well, i have to disagree. Absolute autonomy of the individual is an INDIVIDUALIST position, not a SOCIAL anarchist position.
Are you claiming Bakunin was an individualist?

The individual does have absolute autonomy - except within the paradox of freedom. There is no authority justified except that which protects the freedom of the others.


if a self-managed workplace in the Spanish revolution made a collective decision, you, as an individual member, were not at liberty to not go along just because you&#39;d been outvoted in the assembly.

So you are saying that it is justified to force people to go along with the decision of a collective?

Clearly that&#39;s utter bullshit&#33; If an individual chooses not to go along with it then they are free to do something else. This is an anarchist tenet that dates back as far as Bakunin and defended by Kropotkin, Malatesta and Berkman, not to mention the countless other anarchists that have ever existed.


The workers assembly had the authority to make decisions for the management of that facility.

A collective, through consensus or direct democracy is justified in making a decision but equally an individual is free to disagree and/or disassociate themselves from that decision. Of course they are, I don&#39;t understand how - as an anarchist - you could possibly argue otherwise.


There will always be conflicts between the freedom of some and the freedom of others. To say you are for everyone being able to do what they want is not a viable concept of social organization.

Stop being childish&#33; That&#39;s not what I said at all.


The opposite of authoritarian power hierarchy is precisely self-management. But collective self-management does involve the exercise of authority.

I disagree. Collective self-management is nothing more than self-management. No body or collective, individual or association has the authority to determine the choices of an individual. Except of course within the paradox of freedom.

It exercises it&#39;s collective choice and decision through the logic of numeracy. If, however, an individual or group of individuals who do not agree with that decision will go and do something else.

This is democracy and this is anti-authoritarianism. It is the negation of authority.


It&#39;s just not a form of oppression, of power hierarchy that stratifies society into groups that dominate and groups that are dominated.

That&#39;s a very basic and ignorant understanding of anarchist ideology.

[syndicat]

me: "if a self-managed workplace in the Spanish revolution made a collective decision, you, as an individual member, were not at liberty to not go along just because you&#39;d been outvoted in the assembly. "



So you are saying that it is justified to force people to go along with the decision of a collective?

they are free to quit and go work someplace else. but it is anti-social individualism to say that an individual has the right to veto decisions of the collectivity.

the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement didn&#39;t work on the basis of formal unanimity ("consensus"). they took votes and the majority carried the day.

it&#39;s my belief that the obsession of some people with formal unanimity, giving individuals the power to block, is based on an individualist insistence on the right of one&#39;s Ego to overrule the social collectivity. Murray Bookchin, for example, suggested, correctly in my opinion, that the advocacy of "consensus" was rooted in the concept of absolute individual autonomy and Bookchin, like me, rejected that as an individualist view.

in my experience there are unfortunately some anarchists who interpret anarchism in that individualist fashion. that is not a viable viewpoint for a working class mass movement.

i don&#39;t care what "famous anarchists" of the past said. i think anarchism historically was influenced by both libertarian socialist and liberal individualist notions, and that this has led to confusions or inconsistencies in anarchism.

[Anarchovampire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:56 am

An anarchist will not keep the war-time powers of the government, and the revolution would have succeeded.

examples? or should we just take your word for it?
I apoligize for breaking the first rule of citation, using wikipedia... :unsure:
Aragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution)

Even so, anarchist states at war have usually not survived the war they were in, usually because they are a smaller portion of the fighting. Hence my use of the word &#39;will.&#39; The fact is, beyond the RIAU (Makhno) and Catalonia (Orwell&#39;s writing) no real anarchist region has existed... and these two groups were quickly brought to destruction by militaristic powers: RIAU was destoryed by the whites, then the reds in the Russian Revolution and Catalonia was bombed by the Germans and crushed by Franco.

So, in the future-tense use of the word, an Anarchist society would, in a sense not use war-time powers utilized by Lenin and Castro and to a lesser extent Makhno himself.


Huh. Why would an anarchist take up wartime powers in the first place?
A good question... I guess I am assuming that a theoretical anarchist revolution takes place much like the russian revolution only the leaders step down and some intermit &#39;government&#39; and the state itself ceases to be after the war of independence is over...

[La Comédie Noire]

The Dictatorship of the proliteriate means the working class becomes the ruling class. It&#39;s extremely authoritarian to all other classes (Bourgeoisie, Petit bourgeoisie Lumpen proles,)



Authority has a specific meaning to anarchists as being the ability to determine and control. As anarchists we oppose any individual or collective ability for that to happen because it is antithetical to the freedom of others.

It is merely the producers taking charge of the production. Nothing is wrong with one group asserting authority over what they do to contribute to society.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 02, 2007 08:26 am
The Dictatorship of the proliteriate means the working class becomes the ruling class. It&#39;s extremely authoritarian to all other classes (Bourgeoisie, Petit bourgeoisie Lumpen proles,)

How can someone be &#39;authoritarian&#39; over a group that effectively no longer exists?

[KC]

How can someone be &#39;authoritarian&#39; over a group that effectively no longer exists?

Classes are defined not only by relations to the means of production but also by relations between one another.

[La Comédie Noire]

How can someone be &#39;authoritarian&#39; over a group that effectively no longer exists?

I would not expect these people to just a) Disappear. or b) Turn into proliteriates over night.

the reality of it all is there would be a large number of displaced people. Including ex Bourgeoisie looking for a counter revolution. Which is one of the reasons we have the whole concept of D.O.P and a Worker&#39;s State in the first place.

[luxemburg89]

you put them to work in labor camps if they cause too much trouble.

I dunno about that... That should only be a last resort and even then I have my serious reservations about it.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 02, 2007 03:49 pm
the reality of it all is there would be a large number of displaced people. Including ex Bourgeoisie looking for a counter revolution. Which is one of the reasons we have the whole concept of D.O.P and a Worker&#39;s State in the first place.
Right, but workers militias fighting against counter-revolutionaries is not structurally or otherwise the same as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the social conditions are completely different.

[Anarchovampire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:19 am

you put them to work in labor camps if they cause too much trouble.

I dunno about that... That should only be a last resort and even then I have my serious reservations about it.
Yes, it is ideas like putting people into gulag-like prisons that makes so many people worry about a communist revolution. Especially in America, we are taught that communism = authoritarianism. That&#39;s it, so when Americans think communism they think of the USSR instead of what communism actually strives for.

I think we need to move beyond the prisons and the punishments because when we do that, we have bascially become our enemy.

[La Comédie Noire]

Right, but workers militias fighting against counter-revolutionaries is not structurally or otherwise the same as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the social conditions are completely different.

Si&#33; the D.O.P would be different from the D.O.B because it is no longer exploitive because the producers will take charge of production. :)



you put them to work in labor camps if they cause too much trouble.

No comment.

[KC]

Right, but workers militias fighting against counter-revolutionaries is not structurally or otherwise the same as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the social conditions are completely different.

Well, duh. That&#39;s why it&#39;s the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, and I wouldnt mind to put the bourgeoisie in prison camps if they insist on bringing back the oppression. They can assimilate, or deal the consequences.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:29 pm
I think we need to move beyond the prisons and the punishments because when we do that, we have bascially become our enemy.
Aye I know what your getting at but if prisoning the counter-revolutionary oppositional bourgeois i wouldn&#39;t lose a minute sleep , as long as prisons are not used to jail real revolutionaries who have very miniscue quarrels with the present system like in alot of cases in Russia then i would have no problem .

Make camps to put the bourgeois to use thats what i say . Can&#39;t have them leaching off the revolution without providing :)

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Comrade Floyd+June 03, 2007 02:31 am--> (Comrade Floyd &#064; June 03, 2007 02:31 am)
Right, but workers militias fighting against counter-revolutionaries is not structurally or otherwise the same as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the social conditions are completely different.

Si&#33; the D.O.P would be different from the D.O.B because it is no longer exploitive because the producers will take charge of production. :) [/b]
I know, the point i&#39;m making is that in that context to regard both as &#39;authoritarian&#39; is misleading precisely because they&#39;re not comparable&#33; Workers fighting against a counter-revolution is not the same as the bourgeois class having dictatorial power over the proletariat.

This is the point i made in my first post:


me
The Dictatorship of the proliteriate means the working class becomes the ruling class. It&#39;s extremely authoritarian to all other classes (Bourgeoisie, Petit bourgeoisie Lumpen proles,)

How can someone be &#39;authoritarian&#39; over a group that effectively no longer exists?[/b][/quote]

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Aye I know what your getting at but if prisoning the counter-revolutionary oppositional bourgeois i wouldn&#39;t lose a minute sleep , as long as prisons are not used to jail real revolutionaries who have very miniscue quarrels with the present system like in alot of cases in Russia then i would have no problem .


If by counter-revolutionary you mean out in the street trying to hurt people, then yes, for the moment they might need to be detained. If you mean simply speaking against the revolution then they&#39;re probably doing more good than harm because allowing debate is healthy and productive.

But I&#39;m entirely against executions after the fact because that&#39;s not self-defence anymore, it&#39;s vengeance.

[KC]

This is the point i made in my first post:


See my last post in this thread.

[Rawthentic]

How can someone be &#39;authoritarian&#39; over a group that effectively no longer exists?

Its not like they are happily going to assimilate into the new worker&#39;s state. They&#39;re gonna fight it. And we must make sure we win.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 04, 2007 01:54 am

How can someone be &#39;authoritarian&#39; over a group that effectively no longer exists?

Its not like they are happily going to assimilate into the new worker&#39;s state. They&#39;re gonna fight it. And we must make sure we win.
You don&#39;t think i&#39;m fully aware of that? It&#39;s not like i became a communist ;)

You&#39;ve missed my point, and so has Zampano.

I thought i made it clear in my last post:

I know, the point i&#39;m making is that in that context to regard both as &#39;authoritarian&#39; is misleading precisely because they&#39;re not comparable&#33; Workers fighting against a counter-revolution is not the same as the bourgeois class having dictatorial power over the proletariat.

I&#39;m making a semantic argument, and indirect reply to marmots assertion that he cant be an anarchist because revolution is &#39;authoritarian&#39;. I was contrasting the so-called &#39;authoritarian&#39; revolutionary DoP with the thoroughly authoritarian DoB.

Nevermind, ive repeated my self like three times and people still have no idea what im on about, i&#39;m over it.

[Rawthentic]

Oh, I see what you mean.

But good job Marmot, we all grow up at one time or another. ;)

[rebelworker]

Comments like that are just stupid, a good chunk of the class struggle anarchist I know used to be Marxists.

If anything, the Trotskyist movement in North America is an exclusively student affair.

I call em Lunch Box revolutionaries...

turning your back on alot of the infantile behavior and politics of a huge chunk of the people that all themselves anarchists is a good thing.

Not being mature enough to do that and still see the solid aspects of class struggle anarchism is just stupid.

Im probably older than most of you, and with alot more life experience to boot, so just stop with the childish comments.

[KC]

I know, the point i&#39;m making is that in that context to regard both as &#39;authoritarian&#39; is misleading precisely because they&#39;re not comparable&#33; Workers fighting against a counter-revolution is not the same as the bourgeois class having dictatorial power over the proletariat.

Of course they&#39;re not the same, and nobody has claimed that they are. But they are both different forms of state and they are both authoritarian.


I&#39;m making a semantic argument, and indirect reply to marmots assertion that he cant be an anarchist because revolution is &#39;authoritarian&#39;. I was contrasting the so-called &#39;authoritarian&#39; revolutionary DoP with the thoroughly authoritarian DoB.

What were you trying to prove? That they&#39;re different? Obviously, but how does that mean one isn&#39;t authoritarian?

[Morpheus]

The anarchist FAQ already refuted this: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH4.html#sech47

[KC]

Could you quote the relevant portions so that we don&#39;t have to read the whole thing?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:04 pm
If anything, the Trotskyist movement in North America is an exclusively student affair.
Only if you count the ISO as Trots and the SWP as non-Trotskyist.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by rebelworker+May 26, 2007 02:45 pm--> (rebelworker @ May 26, 2007 02:45 pm)
PRC&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 07:51 pm

I agree with the basics of what you&#39;re saying, such as the USSR being taken over by a bureaurcracy early on and so on, but I think it&#39;s potentially problematic to draw a line in the sand and say, we&#39;re the &#39;anti-authoritarians&#39; and they&#39;re the &#39;authoritarians&#39;. In reality the CNT-FAI had a worse problem with unnaccountable leadership (and cult of leadership) than the Leninist POUM did. This is not a problem with one faction in the workers&#39; movement but a problem the entire workers&#39; movement will have to deal with, and blaming it one faction or another just masks the true problem, imo.
Yes and No,

First off, the CNT was a union with 2 million members, the POUM was a small party with a few thousand (20 I think). You canot sompare the two.

Did the CNT have a crisis of leadership? Yes clearly, this is the anarchist point about burocracy and power. One you become Isolated in you capacity as a decision maker, even the best intentions become corrupted.

The major political difference between the CNT and the Bolsheviks for example (also difficult to compare) is that the CNT was based on local workers mamangement, the membership still held ultimate controll of the organisation because the leadership had a limited mandate. The inverse is the centralist and vanguardist Bolshviks who workerd to supress the poweres of the Rank and file and consolidate all desicion making power in the hands of a few "learned men" with no proletarian bckground. [/b]
Well if we&#39;re going to make an &#39;allowance&#39; for the libertarian wing of the workers&#39; movement&#39;s bureaucracy due to size, then surely we should extend the same understanding to the Communist movement in the SU considering it was considerabley larger.

It too started off as a movement based in workers&#39; self-organising and then grew a massive bureaucracy...

Which brings us back to the point I was making; it&#39;s a problem faced by the whole workers movement (imo), not just one section or label within it.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;UTE+June 11, 2007 10:27 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ June 11, 2007 10:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:45 pm

PRC&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 07:51 pm

I agree with the basics of what you&#39;re saying, such as the USSR being taken over by a bureaurcracy early on and so on, but I think it&#39;s potentially problematic to draw a line in the sand and say, we&#39;re the &#39;anti-authoritarians&#39; and they&#39;re the &#39;authoritarians&#39;. In reality the CNT-FAI had a worse problem with unnaccountable leadership (and cult of leadership) than the Leninist POUM did. This is not a problem with one faction in the workers&#39; movement but a problem the entire workers&#39; movement will have to deal with, and blaming it one faction or another just masks the true problem, imo.
Yes and No,

First off, the CNT was a union with 2 million members, the POUM was a small party with a few thousand (20 I think). You canot sompare the two.

Did the CNT have a crisis of leadership? Yes clearly, this is the anarchist point about burocracy and power. One you become Isolated in you capacity as a decision maker, even the best intentions become corrupted.

The major political difference between the CNT and the Bolsheviks for example (also difficult to compare) is that the CNT was based on local workers mamangement, the membership still held ultimate controll of the organisation because the leadership had a limited mandate. The inverse is the centralist and vanguardist Bolshviks who workerd to supress the poweres of the Rank and file and consolidate all desicion making power in the hands of a few "learned men" with no proletarian bckground.
Well if we&#39;re going to make an &#39;allowance&#39; for the libertarian wing of the workers&#39; movement&#39;s bureaucracy due to size, then surely we should extend the same understanding to the Communist movement in the SU considering it was considerabley larger.

It too started off as a movement based in workers&#39; self-organising and then grew a massive bureaucracy...

Which brings us back to the point I was making; it&#39;s a problem faced by the whole workers movement (imo), not just one section or label within it. [/b]
How big was the communist movement in Russia?

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Zampanò@June 11, 2007 09:48 pm
Could you quote the relevant portions so that we don&#39;t have to read the whole thing?
i don&#39;t see how you can drudge through Das Capital and then not want ot read an FAQ
here are some key bits:

"the whole concept of authority was defined and understood differently by Bakunin and Engels meant that the latter&#39;s critique was flawed. While Engels may have thought that they both were speaking of the same thing, in fact they were not.

the first fallacy in Engels account is that anarchists do not oppose all forms of authority. Bakunin was extremely clear on this issue and differentiated between types of authority, of which only certain kinds did he oppose. For example, he asked the question "[d]oes it follow that I reject all authority?" and answered quite clearly: "No, far be it from me to entertain such a thought." He acknowledged the difference between being an authority -- an expert -- and being in authority, for example. This meant that "[i]f I bow before the authority of the specialists and declare myself ready to follow, to a certain extent and so long as it may seem to me to be necessary, their general indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one . . . I bow before the authority of specialists because it is imposed upon me by my own reason." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 253]

So while Bakunin and other anarchists, on occasion, did argue that anarchists reject "all authority" they, as Carole Pateman correctly notes, "tended to treat &#39;authority&#39; as a synonym for &#39;authoritarian,&#39; and so have identified &#39;authority&#39; with hierarchical power structures, especially those of the state.

Bakunin did not oppose all authority but rather a specific kind of authority, namely hierarchical authority. This kind of authority placed power into the hands of a few. For example, wage labour produced this kind of authority, with a "meeting . . . between master and slave . . . the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187] The state is also based hierarchical authority, with "those who govern" (i.e. "those who frame the laws of the country as well as those who exercise the executive power") are in an "exceptional position diametrically opposed to . . . popular aspirations" towards liberty. They end up "viewing society from the high position in which they find themselves" and so "[w]hoever says political power says domination" over "a more or less considerable section of the population." [Op. Cit., p. 218]

Anarchists reject the idea of giving a minority (a government) the power to make our decisions for us. Rather, power should rest in the hands of all, not concentrated in the hands of a few.

Engels&#39; "On Authority" which stated that any form of collective activity meant "authority" and so the subjection of the minority to the majority ("if possible") and "the imposition of the will of another upon ours." [Engels, Marx-Engels Reader, p. 731 and p. 730]
we argue that making agreements with others, as equals, does not involve domination or subordination but rather is an expression of autonomy, of liberty.

In a social revolution, the act of revolution is the overthrow of the power and authority of an oppressing and exploiting class by those subject to that oppression and exploitation. In other words, it is an act of liberation in which the hierarchical power of the few over the many is eliminated and replaced by the freedom of the many to control their own lives. It is hardly authoritarian to destroy authority&#33;

"The freedom to oppress, to exploit, to oblige people to take up arms [i.e. conscription], to pay taxes, etc., is the denial of freedom: and the fact that our enemies make irrelevant and hypocritical use of the word freedom is not enough to make us deny the principle of freedom which is the outstanding characteristic of our movement and a permanent, constant and necessary factor in the life and progress of humanity." [Life and Ideas, p. 51]

It seems strange that Engels, in effect, is arguing that the abolition of tyranny is tyranny against the tyrants&#33; As Malatesta so clearly argued, anarchists "recognise violence only as a means of legitimate self-defence; and if today they are in favour of violence it is because they maintain that slaves are always in a state of legitimate defence." [Op. Cit., p. 59]

To argue that a revolution is made up of two groups of people, one of which "imposes its will upon the other" fails to indicate the social relations that exist between these groups (classes) and the relations of authority between them which the revolution is seeking to overthrow. As such, Engels critique totally misses the point."

you will likey have to read the whole thing anyways
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH4.html

[anomaly]

Please. Engels was playing on words there to win anarchists to his side. It was much likely more a political move than anything theoretical.

Honestly, I&#39;m not sure how anyone can take Engels very seriously at all. Engelsian dialectics (falsely) refute Newton&#39;s laws of motion. They are completely absurd. And his revolutionary theory is authoritarian, not because revolution is somehow an "authoritarian act", but because a careful reading of Engels&#39; theory makes him the perfect theoretical forerunner to Lenin. It is hardly arguable that Engels would agree with Lenin that some "educated" Party bureaucrats should "lead" the "backward masses."

In truth, revolution is a liberatory act. For an act to be authoritarian, the explicit goal of said act must be to obtain power-over some object or group. However, in any revolutionary situation, the goal is always to have power-to control one&#39;s own life, and live that life as freely as possible. The goal is to have power to do what one wants, and thus cut authority from one&#39;s life (see any writing on Barcelona 1936 for a perfect example). The only thing a revolutionary wants "authority" over is one&#39;s own life. And if that makes one an authoritarian, the term becomes so bland and vague as to no longer carry any meaning.

Revolution may well be said to be the opposite of an "authoritarian act". To see an authoritarian act, let us look at those who seek to quell revolution. Let us look at those who represent reactive, rather than productive forces. Religion, the State, police, capitalists, the military brass; all of these typically are reactionary forces, whose sole motive in a revolutionary situation is to quell that situation. The goal of liberators (i.e. the people themselves) is to expand that situation. Engels quite obviously confuses the two groups. To say that revolutionaries are also authoritarians is to equate a revolutionary to the very thing against which he fights, and to disregard everything for which he fights.

[KC]

Please. Engels was playing on words there to win anarchists to his side. It was much likely more a political move than anything theoretical.


I hardly think he was trying to "win anarchists to his side." He was making a very good point about anti-authoritarians.


Honestly, I&#39;m not sure how anyone can take Engels very seriously at all. Engelsian dialectics (falsely) refute Newton&#39;s laws of motion. They are completely absurd. And his revolutionary theory is authoritarian, not because revolution is somehow an "authoritarian act", but because a careful reading of Engels&#39; theory makes him the perfect theoretical forerunner to Lenin. It is hardly arguable that Engels would agree with Lenin that some "educated" Party bureaucrats should "lead" the "backward masses."

This is incredibly stupid. Both Marx and Engels held identical views on revolution and the transition. Both Marx and Engels were "theoreticall forerunner[s] to Lenin". As for your interpretation of the theory of the party; neither Lenin, Marx nor Engels believed that.


In truth, revolution is a liberatory act.

It is both a liberatory and an authoritarian act.


For an act to be authoritarian, the explicit goal of said act must be to obtain power-over some object or group.

Well, yeah.


However, in any revolutionary situation, the goal is always to have power-to control one&#39;s own life, and live that life as freely as possible. The goal is to have power to do what one wants, and thus cut authority from one&#39;s life (see any writing on Barcelona 1936 for a perfect example). The only thing a revolutionary wants "authority" over is one&#39;s own life. And if that makes one an authoritarian, the term becomes so bland and vague as to no longer carry any meaning.

This is ambiguous idealist nonsense. Proletarians will never be "free" until they revolt against the bourgeoisie and subsequently take power.


Revolution may well be said to be the opposite of an "authoritarian act".

So killing people isn&#39;t authoritarian?


Revolution may well be said to be the opposite of an "authoritarian act". To see an authoritarian act, let us look at those who seek to quell revolution. Let us look at those who represent reactive, rather than productive forces. Religion, the State, police, capitalists, the military brass; all of these typically are reactionary forces, whose sole motive in a revolutionary situation is to quell that situation. The goal of liberators (i.e. the people themselves) is to expand that situation. Engels quite obviously confuses the two groups. To say that revolutionaries are also authoritarians is to equate a revolutionary to the very thing against which he fights, and to disregard everything for which he fights.

You&#39;re attaching an emotional connection to authoritarianism that isn&#39;t really there. That&#39;s your problem.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by zampaño+--> (zampaño)I hardly think he was trying to "win anarchists to his side."[/b]
Because of the historical situation at the time, I think it is quite likely that he was attempting to draw supporters to the side of the social democrats. At the time the pamphlet was written (I believe it is close to 1890), the rivalry between "social-democrats" and anarchists was quite strong. And the famous break of the Internationale was still weighing large on many minds. In addition, around this same time, Malatesta and his anarchist comrades were being shunned by the "mainstream" socialists throughout Europe.


Both Marx and Engels held identical views on revolution and the transition. Both Marx and Engels were "theoreticall forerunner[s] to Lenin".
Both of these statements, of course, depend on one&#39;s interpretation of Marx. I am not a Marxist because I feel that Marx was incredibly ambiguous as to the answer to the question of "what the hell should we do to create socialism?" Thus, the incredibly diverse interpretations of "Marxism" today. The Marxists I would consider my comrades would disagree with both of the above statements.


As for your interpretation of the theory of the party; neither Lenin, Marx nor Engels believed that.
Lenin makes reference to the need of a Party to direct the "backward masses" in WITBD.



me
For an act to be authoritarian, the explicit goal of said act must be to obtain power-over some object or group.



Well, yeah.
Let us go no further then. What is it that these proletarians shall have power-over? The former bourgeoisie? If this is the case, then you do not wish to destroy class society, but simply flip the class pyramid upside-down. Bakunin, of course, famously warned of this aspect of Marxism. The difference between your view and mine is that you have an answer for the question "who should rule" whereas I say no one should rule.


Proletarians will never be "free" until they revolt against the bourgeoisie and subsequently take power.
But what does "take power" mean? You and the other authoritarians use that term so loosely it can really mean anything you want it to mean. Do you want to take State power? Do you want a "worker&#39;s state?" Or is it something completely different?


So killing people isn&#39;t authoritarian?
Not necessarily, no. The Polish resistance against the Nazis, for example, is violence that I would never consider to be "authoritarian." The figures killed would be the authority itself. And, as others have said, it is hardly "authoritarian" to kill authority&#33;

[KC]

Both of these statements, of course, depend on one&#39;s interpretation of Marx. I am not a Marxist because I feel that Marx was incredibly ambiguous as to the answer to the question of "what the hell should we do to create socialism?" Thus, the incredibly diverse interpretations of "Marxism" today. The Marxists I would consider my comrades would disagree with both of the above statements.

This is partially true. Marx outlined the process from capitalism to communism due to existing evidence and likely projections. He limited himself to this because he realized the futility of predicting the future. Lenin held the same theoretical beliefs as Marx - he was a Marxist. However, his experience was the first attempt at implementing socialism. He didn&#39;t believe anything different than Marx; he was simply attempting to put Marxist theory into practice.

I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever met a Marxist that believes Marx outlines a way to socialism. He merely analyzed the conditions of capitalism and concluded basic principles on how socialist society would be obtained and how this would turn towards a classless society. This definitely isn&#39;t a "guide".


Lenin makes reference to the need of a Party to direct the "backward masses" in WITBD.

Could you quote the relevant passages?


Let us go no further then. What is it that these proletarians shall have power-over? The former bourgeoisie?

No; the actual bourgeoisie, class antagonisms, reaction, foreign interference.

Classes aren&#39;t simply defined by relations to the means of production; they are also defined by the relations between one another. Marx recognized this and applied this throughout his analyses.


If this is the case, then you do not wish to destroy class society, but simply flip the class pyramid upside-down.

In this statement you show your inability to comprehend the dynamics of proletarian revolution and the effects it has on the development of society and capitalism in general.


The difference between your view and mine is that you have an answer for the question "who should rule" whereas I say no one should rule.

How do you get to the point where nobody rules?


But what does "take power" mean? You and the other authoritarians use that term so loosely it can really mean anything you want it to mean. Do you want to take State power? Do you want a "worker&#39;s state?" Or is it something completely different?

I don&#39;t think answering this question would get us anywhere other than a semantical discussion on what the state is and what the proletarian state in general stands for; I have no interest in having another one of those discussions. If you would like to know where I stand on the issue of the state, you can read Lenin&#39;s State & Revolution, Lenin&#39;s speech entitled The State delivered at Sverdlov University in 1923 (I believe) and Mansoor Hekmat&#39;s The State in Revolutionary Periods (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/1985/11/state.htm). If you would then like to have a discussion on the content of these works then I would suggest you start a new thread on the matter regarding the specific work you are talking about.


Not necessarily, no. The Polish resistance against the Nazis, for example, is violence that I would never consider to be "authoritarian." The figures killed would be the authority itself. And, as others have said, it is hardly "authoritarian" to kill authority&#33;

Again, you&#39;re attaching an emotional issue to the word that isn&#39;t there. Authoritarian isn&#39;t a word that is defined morally by those committing it. "Bad" people aren&#39;t the only ones able of being authoritarian. In the individual sense the definition of authoritarianism is "exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others". Killing someone most certainly is authoritarian, regardless of whether you&#39;re good or bad.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by zampano
Could you quote the relevant passages?
He specifically refers to backward masses in "Left wing communism: an infantile disorder." My mistake. In WITBD he simply describes the process of having to separate "advanced" proletarians from the rest...but this we all already know. To better illustrate my point, let me simply quote this interesting passage from "Left wing communism...":

"The art of politics (and the Communist’s correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it is able—during and after the seizure of power—to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people."

Emphasis mine. The question that arises, of course, is why would a "workers&#39; state" need to attract the support of workers to maintain its rule? It would be as if the ruling elite today needed to win the support of itself&#33; Whatever intentions Lenin had (and these are rather dubious...it is clear that he considered himself and his colleagues "advanced" while many workers were "backward"), what he created cannot be disputed.


No; the actual bourgeoisie, class antagonisms, reaction, foreign interference.
So this revolution will be one of gaining state power, and then somehow "dealing" with the foreign imperialists?

Since university, I have increasingly subscribed to a view of revolution known as the "anarchy of becoming." Your revolution will have a definite end, whereas a revolution of becoming would have no end point. Authority would be destroyed from life bits at a time. Certainly some actions (such as the Zapatista uprising) have greater effect than others, but in any scenario in which capitalist relations are explicitly avoided or denied, the revolution is taking place.

Speaking of the Zapatista uprising, I think this is a wonderful example of an insurrectionary situation, a revolutionary situation, that does not involve the taking of State power. The people of Chiapas were fed up, and so they decided to simply start living in a way they wish to live. Indeed, they are not the first to live in an "anarchist way". "Primitive" societies have been doing this for millennia. Consensus-based decision making and other anarchist ideas are nothing new.


In this statement you show your inability to comprehend the dynamics of proletarian revolution
Because you have never witnessed nor participated in a "proletarian revolution", I find it amazing that you can comprehend the dynamics of one&#33;


How do you get to the point where nobody rules?
We would do what any anarchist wishes to do: destroy authority. Creating a new state with new authority simply will not accomplish this. The exact steps taken to eliminate authority are already being taken by anarchists all over the world. We fight authority as best we can and attempt to live in a manner that is as close to our ideals as possible.


In the individual sense the definition of authoritarianism is "exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others".
My argument is simply that the defining feature feature of this particular act of killing (in a revolutionary circumstance) is defined not by any "authoritarian" act but by a liberatory goal. No action could be defined irrespective of its environment. Certainly no human action, at least, as such a strict definition would require a human action or humanity in general to be able to be looked at "objectively."

[KC]

He specifically refers to backward masses in "Left wing communism: an infantile disorder." My mistake. In WITBD he simply describes the process of having to separate "advanced" proletarians from the rest...but this we all already know. To better illustrate my point, let me simply quote this interesting passage from "Left wing communism...":

"The art of politics (and the Communist’s correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it is able—during and after the seizure of power—to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people."

First, I think we should put this quote into context. First, let me provide a fuller quote:


Originally posted by Lenin
We can (and must) begin to build socialism, not with abstract human material, or with human material specially prepared by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. True, that is no easy matter, but no other approach to this task is serious enough to warrant discussion.

The trade unions were a tremendous step forward for the working class in the early days of capitalist development, inasmuch as they marked a transition from the workers’ disunity and helplessness to the rudiments of class organisation. When the revolutionary party of the proletariat, the highest form of proletarian class organisation, began to take shape (and the Party will not merit the name until it learns to weld the leaders into one indivisible whole with the class and the masses) the trade unions inevitably began to reveal certain reactionary features, a certain craft narrow-mindedness, a certain tendency to be non-political, a certain inertness, etc. However, the development of the proletariat did not, and could not, proceed anywhere in the world otherwise than through the trade unions, through reciprocal action between them and the party of the working class. The proletariat’s conquest of political power is a gigantic step forward for the proletariat as a class, and the Party must more than ever and in a new way, not only in the old, educate and guide the trade unions, at the same time bearing in mind that they are and will long remain an indispensable "school of communism" and a preparatory school that trains proletarians to exercise their dictatorship, an indispensable organisation of the workers for the gradual transfer of the management of the whole economic life of the country to the working class (and not to the separate trades), and later to all the working people.

In the sense mentioned above, a certain "reactionism" in the trade unions is inevitable under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not to understand this means a complete failure to understand the fundamental conditions of the transition from capitalism to socialism. It would be egregious folly to fear this "reactionism" or to try to evade or leap over it, for it would mean fearing that function of the proletarian vanguard which consists in training, educating, enlightening and drawing into the new life the most backward strata and masses of the working class and the peasantry. On the other hand, it would be a still graver error to postpone the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat until a time when there will not be a single worker with a narrow-minded craft outlook, or with craft and craft-union prejudices. The art of politics (and the Communist’s correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it is able—during and after the seizure of power—to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people.

I have bolded the section that you quoted for convenience. Now, let&#39;s understand what is meant by this quote. First, we must define the vanguard as the most developed and advanced section of the working class. This is not a bureaucracy; this is not an elite; this is a section of the working class that is most theoretically and practically advanced. When discussing the vanguard, we are discussing the class conscious section of the working class; the section that is at the forefront of the movement. This must be kept in mind when reading this quote. Lenin here is talking about a section of the working class.

Now, the vanguard of the proletariat, as defined above, is the section of the working class that seizes power for the class as a whole. Why is this? You must keep in mind that there are different strata within the proletariat which are at different levels of class consciousness, from the vanguard, which is at the forefront of the movement and that which leads it; to the reaction, which are those proletarians that are against the movement, and seek to fight against it; to those in between, at different levels of development in class consciousness and theoretio-practical knowledge and experience.

Keeping that in mind, we can now answer the question of why the vanguard seizes power for the class as a whole; because it is the most advanced section of the proletariat that leads all others towards class consciousness, which not only increases support for the revolution, but the size of the vanguard as well. The vanguard is a section of the working class; it isn&#39;t an organization. It is defined based on someone&#39;s level of class consciousness, theoretical and practical knowledge and experience in the struggle. Because of this, anyone is able to be a member of the vanguard; the vanguard can&#39;t be "elitist" because it isn&#39;t an organization; it&#39;s a classification.

Now, finally, to Lenin&#39;s quote. What Lenin is saying in this quote is that the vanguard of the proletariat takes power, and "maintain[s], consolidate[s] and extend[s] its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people."

In other words, the vanguard of the proletariat takes power and maintains its power through the support of those strata of the proletariat that are not part of the vanguard - not at an advanced level of class consciousness - (as well as members of other classes, such as the peasantry) and "maintain[s], consolidate[s] and extend[s] its rule" through "educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people" which means helping to bring these proletarians of lower strata to a more advanced class consciousness and towards becoming a part of the vanguard.

To sum up, he is saying that class conscious proletarians will gain and maintain power through gaining support from proletarians that aren&#39;t as developed theoretically or practically, and will consolidate power through raising the level of class consciousness of those proletarians to a level on par with their own. He is talking about educating the proletariat so that they all become fully class conscious and part of the vanguard.


The question that arises, of course, is why would a "workers&#39; state" need to attract the support of workers to maintain its rule?

Because workers implement the state, and if nobody supported the state then the state wouldn&#39;t exist.


It would be as if the ruling elite today needed to win the support of itself&#33;

Not at all. Lenin is talking about educating proletarians to bring them towards class consciousness and towards becoming part of the vanguard. Education is necessary for this, as class consciousness doesn&#39;t spontaneously develop out of participation in the economic struggle.


Whatever intentions Lenin had (and these are rather dubious...it is clear that he considered himself and his colleagues "advanced" while many workers were "backward"), what he created cannot be disputed.

Many workers are backward. Those that are racist, sexist, nationalist or just reactionary in any way are backward. I think you are misinterpreting what Lenin meant when he said "backward strata" of the working class. He was talking about those that held reactionary beliefs. He certainly wasn&#39;t making an absolute judgement of them as people, but talking about their beliefs as reactionary, which is certainly true.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but it sounds like you think that when Lenin said something like this, he was implying that workers were somehow inferior and that he and his colleagues were superior. This wasn&#39;t the case at all, and can be seen in the quote I&#39;ve provided above where he talks about bringing the most backwards workers towards class consciousness through education and training.


So this revolution will be one of gaining state power, and then somehow "dealing" with the foreign imperialists?

Explain what you mean by this. I can&#39;t tell if it&#39;s a loaded question or not, or if you&#39;re just misinterpreting what I&#39;m saying.


Since university, I have increasingly subscribed to a view of revolution known as the "anarchy of becoming." Your revolution will have a definite end, whereas a revolution of becoming would have no end point. Authority would be destroyed from life bits at a time. Certainly some actions (such as the Zapatista uprising) have greater effect than others, but in any scenario in which capitalist relations are explicitly avoided or denied, the revolution is taking place.

Speaking of the Zapatista uprising, I think this is a wonderful example of an insurrectionary situation, a revolutionary situation, that does not involve the taking of State power. The people of Chiapas were fed up, and so they decided to simply start living in a way they wish to live. Indeed, they are not the first to live in an "anarchist way". "Primitive" societies have been doing this for millennia. Consensus-based decision making and other anarchist ideas are nothing new.

I don&#39;t know enough about the Zapatistas to comment on this. Could you please respond to that quote again?


Because you have never witnessed nor participated in a "proletarian revolution", I find it amazing that you can comprehend the dynamics of one&#33;

The proletariat can&#39;t maintain class society if it is the ruling class. That is impossible. Proletarian revolution does away with class society; it can&#39;t maintain it.


We would do what any anarchist wishes to do: destroy authority.

How would you destroy authority?


My argument is simply that the defining feature feature of this particular act of killing (in a revolutionary circumstance) is defined not by any "authoritarian" act but by a liberatory goal.

I wasn&#39;t asking about the goal; I was asking about the act. Regardless of the goal, is killing someone authoritarian?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Zampano
This is not a bureaucracy; this is not an elite; this is a section of the working class that is most theoretically and practically advanced.
What is "advanced"? Advanced in what way? An advanced consciousness? And who determines whether one is "advanced" or not?


Explain what you mean by this. I can&#39;t tell if it&#39;s a loaded question or not, or if you&#39;re just misinterpreting what I&#39;m saying.
I was simply asking if you suggest that revolutionaries take state power, build a new state, or destroy the state. Lenin wanted to destroy the old "bourgeois" state and build a proletarian one. Is that what you wish to do?


Proletarian revolution does away with class society; it can&#39;t maintain it.
It just does away with it? And that is a fact? But you are arguing for a society in which the "actual bourgeoisie" are subordinate to the revolutionary proletariat, and thus a stratified society. Do you subscribe to the notion that classes will wither away, and if so, what evidence have you to support this view?


How would you destroy authority?
I attempted to answer this, but apparently you were not impressed. The truth is I do not know yet how authority will be destroyed (but I like to experiment with different methods). In the past, revolutionaries have always used violence to destroy the old elites or to simply break away. For future insurrectionary activity, I think the Zapatista model is a good one; a committed group of revolutionaries would form an autonomous zone in which they live how they wish. The idea, of course, is for this practice to spread like wildfire until the global capitalist system is destroyed. It could take awhile, clearly.


Regardless of the goal, is killing someone authoritarian?
That the goal cannot be disregarded is my entire argument. The Polish resistance against the Nazis was not authoritarian precisely because of the environment in which it occured and the goal of the resistance. If you suggest that we can take an action like murder or theft and objectively assign it qualities like authoritarian or beautiful or right or true, regardless of the environment in which it takes place, I would strongly disagree. Killing someone can be authoritarian, or it can be liberating, or disgusting, or beautiful. The act itself has no "nature", no essence.

[KC]

What is "advanced"? Advanced in what way? An advanced consciousness? And who determines whether one is "advanced" or not?

Nobody determines it. It&#39;s simply the most advanced section. This isn&#39;t a means of performing revolution as much as it is an analysis of how revolution is performed. The most advanced members of the class are always at the forefront of the movement and are always the most active and are always the ones that are helping to bring others to that level of consciousness. That&#39;s just how revolutions are.


I was simply asking if you suggest that revolutionaries take state power, build a new state, or destroy the state. Lenin wanted to destroy the old "bourgeois" state and build a proletarian one. Is that what you wish to do?

The proletariat will destroy the bourgeois state apparatus and construct a self-negating proletarian one in its place. So the answer to your question is yes. However, again, I think this will lead to a discussion about the state in general and what the proletarian state is, and I am not willing to have yet another discussion on this in this thread. If you want to discuss that, then please read the works that I have provided and we can discuss these theories in more detail.


It just does away with it? And that is a fact? But you are arguing for a society in which the "actual bourgeoisie" are subordinate to the revolutionary proletariat, and thus a stratified society. Do you subscribe to the notion that classes will wither away, and if so, what evidence have you to support this view?

Common sense.



I attempted to answer this, but apparently you were not impressed.

Actually, I said that I&#39;m not knowledgeable enough about the Zapatista model to discuss it and asked you to answer the question again so that I could respond.


That the goal cannot be disregarded is my entire argument.

And my point is that the goal has absolutely nothing to do with determining whether or not an action is authoritarian. By doing so you are making authoritarianism a moral construct based on what you perceive to be right or wrong. Marxists don&#39;t deal in such idealism. Authoritarianism has a definition that is completely objective and independent of the reasons for committing these acts; you are attaching an emotional and moral issue to the word that isn&#39;t there.


The Polish resistance against the Nazis was not authoritarian precisely because of the environment in which it occured and the goal of the resistance. If you suggest that we can take an action like murder or theft and objectively assign it qualities like authoritarian or beautiful or right or true, regardless of the environment in which it takes place, I would strongly disagree. Killing someone can be authoritarian, or it can be liberating, or disgusting, or beautiful. The act itself has no "nature", no essence.

Of course it does. Violence is bloody, regardless of whether it&#39;s "good" or not; killing someone is violent whether they&#39;re a Nazi or a comrade. In the same way violence is authoritarian because you are exerting complete control over someone; that is the very definition of authoritarianism.

In this paragraph you openly show that you are attaching an emotional connotation to the word when you put it in the same category as words as subjective as "disgusting" and "beautiful". The fact is that authoritarian is a word that is objectively defined to describe an action in which one has complete authority over another. It is not a matter of context or opinion of whether or not something is authoritarian; it is whether or not it fits the definition. This is precisely where you err in your analysis; you cannot base your ideology on subjectivity because it will fall to pieces in light of other perspectives, as it is merely relative and based on opinion and emotion.

[syndicat]

"The art of politics (and the Communist’s correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it is able—during and after the seizure of power—to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people."


Lenin here assumes it is a minority, the "vanguard" -- and this means the
party -- that "assumes power", not the working class itself.


This is not a bureaucracy; this is not an elite; this is a section of the working class that is most theoretically and practically advanced.

But we need to look at the power relations between this group, once it "assumes power" and the working class. They run an army and a police, the members of those armed forces take orders via the chain of command. They appoint managers over the workplaces, yes? They set up a central planning staff to plan the whole economy, yes? If the "vanguard" directs the economy and the state, they have a concentrated power over the mass of proletarians that is the beginning of a class position. The coordinator class is based on having a relative monopolization of information and decision-making authority, and of being able to dominate the working class from that position.

Also, you didn&#39;t answer the question: What makes someone "advanced"? That is, how do we tell? What is the criterion? Is it agreement with a party line? Having the best theoretical grasp of Marxism? That will tend to put people with more education in charge, which means that an organization with that sort of priority will tend to be dominated by people from the professional/managerial layers. And why should these people be in charge? There is contradiction between the idea that the "vanguard" should be in charge, and the idea that "the self-emancipation of the working class is to be the work of the workers themselves." if the latter is to happen, the mass democracy of the working class needs to be in control.

The class power of the coordinator and capitalist classes ceases to exist in the revolutionary transformation or no liberatory revolution has taken place. Thus there is no bourgeoisie in the sense that there is no one with that sort of class power. There may be still people who used to be capitalists, whose prooperty has been expropriated. There may be people who used to be managers or high professionals, who no longer have boss positions, who don&#39;t run things anymore.

But the power of the coordinator class over the working class cannot be dismantled if the coordinator class power still exists, through the existence of state hierarchies, managerial hierarrchies. Putting "socialists" or "communists" into these positions doesn&#39;t liberate the working class from that class power.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by zampano
Nobody determines it. It&#39;s simply the most advanced section.
So it is objectively determined? And we are all advanced simply because we strive for socialism? This proposition stinks of historicism.


Common sense.
It is common sense that classes and the state will wither? Again, how is this common sense? Either you are a mystic or you have the gift of foresight.

Historically, when a society is born which is stratified with any sort of state apparatus, the society becomes more stratified. A new ruling group would have no special characteristics, only the characteristics they will develop once in power. It makes little sense to think that the ruling group would wish to lose that status. Power-over breeds more power-over.


Actually, I said that I&#39;m not knowledgeable enough about the Zapatista model to discuss it and asked you to answer the question again so that I could respond.
In "primitive" areas of the Amazon valley, many societies exist which Westerners would consider "anarchistic." These societies make decisions by consensus and purposely seek to smash hierarchy wherever it arises.

Anthropology has shown that no society exists that is "primitive," regardless of its level of technological innovation. So the idea would be to do this in a society like ours.

Perhaps an example you&#39;d be more familiar with would be the Paris Commune. The problem is that Marxists often view that rebellion as somehow special and unique in modern history, and it is neither. It is the same autonomous model which, when a new society is wanted, is generally the most successful. (as opposed to, let&#39;s say, a full out attack on the existing society)


Authoritarianism has a definition that is completely objective and independent of the reasons for committing these acts; you are attaching an emotional and moral issue to the word that isn&#39;t there.
Morality is a silly thing, so let us stray from that boring subject. However I do make killing another human being an emotional issue. Of course it is&#33; Murder does not happen in a lab like chemistry experiments. It happens with humans in the human world. And anytime a human ends the life of another, it is impossible to correctly analyze that situation without taking into account the environment in which it took place. There is no objectivity.


In the same way violence is authoritarian because you are exerting complete control over someone; that is the very definition of authoritarianism.
Violence, especially revolutionary violence, is often done in defense. Is that exerting complete control over another? A murder done in a single room with the victim tied up, that would be one thing, but it is not the subject of this debate.

In a revolutionary situation, the point is to have control over one&#39;s own life, not over others&#39; lives.

[KC]

So it is objectively determined? And we are all advanced simply because we strive for socialism? This proposition stinks of historicism.

I don&#39;t know how I could explain it any simpler or make it any more digestable than I already have.


It is common sense that classes and the state will wither?

Of course.


Historically, when a society is born which is stratified with any sort of state apparatus, the society becomes more stratified. A new ruling group would have no special characteristics, only the characteristics they will develop once in power. It makes little sense to think that the ruling group would wish to lose that status. Power-over breeds more power-over.

And the proletarian state isn&#39;t like any other state. Again, if you want to discuss the relevant readings I&#39;ve provided then start a new thread; I&#39;m not going to discuss the state in this thread and I&#39;m not going to discuss it in general terms. If you would like to discuss the state then read the works I have provided and comment specifically on them.



In "primitive" areas of the Amazon valley, many societies exist which Westerners would consider "anarchistic." These societies make decisions by consensus and purposely seek to smash hierarchy wherever it arises.

Anthropology has shown that no society exists that is "primitive," regardless of its level of technological innovation. So the idea would be to do this in a society like ours.

Perhaps an example you&#39;d be more familiar with would be the Paris Commune. The problem is that Marxists often view that rebellion as somehow special and unique in modern history, and it is neither. It is the same autonomous model which, when a new society is wanted, is generally the most successful. (as opposed to, let&#39;s say, a full out attack on the existing society)

So you&#39;re proposing a commune-based transition? Somewhat like New Lanark?


Morality is a silly thing, so let us stray from that boring subject. However I do make killing another human being an emotional issue. Of course it is&#33; Murder does not happen in a lab like chemistry experiments. It happens with humans in the human world. And anytime a human ends the life of another, it is impossible to correctly analyze that situation without taking into account the environment in which it took place. There is no objectivity.

Is murder always violent? Or can we not say that "without taking into account the environment in which it took place"?

[mario_buda]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 23, 2007 03:52 am
Yes, as Engel&#39;s said, a revolution is indeed authoritarian.. it is one of the most authoritarian things on earth..
Engles would say that because he has to justify authoritarianism. Self defense is not in any way authoritarian. A distincrion can be made by differentiating between violence which perpetuates domination, and that which seeks to destroy it. A state is authoritarian, therefore a statist revolution which engles would support will be authoritarian.

[KC]

Engles would say that because he has to justify authoritarianism.

He was stating a fact; he wasn&#39;t trying to justify anything.


Self defense is not in any way authoritarian.

It most certainly can be.


A distincrion can be made by differentiating between violence which perpetuates domination, and that which seeks to destroy it.

You are making the same mistake as anomaly has been making in attaching a moral, i.e. subjectivist, connotation to the word authoritarianism. Basically you are saying that "good" violence isn&#39;t authoritarian while "bad" violence is. However, the fact is that violence itself is authoritarian by the very definition of the word. The goal might be liberatory, but the act itself is authoritarian. There is nothing wrong with this.


A state is authoritarian, therefore a statist revolution which engles would support will be authoritarian.

There is no such thing as a "statist" revolution.

However, I agree that the proletarian state will be authoritarian; it will be both democratic and authoritarian.

[Labor Shall Rule]

To Syndicat:

"But we need to look at the power relations between this group, once it "assumes power" and the working class."

What in hell&#39;s name are power relations? It sounds like something out of a very bad science fiction novel; something that is not based on material and historical evidence, but rather a concepted juggernaut that you would read about in a comic book. That is an immature, childish way of examining historical personalities and the role that they played.

It seems that you are obsessed with the fact that the Bolsheviks are the Free Masons -- a conspiracy, a downright lie built up through decades of their notorious agitation and organization that was to simply trick the working class into falling into their &#39;authoritarian&#39; nightmare of a rigid hierarchy. Anarchists are so silly sometimes. :blink:

[abbielives!]

i don&#39;t think a lot of people on this board understand what authoritatiran means

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/authoritarian
Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-&#39;ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

[Chicano Shamrock]

I really can&#39;t believe how much bullshit is piled into this thread. A revolution of Fascists revolting against a free society is authoritarian as it seeks to subject others to their power. A communist revolution that seeks to abolish classes that hold power over one another can not be determined authoritarian by any sense of the word.

It makes no logical sense that defeating authoritarianism can make you authoritarian. Freedom is slavery I guess. It is not authoritarian for a slave to take of his shackles. If that slave is attacked when they do so then it is not authoritarian for them to defend themselves as they are not seeking to push their will on others but instead free themselves from another&#39;s will.

[mario_buda]

You are making the same mistake as anomaly has been making in attaching a moral, i.e. subjectivist, connotation to the word authoritarianism. Basically you are saying that "good" violence isn&#39;t authoritarian while "bad" violence is. However, the fact is that violence itself is authoritarian by the very definition of the word. The goal might be liberatory, but the act itself is authoritarian. There is nothing wrong with this.

To deny people the ablity to dominate you does not perpetuate domination and is not authoriarian.

A proletarian state (or any state) attempting to justify itself as revolutionary self defense through it&#39;s concentration of power is however authoritarian and it&#39;s easy to see why communists would want to convince people of the authoritarian nature of this joke trying to be passed off as revolution. Revolution ceases to be proletarian with the creation of the state, when people think they can speak for others.

[KC]

I really can&#39;t believe how much bullshit is piled into this thread. A revolution of Fascists revolting against a free society is authoritarian as it seeks to subject others to their power. A communist revolution that seeks to abolish classes that hold power over one another can not be determined authoritarian by any sense of the word.

Again, the results of an action don&#39;t determine what the action itself is. You&#39;re making the same mistake every other anarchist in this thread has made.



It makes no logical sense that defeating authoritarianism can make you authoritarian.

Nobody is talking about defeating authoritarianism.


It is not authoritarian for a slave to take of his shackles.

It is if he shoots his master.


If that slave is attacked when they do so then it is not authoritarian for them to defend themselves as they are not seeking to push their will on others but instead free themselves from another&#39;s will.

It has nothing to do with "pushing" one&#39;s will on others. It has to do with having power over another person.


To deny people the ablity to dominate you does not perpetuate domination and is not authoriarian.

Again a meaningless abstraction. You can&#39;t make this statement without being more specific about how you are "denying people th[at] ability".


A proletarian state (or any state) attempting to justify itself as revolutionary self defense through it&#39;s concentration of power is however authoritarian and it&#39;s easy to see why communists would want to convince people of the authoritarian nature of this joke trying to be passed off as revolution. Revolution ceases to be proletarian with the creation of the state, when people think they can speak for others.

Your ideology is based on anti-authoritarianism, not the class struggle. This is shown through your statements. You don&#39;t care about working class power; you care about fighting "authority". Your entire ideology is based on meaningless abstractions and vagaries that aren&#39;t based on an objective study of society but a subjective response to it. This is seen by your use of subjectivism with regards to words like "authoritarianism" and "state" as well as your dependence on morality and what is "right" and "wrong" with regards to your ideology. Marxism is based on an objective analysis of class society and because of that Marxists don&#39;t have to justify anything. They present reality; you don&#39;t have to agree with it to make it true.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Again, the results of an action don&#39;t determine what the action itself is. You&#39;re making the same mistake every other anarchist in this thread has made.
I wasn&#39;t talking about the results. I was talking about the context. Are you saying there is no difference between self defense and an offensive action?


Nobody is talking about defeating authoritarianism.
If you are talking about overthrowing bourgeois tyranny yes you are.

But like I said we are just perpetuating this bullshit-fest. If the person who made this thread doesn&#39;t want to call themself an anarchist that is fine. What&#39;s in a name?

[Hiero]

If you use force to stop someone from performing their daily role in society is that authoritarian?

This question is for the anarchist questioning whether revolution is authoritarian.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:21 pm
If you use force to stop someone from performing their daily role in society is that authoritarian?

This question is for the anarchist questioning whether revolution is authoritarian.
Not inherently. For instance if you stop a serial rapist from raping you I don&#39;t think that is an authoritarian action. It is a liberating action because the rapist is oppressing you. It doesn&#39;t make sense to me how self defense can be authoritarian. It can only be liberating.

[RebelDog]

I consider myself a libertarian marxist. I think revolution is authoritarian, absolutely. The bourgeoisie are in current control through authoritarian means. I want my class, the proletariat, to use its authority and power over the bourgeoisie and destroy its control and authority and make it submit to our agenda. So what I say. We act as a class to destroy class society forever and of course we are authoritarian in our actions against the class we must confront to achieve these aims, and thus the emancipation of our class. Its authoritarian in that sense but that is what we must do and there is no other way.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+June 19, 2007 04:23 pm--> (Chicano Shamrock &#064; June 19, 2007 04:23 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 08:21 pm
If you use force to stop someone from performing their daily role in society is that authoritarian?

This question is for the anarchist questioning whether revolution is authoritarian.
Not inherently. For instance if you stop a serial rapist from raping you I don&#39;t think that is an authoritarian action. It is a liberating action because the rapist is oppressing you. It doesn&#39;t make sense to me how self defense can be authoritarian. It can only be liberating. [/b]
I didn&#39;t expect that example to come up. Anyway in that case you use some form of authority to stop the act of a rapist. In our western liberal society that authority is given to the police by the state in accordance to what would satisfy the community.

That same authority is used to oppress workers, from counter revolutionary action to over policing of oppressed communities. This is bourgeois authority. In revolution the workers overthrow the bourgeois. The bourgeois by definition are members of a social class who own the means of production, therefore are the ruling class. When we remove them from that position we change who has the authority. The bourgeois cease to act in their natural way, the workers force this new social order on the bourgeois. This by definition is authoritarian. Then the workers follow from there to change the nature of authority, a group of people under the guidance proleteriat democracy enforce the laws against counter-revoluntaries and reactionaries.

I and others are looking at this term "authoritarian" as a netural term. Authoritarian can be applied to any system except Communism. This is different then when bourgeois politicians use the term to describe one party states or countries with a strong state. In conclusion the act of liberation is authoritarian since you use a new form of authority to plan out the new society.

I see what you are doing though. You view the term authortarian negativly. So an action that requires authority but benifits the proleteriat is good, so therefore not authoritarian. On the other hand an act which requires authority and does not benifit the proleteriat is bad, therefore authoritarian.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Hiero+June 18, 2007 10:19 pm--> (Hiero &#064; June 18, 2007 10:19 pm)
Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 19, 2007 04:23 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 08:21 pm
If you use force to stop someone from performing their daily role in society is that authoritarian?

This question is for the anarchist questioning whether revolution is authoritarian.
Not inherently. For instance if you stop a serial rapist from raping you I don&#39;t think that is an authoritarian action. It is a liberating action because the rapist is oppressing you. It doesn&#39;t make sense to me how self defense can be authoritarian. It can only be liberating.
I didn&#39;t expect that example to come up. Anyway in that case you use some form of authority to stop the act of a rapist. In our western liberal society that authority is given to the police by the state in accordance to what would satisfy the community.

That same authority is used to oppress workers, from counter revolutionary action to over policing of oppressed communities. This is bourgeois authority. In revolution the workers overthrow the bourgeois. The bourgeois by definition are members of a social class who own the means of production, therefore are the ruling class. When we remove them from that position we change who has the authority. The bourgeois cease to act in their natural way, the workers force this new social order on the bourgeois. This by definition is authoritarian. Then the workers follow from there to change the nature of authority, a group of people under the guidance proleteriat democracy enforce the laws against counter-revoluntaries and reactionaries.

I and others are looking at this term "authoritarian" as a netural term. Authoritarian can be applied to any system except Communism. This is different then when bourgeois politicians use the term to describe one party states or countries with a strong state. In conclusion the act of liberation is authoritarian since you use a new form of authority to plan out the new society.

I see what you are doing though. You view the term authortarian negativly. So an action that requires authority but benifits the proleteriat is good, so therefore not authoritarian. On the other hand an act which requires authority and does not benifit the proleteriat is bad, therefore authoritarian. [/b]
I am not saying this because it is good or bad in either situation. I am saying this because anarchist revolution is not about controlling authoritatively. It is about liberating from control.

Now you have started to go into how the authority changes hands from one to another when "the workers force their new social order on the bourgeois". This goes into the dictatorship of the proletariat. I guess this is why I am an anarcho-communist and not a Communist. I like the communist idea of abolishing classes, the state and so on but I don&#39;t like the idea of participating in a revolution only to end up with classes and the state still there just shifted around. When the power is shifted in the state there is still a dictatorship and there is still a state and so there is still tyranny. But we are talking about revolution not the results of a revolution.

The problem that we have in this thread is just people that don&#39;t agree with each other on the type of revolution that should come about. Obviously the Communists want a revolution where they can control and get revenge where the lib-coms and anarchists want a revolution of liberation.

Authoritarian - The term authoritarian is used to describe an organization or a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population, generally without attempts at gaining the consent of the population.

Liberating - To release from restraint or bondage; to set at liberty; to
free; to manumit; to disengage; as, to liberate a slave or
prisoner; to liberate the mind from prejudice; to liberate
gases.

Revolution - the overthrow of a government by those who are governed


You are not leaving the term revolution neutral when you suggest it is intrinsically either. Maybe Communist revolution always turns into a dictatorship because of the dogmatic belief that a revolution has to be authoritarian.

[KC]

I wasn&#39;t talking about the results. I was talking about the context. Are you saying there is no difference between self defense and an offensive action?

In this case the difference is irrelevant. Punching someone in the face is a violent act regardless of whether it was in self defense or if it was an offensive action. Authoritarianism is the same way.


If you are talking about overthrowing bourgeois tyranny yes you are.

No; I&#39;d be talking about "overthrowing bourgeois tyranny" then. My goal, and the goal of Marxists isn&#39;t to "defeat authoritarianism"; it&#39;s to emancipate the working class from the shackles of capitalist society.


Not inherently. For instance if you stop a serial rapist from raping you I don&#39;t think that is an authoritarian action. It is a liberating action because the rapist is oppressing you. It doesn&#39;t make sense to me how self defense can be authoritarian. It can only be liberating.

You are again here showing that you are attaching a subjective definition to the word authoritarian. You&#39;re basing the use of the word on whether an action is "liberatory" or "oppressive". This is of course untrue to the actual definition of the word; you are merely loading it with emotion. You also don&#39;t seem to understand that an action can be both liberatory and oppressive at the same time.


Now you have started to go into how the authority changes hands from one to another when "the workers force their new social order on the bourgeois". This goes into the dictatorship of the proletariat. I guess this is why I am an anarcho-communist and not a Communist. I like the communist idea of abolishing classes, the state and so on but I don&#39;t like the idea of participating in a revolution only to end up with classes and the state still there just shifted around.

Well, that&#39;s reality.


When the power is shifted in the state

Power isn&#39;t "shifted in the state". The bourgeois state apparatus is destroyed and a proletarian one of a completely different form is created in its place.


there is still a dictatorship and there is still a state and so there is still tyranny.

Well, yeah. Tyranny against bourgeois reactionism.


The problem that we have in this thread is just people that don&#39;t agree with each other on the type of revolution that should come about.

No, the problem is that you can&#39;t understand how the word authoritarianism is defined.


Obviously the Communists want a revolution where they can control and get revenge where the lib-coms and anarchists want a revolution of liberation.

:lol:

Yeah, us evil Communists want to take control of the world. Give me a fucking break.


Authoritarian - The term authoritarian is used to describe an organization or a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population, generally without attempts at gaining the consent of the population.

That&#39;s a definition of an authoritarian state not authoritarianism. We&#39;re talking about authoritarian actions.

[Hiero]

Look the point comes down to this. You have a revolution and you say to the bourgeois "you can&#39;t have this, you can&#39;t do this, you can&#39;t act bourgeois" and you enforce with authority. Therefore authoritarian. It is that simple.

It liberates the proleteriat and oppresses the bourgeois.

[Morello]

I&#39;m having trouble understanding this particular issue. Friedrich Engels stated that Revolution is Authoritarian. But my definition of revolution would be " Forming a front of like-minded rebels to bring about a change in government usually using violence." I can&#39;t see Authoritarianism in it. Because it is a just system destroying an unjust system. If it was Unjust destroying Just, it would be Authoritarian because it is stomping out all opposition to the State&#39;s power. Someone explain what Engels meant.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Mark [email protected] 21, 2007 10:27 pm
I&#39;m having trouble understanding this particular issue. Friedrich Engels stated that Revolution is Authoritarian. But my definition of revolution would be " Forming a front of like-minded rebels to bring about a change in government usually using violence." I can&#39;t see Authoritarianism in it. Because it is a just system destroying an unjust system. If it was Unjust destroying Just, it would be Authoritarian because it is stomping out all opposition to the State&#39;s power. Someone explain what Engels meant.
Engels ran out of opium that day so he was going through withdrawals.

[KC]

I&#39;m having trouble understanding this particular issue. Friedrich Engels stated that Revolution is Authoritarian. But my definition of revolution would be " Forming a front of like-minded rebels to bring about a change in government usually using violence." I can&#39;t see Authoritarianism in it. Because it is a just system destroying an unjust system. If it was Unjust destroying Just, it would be Authoritarian because it is stomping out all opposition to the State&#39;s power. Someone explain what Engels meant.

It was a group of people imposing their authority over other people. That is the very definition of authoritarian. Now you&#39;re basing what is authoritarian on what is "unjust" which itself is a subjective term.

[TC]

Marxism in the proper sense (not trotskyism or anti-revisionism or left-communism) is also inherently social-libertarian because human emancipation entails freedom from artificial personal and social constraints that idealist and traditionalist ideologies impose on people. This isn&#39;t a side issue but one of the fundamental principles of Marxist politics, because the Marxist agenda of emancipation entails opposing it politically, and the Marxist theoretical basis of historical and dialectical materialism also entails opposing it theoretically.

[Morello]

Think of it like this. If a slave frees himself or runs away, that&#39;s not Authoritarianism. But that is a sort of Revolution, the Liberative type. If the people who are oppressed rebel, that can&#39;t be authoritarian. But when Hitler imprisoned his political and social enemies, that was an act of authority, for he believed himself above them. Hence the name " Dictator " for he claimed himself a higher AUTHORITY ( key word there, ) and exercised is by Dictating a "lower" class. But say a political revolution happens, I dunno, a group of Socialists overthrow Capitalism in -insert country here-. If Capitalism tries to retake the country, that&#39;s not Authoritarian for their AUTHORITY was taken from them. Now the Socialists are in the Authoritive Position. Revolution can&#39;t be authoritarian, because Authoritarianism can only be practiced by people with Authority.

[Herman]

Yes, come to the dark side... come to the authoritarian side... to the MARXIST SIDE.

Hahahaha....

Sorry, but I do think that the topic itself is a bit ridiculous. You&#39;re going to stop calling yourself an anarchist, because you&#39;ve come to the inevitable realization that revolution, marxist socio-economic change is authoritarian.

So, if you have the tiniest bit of authoritarianism in you, you can&#39;t be an anarchist?

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally posted by Mark [email protected] 22, 2007 06:05 pm
Think of it like this. If a slave frees himself or runs away, that&#39;s not Authoritarianism. But that is a sort of Revolution, the Liberative type. If the people who are oppressed rebel, that can&#39;t be authoritarian... If Capitalism tries to retake the country, that&#39;s not Authoritarian for their AUTHORITY was taken from them. Now the Socialists are in the Authoritive Position. Revolution can&#39;t be authoritarian, because Authoritarianism can only be practiced by people with Authority.
Your slave analogy does not hold to "oppressed groups." An individual slave escaping is not authoritarian, I agree. But a group of slaves rising up and tarring, feathering, and lynching the former master is authoritarian. It uses force to impose a violation of the owner&#39;s humanity - loosely defined as their right to live and be productive without violating similar rights of others. Did the master forfeit these rights? Maybe. But in any event, the two responses by the slaves are reactions to a condition of bondage; revolution isn&#39;t inherently authoritarian or anti-authoritarian.

Now if one argues that the only viable revolution is authoritarian, that is, implicitly and substantially denies the humanity of other individuals (like executing capitalists instead of expropriating their wealth) beyond what is reasonably construed as the bare necessity to keep the revolution alive (like obvious self-defense against acts of reactionary aggression), then yeah, it doesn&#39;t take much as an anarchist to jump from this position to social democracy or Bolshevism.

Moreover, if the capitalists want to restore themselves by "force", this IS authoritarian. It would be like the slave owner trying to use a gun, hostages, national army, etc... and enslave his now freed slaves again.

[temp918273]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:28 am
Now if one argues that the only viable revolution is authoritarian, that is, implicitly and substantially denies the humanity of other individuals (like executing capitalists instead of expropriating their wealth) beyond what is reasonably construed as the bare necessity to keep the revolution alive (like obvious self-defense against acts of reactionary aggression), then yeah, it doesn&#39;t take much as an anarchist to jump from this position to social democracy or Bolshevism.
You make it seem as if "expropriating their wealth" does not imply the use of force, when in any conceivable revolutionary situation it certainly will. Even if it is only by means of intimidation, the expropration of the property of one class by another is an authoritarian act.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:41 pm
Even if it is only by means of intimidation, the expropration of the property of one class by another is an authoritarian act.
The use of force is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to render an act "authoritarian." For example, why would it be "authoritarian" to bulldoze a toxic chemicals factory and fence someone erected for their own use and profit on a public playground?

[temp918273]

Originally posted by MarxSchmarx+June 25, 2007 06:19 am--> (MarxSchmarx @ June 25, 2007 06:19 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 02:41 pm
Even if it is only by means of intimidation, the expropration of the property of one class by another is an authoritarian act.
The use of force is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to render an act "authoritarian." For example, why would it be "authoritarian" to bulldoze a toxic chemicals factory and fence someone erected for their own use and profit on a public playground? [/b]
It doesn&#39;t matter how you frame it. The violent expropriation of property from one class by another is a fundamentally authoritarian act. Bulldozing a toxic chemical factory erected in a public park has little to do with this, but that particular case is authoritarian as well.

[RNK]

Yes, it revolves around the fact that the workers will be forcing their authority over the bourgeois. Rather than arguing against the fact that this is authoritarian, perhaps you should challenge yourself to review your opinion of the word "authoritarian".

[syndicat]

reddali:


To Syndicat:

"But we need to look at the power relations between this group, once it "assumes power" and the working class."

What in hell&#39;s name are power relations?

we&#39;re talking here about structural features of the society, such as capital or the state or white supremacy or patriarchy. Power relations are usually expressed through institutions. When people monopolize ownership over the means of production this gives them certain power in relation to others. Let&#39;s say a group has monopoly ownership over a power plant that provides power to the surrounding region. This affects the barggaining power they have, to suck out a portion of the total social product in exchange for the power they generate. But ownership is not the only structure that does this. A relative monpolization of the empowering jobs in society, such as management positions, conceptual and design work and key expertise, also enables those who share this position to dominate workers in production who do not share in these empowering jobs. if some group has a fairly unilateral control over an army, that&#39;s another thing that can give them power within that society in comparison to others.



It seems that you are obsessed with the fact that the Bolsheviks are the Free Masons -- a conspiracy, a downright lie built up through decades of their notorious agitation and organization that was to simply trick the working class into falling into their &#39;authoritarian&#39; nightmare of a rigid hierarchy. Anarchists are so silly sometimes.

trying to run this kind of strawman fallacy is pretty silly. what i&#39;ve talked about are the objective institutional consequences, the structural consequences, of a certain programmatic and strategic orientation, one that favors the emergence of a certain kind of hierarchical system, a system that empowers the coordinator class.
that is the basis of my critique of Leninism.

[Joje]

While I would agree that a revolution most likely will be authoritarian (even though a bottom up social revolution wouldn&#39;t necessarily be since it would theoreticly be democratic and following violence would act as democratic self-defence) I wouldn&#39;t say that this makes all revolutionists authoritarians. If the purpose is to create an anti-authoritarian society and the revolution is the first step in the process towards that society, that intention is what should define you.

[KC]

While I would agree that a revolution most likely will be authoritarian (even though a bottom up social revolution wouldn&#39;t necessarily be since it would theoreticly be democratic and following violence would act as democratic self-defence)

Authoritarianism isn&#39;t based on the size of the groups involved. If one group is imposing its will on another, then it is authoritarian, regardless of whether or not it is a majority imposing on the minority.


f the purpose is to create an anti-authoritarian society

That isn&#39;t anyone&#39;s purpose. The purpose from a communist perspective is to create a classless society.

[syndicat]

if a society has authoritarian hierarchies such as the state, it won&#39;t be a classless society. the revolution also should be aiming at the elimination of patriarchy, white supremacy and imperialism, not just elimination of the class system.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:49 pm
if a society has authoritarian hierarchies such as the state, it won&#39;t be a classless society. the revolution also should be aiming at the elimination of patriarchy, white supremacy and imperialism, not just elimination of the class system.
These are historical sins that are synonymous with class society; if you abolish class society, you in turn, abolish these also.

[syndicat]

me: "QUOTE (syndicat @ July 11, 2007 02:49 pm)
if a society has authoritarian hierarchies such as the state, it won&#39;t be a classless society. the revolution also should be aiming at the elimination of patriarchy, white supremacy and imperialism, not just elimination of the class system. "



These are historical sins that are synonymous with class society; if you abolish class society, you in turn, abolish these also.

This is not automatic. this kind of thinking, that reduces all struggle against oppression to class, was a traditional defect of both marxism and anarchism. it led to saying that oppressed racial groups or women should "wait til the revolution" for their oppression to be addressed. but if the struggle against gender inequality and racial oppression are not a part of the struggle from the beginning, they are unlikely to be dealt with "after the revolution". gender inequality and Russian chauvinism were enduring features of the Soviet Union, e.g.

it&#39;s true, however, that the working class, especially in the USA, will never achieve the unity and cohesion and level of solidarity needed to defeat the powerful dominating classes unless the movement is built on an anti-racist and anti-sexist basis. groups subject to a specific form of oppression are unlikely to trust a movement that doesn&#39;t address their situation.

[KC]

if a society has authoritarian hierarchies such as the state, it won&#39;t be a classless society.

This statement is completely backwards. The state is created and perpetuated by class antagonisms; it isn&#39;t the other way around as you suggest. Your assertion implies that the state created and maintains class society, which is just an incredibly moronic thing to say. The state won&#39;t be done away with until class antagonisms are done away with; to claim the opposite is based on an incredibly flawed understanding of the materialist conception of history; it&#39;s idealism.


the revolution also should be aiming at the elimination of patriarchy, white supremacy and imperialism, not just elimination of the class system.

The revolution is aimed at the emancipation of the working class; what you "want" it to be about is irrelevant. Revolutions are caused by class antagonisms and is driven by class interests. While I agree with you that it would be great if it was about doing away with all such things, that is a completely unrealistic statement. "Patriarchy [and] white supremacy " are ideologies that arise and are maintained out of the material conditions of class society (more specifically, capitalist society) and expecting people to change their beliefs [i]before their material conditions are changed is again idealist. These changes in consciousness don&#39;t drive revolution, but are generally influenced by revolution (i.e. the massive upheaval of one class, thereby changing the material conditions drastically) and are changed as the revolution progresses.

As for "aiming at the elimination of...imperialism": this is a fallacious statement. Imperialism is capitalism; more specifically, it is a stage of capitalism. One cannot be "anti-imperialist" without also being "anti-capitalist". Because of this, your statement is tautological (i.e. "the revolution shouldn&#39;t only be about destroying capitalism but also aimed at destroying capitalism").


This is not automatic. this kind of thinking, that reduces all struggle against oppression to class, was a traditional defect of both marxism and anarchism. it led to saying that oppressed racial groups or women should "wait til the revolution" for their oppression to be addressed.

It never said any such thing. That is as much a vulgar distortion of Marxism as claiming that the working class should "wait til the revolution" for their oppression to be addressed. That is blatant economism, and mostly a straw man.

[syndicat]

me: "if a society has authoritarian hierarchies such as the state, it won&#39;t be a classless society."



This statement is completely backwards. The state is created and perpetuated by class antagonisms; it isn&#39;t the other way around as you suggest. Your assertion implies that the state created and maintains class society,

Your claim was refuted by the Russian revolution. the construction of a new state by the Bolsheviks was the basis for the creation of the new coordinator class regime.

me: "the revolution also should be aiming at the elimination of patriarchy, white supremacy and imperialism, not just elimination of the class system."



The revolution is aimed at the emancipation of the working class; what you "want" it to be about is irrelevant. Revolutions are caused by class antagonisms and is driven by class interests.

more dogmatism on your part. insofar as people are active around non-class forms of oppression, through struggling in those areas they can be agents of history that aren&#39;t class agents. it&#39;s true that elimination of capitalism requires the working class to do so, but it is equally true that the working class won&#39;t be able to do so unless it is a unified working class, which presupposes that it has already developed around struggles against race and gender oppression in addition to class. there is no "colorblind" class only revolution possible today.


"Patriarchy [and] white supremacy [i.e. racism]" are ideologies that arise and are maintained out of the material conditions of class society (more specifically, capitalist society) and expecting people to change their beliefs before their material conditions are changed is again idealist.

wrong. racism and patriarchy are not only ideologies but actual patterns of relative advantage and disadvantage. men have material advantages from escaping from most housework and having women dependent on them. racism is a structure that privilges white people in terms of things like hiring and pay levels and ability to get loans, and avoid being hassled by cops, etc.

what&#39;s required are struggles against structural racism and gender inequality in the context of capitalist society so as to develop the unity of the class, without this it will not be possible to have a liberatory working class revolution. the mass movement that fundamentally challenges the dominant classes has to already have an anti-racist and anti-sexist practice or will have no chance of eliminating patriarchy and white supremacy, and in fact such a revolutionary movement is not a possibility at this time.


As for "aiming at the elimination of...imperialism": this is a fallacious statement. Imperialism is capitalism; more specifically, it is a stage of capitalism. One cannot be "anti-imperialist" without also being "anti-capitalist".

wrong again. imperialism existed before capitalism. it has its roots in the competition between distinct territorial states. this leads to a competitive logic analysis to that between companies in the market. in this case it leads to the arms race and war. any rising bourgeoisie in a state subject to imperial domination can have a bourgeois anti-imperialist movement.

the "national liberation movements" are state building projects that cannot possibily liberate the working class, and imply the continued existence of the class system, because the state itself implies the continued existence of the class system.

me: "This is not automatic. this kind of thinking, that reduces all struggle against oppression to class, was a traditional defect of both marxism and anarchism. it led to saying that oppressed racial groups or women should "wait til the revolution" for their oppression to be addressed. "



It never said any such thing. That is as much a vulgar distortion of Marxism as claiming that the working class should "wait til the revolution" for their oppression to be addressed. That is blatant economism, and mostly a straw man.

you&#39;re apparently not paying attention to your own verbiage. you just above said

"Patriarchy [and] white supremacy [i.e. racism]" are ideologies that arise and are maintained out of the material conditions of class society (more specifically, capitalist society) and expecting people to change their beliefs before their material conditions are changed is again idealist.

You were here arguing against my assertion that it is necessary to have anti-racism and anti-sexism as part of the struggle for social transformation to ensure that structural racism and gender inequality are dismantled along with the class system.

you need to make up your mind which it is going to be.

[Rawthentic]

Your claim was refuted by the Russian revolution. the construction of a new state by the Bolsheviks was the basis for the creation of the new coordinator class regime.
Soviet power did not create this. Remember that you&#39;ve never presented a materialist analysis of the state.


"This is not automatic. this kind of thinking, that reduces all struggle against oppression to class, was a traditional defect of both marxism and anarchism. it led to saying that oppressed racial groups or women should "wait til the revolution" for their oppression to be addressed. "
Can you explain which marxist advocated this or how Marx did?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Syndicat seems to leave out the actually existing material conditions which gave rise to ideological desperation, isolation, bureaucratization, and degeneration. Lenin himself remarked that the times following Kronstadt were hard; it was a moment in which political principles were sacrificed for the sake of staying alive, it would of also been terrific if potential allies weren&#39;t thrown into the crossfire. I think the issue of the most importance is making it clear that ideas do not flow from ideas — Leninism didn&#39;t lead to Stalinism, as a matter of fact, they are polar opposites. If Lenin had been stronger, he would of been able to be present at the Party Congress for which according to his stenographer Fotieva, he had "prepared a bombshell for Stalin"; according to his own wife, if Lenin had the chance, he would of "lined him up against a wall and have him shot". His own writings are evidence of his fervent hatred of bureaucracy. Syndicat seems to make a lot of fallacious links between certain historical experiences and overall facts of strategy. Certainly there are lessons to be learned from the Russian experience, but lessons are complex things and generally don&#39;t take the form of "power relations inherent to ideology", or whatever he has been going on about in the past few weeks.

I was also interested in reading The Structure of the Soviet State by John Reed, to which this was mentioned about the Supreme Council of Public Economy:


The tendency of the Russian Soviet Republic, as Lenin has himself pointed out, is away from political Government of any kind, and toward true industrial democracy. Lenin has even gone so far as to foresee the eventual disappearance of the Soviets in favor of an economic, purely administrative, body.

The prototype of this future economic parliament already exists in Russia. It is called the Supreme Council of Public Economy, and is made up of delegates from the Main Land Committee, and from the Council of Workers’ Control. This Council has the power to regulate the economic life of the country, to control the flow of production and direct it, to administer in a large way the natural resources belonging to the Government, to control export and import; and to it alone belongs the right to start new industries, or to undertake new projects of railroad and highway building, the opening of new mines, the building of new factories, or the development of water-power.

The acting committee of the Council is composed of fifteen men, each one in charge of one of the fifteen branches of the country’s economic life, such as railroads, agriculture, etc. These men are chosen as follows: The different professional organizationsosuch as Institute of Mining Engineers, etc., nominate their best-qualified men; and these candidates are voted upon by the delegates of the land committees and the Workers’ Control organizations.

The fifteen committeemen sit in fifteen offices, surrounded by technical commissions applying to their various fields. In the same building are also representatives of the Soviets, representatives of the Commissariat of Labor, the Commissariat of Commerce and Industry, the Commissariat of Finance; representatives of the factory shop committees, the peasant Soviets, Cooperatives, etcetera.

Projects are brought in. For example, let us imagine the project of a railroad between Moscow and Novgorod (there is one already, but let us imagine it). The plan is laid before the committeemen in charge of railroads. If he rejects it the project goes to an appeal board. If he accepts, he calls in his technical commissions and tells them to work out the engineering problems. Other commissions, together with representatives of the workers’ organizations from the steel factories, and with the unions, work out the cost. Then the delegates of the local workers’ and peasants’ organizations are brought in. Do they want the railroad? Do they need it? What amount of travel will there be? What amount of traffic in fuel and raw materials and manufactured products of industry? In farm-supplies and crop-transportation?

In other words, nothing is done in the way of economic development that is not needed by the people, and those things most needed by the people are done first. Since December, although Russia is racked to pieces, although she is at war with every country on earth, still vast projects are planned and work is begun upon themolike the linking of three hundred mines in the Urals with a net of railroads, and the harnessing of the six great rivers of northern Russia to furnish light, heat and industrial power.

It seems that the intiatives undertaken by the Supreme Council of the Economy were completely legitimate, seeing that they were technically subordinated to the Soviets.

[KC]

Your claim was refuted by the Russian revolution. the construction of a new state by the Bolsheviks was the basis for the creation of the new coordinator class regime.

You obviously have problems understanding the difference between theory and history. Not surprising, though. Glad you openly show your support for idealism.


insofar as people are active around non-class forms of oppression

There&#39;s no such thing as "non-class forms of oppression". What a stupid thing to say. All oppression has its basis in the class struggle.


it&#39;s true that elimination of capitalism requires the working class to do so, but it is equally true that the working class won&#39;t be able to do so unless it is a unified working class, which presupposes that it has already developed around struggles against race and gender oppression in addition to class. there is no "colorblind" class only revolution possible today.

This is wrong. Class interests have a tendency to override such ideologies.


wrong. racism and patriarchy are not only ideologies but actual patterns of relative advantage and disadvantage.

wrong. [sic] These "patterns of relative advantage and disadvantage" aren&#39;t racism or partriarchy, but are effects of them.


men have material advantages from escaping from most housework and having women dependent on them. racism is a structure that privilges white people in terms of things like hiring and pay levels and ability to get loans, and avoid being hassled by cops, etc.

Yeah, but those aren&#39;t racism; they&#39;re effects of it. They are based on racism.


what&#39;s required are struggles against structural racism and gender inequality in the context of capitalist society so as to develop the unity of the class, without this it will not be possible to have a liberatory working class revolution.

I don&#39;t think I ever said otherwise.


wrong again. imperialism existed before capitalism.

If you want to use the vulgar, common definition of the word then of course you&#39;re right. In fact, I completely expected you to do so.


in this case it leads to the arms race and war. any rising bourgeoisie in a state subject to imperial domination can have a bourgeois anti-imperialist movement.

Hekmat (http://hekmat.public-archive.net/) disproved this. Of course, you&#39;re not using an actual analytical definition of the word, so anything you say could be "right" (it just wouldn&#39;t have a point).


the "national liberation movements" are state building projects that cannot possibily liberate the working class, and imply the continued existence of the class system, because the state itself implies the continued existence of the class system.

Again with your backwards idealism.


You were here arguing against my assertion that it is necessary to have anti-racism and anti-sexism as part of the struggle for social transformation to ensure that structural racism and gender inequality are dismantled along with the class system.

You are reading what isn&#39;t there. You said the revolution should also "be aimed at" anti-racism and anti-sexism. I said that it doesn&#39;t matter what you think because the revolution is caused by an entire class overthrowing another. I never said communists shouldn&#39;t work against sexism and racism.


Soviet power did not create this. Remember that you&#39;ve never presented a materialist analysis of the state.

That is because he is an idealist, and proud of it.


Syndicat seems to leave out the actually existing material conditions which gave rise to ideological desperation, isolation, bureaucratization, and degeneration.

To Syndicat none of that matters, because those were the effects of the degeneration and not the cause. He&#39;s an idealist.


Lenin himself remarked that...

Yeah, but don&#39;t you know? The Russian Revolution failed because Lenin was a despotic oppressive dictator. :rolleyes:

[syndicat]

in the context of the Russian revoluition, the Bolshevik party were a material force. if their program and strategy were not important to what happens, why do you advocate for their being a vanguard organization to lead the masses? why do you think the political perspective of a revolutionary organization matters?

the Bolsheviks were able to attain state power in part due to the illiteracy, disorganization and poverty of the peasantry who were 80% of the population in Russia. in that context, with an organization of 250,000 members active within the factory committees, and having attained influence for their ides within the soviets, they were able to build a new state and thus implement their program. but a state is a hierarchical structure apart from the mass of the people, and this is what enables it to defend a dominating class, and in this case, through the implementation of the Bolsheviks program it was the coordinator class, built out of a layer of the intelligentsia and administrative personnel of the new state.

the state itself is a material force in society, and the Kronstadt rebellion&#39;s violent force against the real soviet democracy made it clear what it was being used for.

Z:
There&#39;s no such thing as "non-class forms of oppression".

then racism is not a structure of oppression? so, when the planter class in the American south in the late 1600s and early 1700s decided to create a division between white and black laborers in servitude by freeing up the poor whites from legal servitude, took away the right to vote of free blacks, banned interracial marriage and mixed children, converted black indentured servants into slaves for life, and all this based on their being black, they weren&#39;t creating a system of racial oppression?

and the systematic pattern of a harder time finding jobs, finding home loans, or tending to be mistreated by police and courts -- this situation of black Americans is not a system of race oppression?

me: "wrong. racism and patriarchy are not only ideologies but actual patterns of relative advantage and disadvantage. "



wrong. [sic] These "patterns of relative advantage and disadvantage" aren&#39;t racism or partriarchy, but are effects of them.

now it&#39;s clearly you who are taking the idealist position. in the American south in the 1600s the ideology of modern racism didn&#39;t exist. this ideology only came into existence over the following century, in order to have an ideology to justify the actual practices of the colonialists and planters: killing and enslaving the American Indians and stealing their land, creating a separate situation for European and African laborers, getting rid of the early rough equality between them in the British North American colonies.

the ideology comes into existence to justify actual practices that became prevalent in the existing social order. that&#39;s because humans like to feel justified in what they are doing.

The rest of Z.&#39;s comments are just name-calling.

[syndicat]

in reply to RedDali: John Reed died in 1920. he didn&#39;t live long enough to see how wrong many of his predictions were. his background was as an American syndicalist, a mmber of the IWW, so he tended to read Russia thru rose-colored syndicalisg glasses. he made the claim that it was the factory committee movement that was going to be the force of the future in the Soviet Union -- exactly the opposite of what happened. by late 1920 there wasn&#39;t a single workplace left where the factory committees were in control.

in regard to the Workers Control Council: It was a sop to the factory committee movement and it was wound up -- abolished -- within months of being created, and never actually functioned. it existed only on paper. see Maurice Brinton&#39;s evidence about this in "Bolsheviks and Workers Control."

on paper the Council for Workers Control was supposed to appoint a few people to Vesenkha but in practice it didn&#39;t happen. Vesenkha in practice was made up of engineers, Bolshevik trade union officials and Bolshevik party stalwarts appointed by Sovnarkom. it wasn&#39;t a workers&#39; body.

[Rawthentic]

but a state is a hierarchical structure apart from the mass of the people, and this is what enables it to defend a dominating class,
No, its a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. Thats why syndicalists and your type will never make revolution, you don&#39;t have a materialist understanding and an especially thwarted definition of the state.

And John Reed was a Marxist, don&#39;t insult him.

[Labor Shall Rule]

But still Syndicat, your statement here has contradicted the slogan that you have blabbered repetively ever since these debates have began.


The Bolsheviks immediately instituted a system of centralized state economic planning.

If that is true, then why did Council for Workers&#39; Control, the Main Land Committee, and several delegates from other working class organizations have control over the tasks undertaken by the Supreme Council of Public Economy within the first few months following the seizure of power? Keep in mind, John Reed was writing this in The Liberator; a communist periodical that Reed regularly contributed to. He was also the American representative to the Communist International. Does Maurice Brinton have sourced evidence? From what I have read, she presents the claim that the Council for Workers&#39; Control was a "very indirect sop to the Factory Committees" without presenting any sourced evidence or clear examples.

The Bolsheviks, whether you like it or not, were popular. As for your claim that "the state itself is a material force in society, and the Kronstadt rebellion&#39;s violent force against the real soviet democracy made it clear what it was being used for", I don&#39;t think you understand why the Kronstadt Rebellion had to be crushed. The Bolsheviks could not allow the base to be occupied by rebels whom, as we see, they had good reason to suspect of collaboration with the enemy. This isn&#39;t some deep dark conspiracy, but a necessary imposition of the situation. The Bolsheviks controlled most of the country by that point. If supplies couldn&#39;t be obtained from other parts of the country they would have had to have been obtained from without. Material necessity alone would have been enough to drive the rebels to accept the aid of imperialism. Combined with the peasant origin and sentiments of the majority of the sailors, this was a dangerous development that posed a serious enough threat to the Soviet state to warrant the action that was taken. This is not to say that there wasn&#39;t revolutionary elements present at Kronstadt, but rather, that a single compromise of &#39;diplomacy&#39; shouldn&#39;t be sacrificed when imperialist and counterrevolutionary threats have surrounded you. When you are fighting for your life, you don&#39;t take gambles on fuzzy feelings. You act.

[syndicat]

RedDali:

The Council on Workers&#39; Control was in no way inconsistent with central planning. and it simply had no power. And it never actually functioned. There was Vesenkha and there were the various industrial or regional councils below Vesenkha, the glavki. but the majority of the people on these councils were appointed from above, not elected by the workers. this is all described in great detail in "The Bolsheviks and Workers Control." Maurice Brinton was a he, not a she. And, yes, there is a great deal of documentary evidence for all this presented. The book is available online, as well as in the anthology "For Workers Power".

moreover, even if they had been elected, that doesn&#39;t alter the logic of central planning. central planning concentrates the knowledge and planning and decision-making into a top-down hierarchy. information is collected by the planning elite, and they make the decisions about the plan and then issue marching orders. this violates community and worker self-management in a very straightforward way.

[Labor Shall Rule]

So, John Reed was lying?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:59 pm
So, John Reed was lying?
Professional politicians lie all the time. That&#39;s how they get to stay being professional politicians.


EDIT: I read &#39;John REES&#39;

[syndicat]

So, John Reed was lying?

First of all Reed was talking about the formal structure, as it was in 1918. The Council for Workers Control was authorized from above, by Sovnarkom and Vesenkha. but in the ensuing months it didn&#39;t function and it was gone fairly quickly. Reed may not have known about this. This was only a minority of the nominal reps. Mainly Vesenkha was made up of engineers, trade union bureaucrats and other Bolshevik party members.

Secondly, nothing in that fragment you quote says the 15 representatives on Vesenkha were elected by the workers. Mention is made of representatives of various industries. There were a series of industrial and regional councils that were created. There was a congress where the structure of these bodies were set up, and this is discussed in Brinton. A working committee came back to the main plenary with a proposal that 2/3 of the reps on these industrial or regional councils be elected by the workers and Lenin vociferously opposed this. He insisted that no more than one-third be elected by the workers, and this was changed to accord with Lenin&#39;s proposal. These were the bodies under Vesenkha.

There is nothing in that quote from Reed that would indicate any direct control by workers or direct accountability to workers. The Council on Workers Control was not elected by workers but was supposed to represent the factory committees, which were representative bodies. so even if we take that structure at face value, any influence would be extremely indirect, and these people were only a minority of Vesenkha.

And who are these "land committees" that Reed says chooses the members of Vesenkha? and notice how the candidates are selected, according to Reed:

The different professional organizationsosuch as Institute of Mining Engineers, etc., nominate their best-qualified men;

These are not the workers nominating people but bodies of engineers and industrial administrators. i.e. we&#39;re talking about a professional/managerial hierarchy here.

[Joje]

Authoritarianism isn&#39;t based on the size of the groups involved. If one group is imposing its will on another, then it is authoritarian, regardless of whether or not it is a majority imposing on the minority.

Yes but the majority doesn&#39;t have to impose it&#39;s will on the minority, not in any direct way. If the working classes just leave the capitalist to themselves and build an alternative economy and society the capitalists will have to adjust, a minority of capitalists have no way of competing with a majority of socialists. Their society will crumble without anyone actively imposing their will upon them. The violent part of this comes when the capitalists try to impose THEIR will upon us and we defend ourselves. This is of course an ideal situation.


That isn&#39;t anyone&#39;s purpose. The purpose from a communist perspective is to create a classless society.

I was tired, I meant an anti-hierarchical society, which by definition will have to be classless. If your intent is to create an anti-hierarchical society that intent is what should define you as an anarchist just as the intent to create a communist society would make you a communist.

[syndicat]

Authoritarianism isn&#39;t based on the size of the groups involved. If one group is imposing its will on another, then it is authoritarian, regardless of whether or not it is a majority imposing on the minority.

that would be an individualistic definition of "authoritarian", not a social anarchist definition. suppose there is a workplace assembly that makes the decisions in the running of a workplace. there is a decision about when to start work and you are in the minority and outvoted. then the majority, you could say, "impose their will" on you. but there is nothing authoritarian about this because there is no hiearchy imposed over the workers.

similarly in the case of a revolution. the capitalists are a minority. the masses decide they want to do away with the private ownership of means of production. the capitalists are, in effect, outvoted by the working class majority. that&#39;s just democracy in action. it doesn&#39;t imply any managerial hierarchy being set up over anyone (tho that could happen, if for example, the means of production were made state property).