Let's get hypothetical with it!

[Pirate Utopian]

Okay, I'm not sure if this is the right place so be free to move it.
Let's say a theory of how to achieve a stateless, classless society has succesfully done, but this is not your theory, in fact you've critised that theory before quite often.

For example: Leninists see a succesful Anarchist society that isnt chaotic, and if your an Anarchist you see how Leninists succesfully turned their countries to true Communist societies without being tyrants.

My questions are:
Would you still critise that theory?
Would you change your own theory?

Yeah, yeah I know you dont think that Anarchism/Leninism/Technocracy/etc. wont work depending on what your theory is but, like the title shows, it's purely hypothetical.

[Panda Tse Tung]

I would support an Anarchist uprising (unless over the back of another revolution such as in Spain) anyways. But the question whether I'd change my ideology would be difficult. If, and only if Anarchists would be able to create a free and anarchist society in say the Netherlands and they would be able to fight off the forces of reaction and freely establish a society wherein everybody is equal (to a point), then yes I'd support it. But i wouldn't change my ideology because i still doubt it would work on different scales in different situations. Would however this uprising be worldwide then I'd be willing to change my own point of view.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I don't view 'anarchist' revolutions in the same light that I view their theories; I don't think that theories are exclusive with revolutions, considering that they are created by social forces, rather than some sort of ideology. I think the social organizations that we wish to replace the capitalist machinery with, such as soviets and syndicates, are all legitimate representations of workers' control; there is no difference other than semantics and minor historical representations that seperate the two. However, I see the political line that the leadership takes to be of the utmost importance. As so, I can find that many anarchists that could easily find themselves in bed with Bolshevism, Durruti for example, took the position of a Bolshevik from 1917.


“When an organization's whole existence has been spent preaching revolution, it has an obligation to act whenever a favorable set of circumstances arises. And in July [1936] the occasion did present itself. The CNT ought to have leapt into the driver's seat in the country, delivering a severe coup de grace to all that is outmoded and archaic. In this way, we would have won the war and saved the revolution.

“But it did the opposite. It collaborated with the bourgeoisie in the affairs of the state, precisely when the State was crumbling away on all sides. It bolstered up Companys and company. It breathed a lungful of oxygen into an anemic, terror-stricken bourgeoisie. One of the most direct reasons why the revolution has been asphyxiated and the CNT displaced, is that it behaved like a minority group, even though it had a majority in the streets....

“On the other hand, we would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise. What happens is that the various aspects of revolution are progressively dealt with, but with the proviso that the class which represents the new order of things is the one with the most responsibility. And when things are done by halves, we have what presently concerns us, the disaster of July.”

So, where Durruti found himself more or less in agreement with Malatesta's deconstruction and criticism against Makhno's platform - either his practices in the 1917-1921 interval, or the 1926 Platform - we find this same Durruti making fast and rapid adaptations of the Platform - rightly seen by anarchist critics as a form of Bolshevism - into his neo-syndicalism which has seen the introduction of a 'slight variation'. His call for the creation of a “revolutionary army” characterized by “unity in the plan of operations and unity of common command”, had left him in the same boots as any other Bolshevik. Durruti recognized that the CNT betrayed the revolution. You can't lay all of the blame on Stalin, since the power of his intervention was only as strong as the utter weakness and confusion of the anarchist leadership. The quote doesn't mention a "faction" in the CNT, it condemns the CNT as a whole. It condemns it from the stand point of Bolshevism -a failure to take power when the time was right. But that failure stems from the paranoia of anarchism about states and power. It only ensures that the worst possible forces come to power. This is where the importance of theory derives from, and the reason why revolutions with anarchist leadership might find themselves in a conniption.

[Raúl Duke]

Would you still critise that theory?
if we reach communism through a political theory that I don't agree with (i.e. Leninism, etc) than what should I care that I was wrong. What matters is that capitalism has been abolished and communism has been established.

Let bygones be bygones ;) :P

However, if there are some reactionary things (not the same as theoretical differences) that need criticism, I will still criticize.


Would you change your own theory?
What I would do before I changed my theory, is analyse the events that lead to the creation of communism and reach a conclusion based on analysis of these events. I'm not going to accept the supposed theory of the winners whole; they might have deviated from it (use different tactics, etc) from their practice even if they claim to have uphold so-&-so theory.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I want Syndicat to get in on what I said.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 13, 2007 10:18 am
Okay, I'm not sure if this is the right place so be free to move it.
Let's say a theory of how to achieve a stateless, classless society has succesfully done, but this is not your theory, in fact you've critised that theory before quite often.

For example: Leninists see a succesful Anarchist society that isnt chaotic, and if your an Anarchist you see how Leninists succesfully turned their countries to true Communist societies without being tyrants.

My questions are:
Would you still critise that theory?
Would you change your own theory?

Yeah, yeah I know you dont think that Anarchism/Leninism/Technocracy/etc. wont work depending on what your theory is but, like the title shows, it's purely hypothetical.
Anything is better than capitalism, (bar fascism) so Id probably just go along with it whatever the particular status quo happened to be, as long as i was better off, and no one that i cared about was in any danger.

[Faux Real]

I am not stuck on any one ideology, but I am sure that I will support any rev movement as long as it promises to deliver from the will of people. I wouldn't change my theory as one should always stay critical and self critical of the actions taken by revolutionary movements.

[Black Cross]

I wouldn't have to change my ideologies to be for an anarchist revolution. It may not be my ideal society, but it kicks the hell out of fascism, capitalism, et cetera. I may still believe that there is a way for it to be better, but as long as it's a society free from tyranny, imperialism and exploitation, then I would go along with it.

[Led Zeppelin]

No I wouldn't, I'd sabotage to the best of my ability. :P

[RGacky3]

supporting a revolution is completely different from supporting an ideology, I am an Anarchist, but I definately support the Zapatista uprising, which is'nt anarchist, that does'nt mean I'm going to change what I believe, like was said before revolutions are never by the book, ideologies are generally used as guidelines, and many times are not followed very closely.

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 13, 2007 06:18 am
Okay, I'm not sure if this is the right place so be free to move it.
Let's say a theory of how to achieve a stateless, classless society has succesfully done, but this is not your theory, in fact you've critised that theory before quite often.

For example: Leninists see a succesful Anarchist society that isnt chaotic, and if your an Anarchist you see how Leninists succesfully turned their countries to true Communist societies without being tyrants.

My questions are:
Would you still critise that theory?
Would you change your own theory?

Yeah, yeah I know you dont think that Anarchism/Leninism/Technocracy/etc. wont work depending on what your theory is but, like the title shows, it's purely hypothetical.
If an Anti-Capitalist system was put in place that I didn't specifically support, I wouldn't complain. It's better than the chains placed by the State, so I would be content.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Most anarchists are Marxists that use silly words and gimmicks to cover their true identity.

[Janus]

Would you still critise that theory?
Criticism, to a degree, is always healthy.


Would you change your own theory?
I would imagine that in the situation which you described, there would already have been some type of merger between certain elements of differing factions.

[Raúl Duke]

Why are some of the post more like a anarchist society vs leninist society?

The person who posted the hypothetical question stated this:
Let's say a theory of how to achieve a stateless, classless society has succesfully done

I assume that we are talking about how we would feel/opinion about to an opposing theory that lead to communism.

If a theory that I oppose and considered to be a failure at reaching communism does reach it; than I suppose I would be shocked and I would analyze the events that lead to communism to understand how/why it succeeded.

[Boriznov]

I would be critical of the revolution itself but if the goal was communism then i would support it. BUT it's not because a leninist aproach of a revolution was won in a country doesn't mean it would work everywhere. Different aspects decide what aproach would work.

[Random Precision]

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be ECSTATIC if anarchists managed to pull off a successful revolution without the dictatorship of the proletariat or any kind of new state structure in between. I happen to think that the transitionary state is a unfortunate but necessary condition for socialism, as it opens the way for possible tyranny, so if there was a way to dispense with it I would be thrilled. For now let's just say I'm talking about a successful method of revolution generally, not just in whatever country it happens to originate.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:23 pm
I don't view 'anarchist' revolutions in the same light that I view their theories; I don't think that theories are exclusive with revolutions, considering that they are created by social forces, rather than some sort of ideology. I think the social organizations that we wish to replace the capitalist machinery with, such as soviets and syndicates, are all legitimate representations of workers' control; there is no difference other than semantics and minor historical representations that seperate the two. However, I see the political line that the leadership takes to be of the utmost importance. As so, I can find that many anarchists that could easily find themselves in bed with Bolshevism, Durruti for example, took the position of a Bolshevik from 1917.


“When an organization's whole existence has been spent preaching revolution, it has an obligation to act whenever a favorable set of circumstances arises. And in July [1936] the occasion did present itself. The CNT ought to have leapt into the driver's seat in the country, delivering a severe coup de grace to all that is outmoded and archaic. In this way, we would have won the war and saved the revolution.

“But it did the opposite. It collaborated with the bourgeoisie in the affairs of the state, precisely when the State was crumbling away on all sides. It bolstered up Companys and company. It breathed a lungful of oxygen into an anemic, terror-stricken bourgeoisie. One of the most direct reasons why the revolution has been asphyxiated and the CNT displaced, is that it behaved like a minority group, even though it had a majority in the streets....

“On the other hand, we would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise. What happens is that the various aspects of revolution are progressively dealt with, but with the proviso that the class which represents the new order of things is the one with the most responsibility. And when things are done by halves, we have what presently concerns us, the disaster of July.”

So, where Durruti found himself more or less in agreement with Malatesta's deconstruction and criticism against Makhno's platform - either his practices in the 1917-1921 interval, or the 1926 Platform - we find this same Durruti making fast and rapid adaptations of the Platform - rightly seen by anarchist critics as a form of Bolshevism - into his neo-syndicalism which has seen the introduction of a 'slight variation'. His call for the creation of a “revolutionary army” characterized by “unity in the plan of operations and unity of common command”, had left him in the same boots as any other Bolshevik. Durruti recognized that the CNT betrayed the revolution. You can't lay all of the blame on Stalin, since the power of his intervention was only as strong as the utter weakness and confusion of the anarchist leadership. The quote doesn't mention a "faction" in the CNT, it condemns the CNT as a whole. It condemns it from the stand point of Bolshevism -a failure to take power when the time was right. But that failure stems from the paranoia of anarchism about states and power. It only ensures that the worst possible forces come to power. This is where the importance of theory derives from, and the reason why revolutions with anarchist leadership might find themselves in a conniption.
I would love for Syndicat or some other anarchist to respond to what I said.

[brasil82]

What it matters is to have a civilisation of equity,equality,freedom,humanity and friendship,I aggree with red dali,we are in deep all marxists,I consider myself as an anarchist but every civilisation or community(not state)which provides freedom I would stand for. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: