The truth about the vanguard party

[Labor Shall Rule]

I think many people have a mistaken idea of what a vanguard is and what a vanguard does.

The role of a vanguard party is to combat bourgeois ideology in the workers movement, for one. It goes without saying that if bourgeois ideology didn't play a role in hampering working class consciousness, that revolutionaries would feel no need to struggle against it. In every piece of propaganda, in every news article, in every essay and treatise produced by a socialist is an implicit understanding that something "more" is needed than direct, personal experience to craft a revolutionary consciousness. Even if these socialists don't consider themselves "vanguardists" or a "vanguard", in practice they are accepting the underlying assumption of "vanguardism" - that everyday ere xperiences can only take a person so far. Durruti, as I mentioned in the thread entitled Anarchists are Marxists, could of easily passed himself off as a Bolshevik.

As I have said in the past, it is concerted political action; the overthrow of an entire social order, and it's replacement with another, that can only be done only with planning and organization. This does not mean the negation of worker's self-organization; we hold that the party and the mass can not be seperated from each other, but rather, that they are inclusive to each other. Lenin has never denied that workers can gain their own consciousness through their own struggles, as many anarchists like to throw around on this board, but rather believed that "history sometimes needs a push forward", that with struggle and effort combined with the correct direction, there would be no need to be reliant on a slow development of consciousness. Some like to source that in What Is To Be Done, Lenin stated that workers can only develop "trade-union consciousness", however, he abandoned this position within a few years after he was proven incorrect by the small, militant working class of Russia.

In 1905 they created Soviets to administer the general strikes and pushed them towards dual power confrontations against the Tsarist state. Lenin recognized the Soviets for what they were, and had to argue against the other Bolsheviks who opposed Soviets because they weren't creations of the party. Who was the vanguard again? Was it these hierarchally-structured 'revolutionary' parties, or the workers themselves, who developed consciousness without the hypnotizing trance provided 'from the outside'; the socialist intellectuals that agitated amongst the workers.


Vladimir Lenin, Lessons of the Revolution:
"At every step the workers come face to face with their main enemy — the capitalist class. In combat with this enemy the worker becomes a socialist, comes to realize the necessity of a complete reconstruction of the whole of society, the complete abolition of all poverty and oppression."


Vladimir Lenin, The Reorganization of the Party:
"The working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic, and more than ten years of work put in by Social-Democracy has done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into consciousness."

Lenin recognized that the character of the working class was bent towards the independent construction of class consciouss without it's plastering 'from the outside', and that it's own experience in these struggles will assist in the fostering of militancy and inner-organization that they will gradually obtain as a result of a sharper inclination brought forth by reaccuring moments of capitalist crisis. Trotsky reasserted what Lenin had corrected years earlier,


Leon Trotsky, Speech given to the CP of Ukraine in Kharkov, 1923:
“… in history’s last analysis the working class would’ve triumphed even if there had been no Marx and no Ulyanov-Lenin. The working class would’ve worked out the ideas it needed, the methods that were necessary to it, but more slowly. The circumstance that the working class raised up, at two crests of its historical development, two such figures as Marx and Lenin, has been of colossal advantage to the revolution”

[rebelworker]

I think very few of us dont see the need for a revolutionary organisation, but a revolutionary party that seeks to seize state power is were the debate begins.

Anarchists and some left communists feel that the process of a party controlling the new state will just lead to another ruling class above the workers, I think history proves this quite clearly. Now you can argue that this wont happen, but its what the Bolsheviks did, so either you recognise that and move on or we dwell on this question till the end of history...

[Rawthentic]

revolutionary party that seeks to seize state power is were the debate begins.

Thats not a Marxist position. It might a Stalinist and Maoist one (I am not sure, so easy), but I have never heard that. A political party in the communist sense is an organized political current within a class.

And way to ignore RedDali's post.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 10:26 pm

revolutionary party that seeks to seize state power is were the debate begins.

Thats not a Marxist position. It might a Stalinist and Maoist one (I am not sure, so easy), but I have never heard that. A political party in the communist sense is an organized political current within a class.

And way to ignore RedDali's post.
Maoists advocate the seizure of state power by the proletariat via a revolutionary party.

It's actually a Marxist position and is not unique to Maoism or even Leninism.


....but that is neither here nor there...

Good post reddali.

[Rawthentic]

SP, are you saying that it is a Marxist position that the Party seizes power in the name of the proletariat?

Because it is not.

[KC]

SP I think you missed the "in the name of" part. Otherwise I would agree with you. The proletariat will need some type of organization and coordination to represent its interests and work towards those interests.

[Nemichka]

Hmmm... forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I thought there is a National Vanguard Association in the US, and it's... fascist?
I thought...?
So are they just completely misusing the term, or am I not understanding this correctly?

[Faux Real]

RedDali, thank you for explaining the vanguard, well written!


Hmmm... forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I thought there is a National Vanguard Association in the US, and it's... fascist?
I thought...?
So are they just completely misusing the term, or am I not understanding this correctly?

Rule of thumb: Any Marxist term followed or preceded by the word National, can be easily counted on as being a fascist organization.

[Nemichka]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:27 am
RedDali, thank you for explaining the vanguard, well written!


Hmmm... forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I thought there is a National Vanguard Association in the US, and it's... fascist?
I thought...?
So are they just completely misusing the term, or am I not understanding this correctly?

Rule of thumb: Any Marxist term followed or preceded by the word National, can be easily counted on as being a fascist organization.
:blink: well, that's stupid.

[Rawthentic]

I need to congratulate RedDali as well, nice job.

If the anarchists and other types think that revolution can happen all of a sudden spontaneously, then they are gravely mistaken. If that was the case, why should I even bother being active and agitating?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I started a Theory thread on this, because there is a bit of an economic link, per se: when and how does demand create supply? When and how does supply create demand?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:03 pm
I think many people have a mistaken idea of what a vanguard is and what a vanguard does.
This is not the debate.

I fully understand what you think a vanguard is but the way that it is applied ultimately is not and never has been the way you apparently think it should be. You can quote Lenin and Trotsky all you want but what relevance does any of that have if what they did was something entirely different?

Every Marxist-Leninist party has strict centralisation and hierarchy and every Marxist-Leninist party that has ever managed to gain control of a country has done so using this strict centralisation and hierarchy in consolidating political power into their hands.

What you say and think and what is done and created are two very different things and that is the debate. Quite frankly I'm bored to death reading about what you people think.

My position on this is that a) Lenin was lying b) You have interpreted Lenin wrong or c) the practical application of the theory is an inevtiable conseuqnce of it. By that I mean there is no other outcome to be had from the application of what you "think".

The theory is flawed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 18, 2007 03:06 am
I need to congratulate RedDali as well, nice job.
You continue to be confounded by your own stupidity. It must be very boring for you.


If the anarchists and other types think that revolution can happen all of a sudden spontaneously

Revolutions are spontaneous. Name one revolution that has been orchestrated? Revolution only occurs when there is massive econonomic and social upheavel. People will only join class struggle when the prevailing idea's and justifications no longer make sense to them.


why should I even bother being active and agitating?

Are you even...?

In any case, you should be active and agitate because you are a worker who is exploited and oppressed. Surely that's the point?

When all workers are doing that then there will be a revolution.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Every Marxist-Leninist party has strict centralisation and hierarchy and every Marxist-Leninist party that has ever managed to gain control of a country has done so using this strict centralisation and hierarchy in consolidating political power into their hands.

In Russia, after the February revolution, but before the October revolution, Lenin (who was leader) was jeered by all the party, the Central committee didn't listen to him at all, when he said, that the revolution had not yet occurred. As at that time, the SR and Bolsheviks were both arguing that it had.

So, Lenin had to keep arguing, turning to the workers because he was constantly voted down in side party debates.

So, you can see, the first Marxist-Leninist party, a non Stalinist one, actually contradicts your assertion.

Its not our theory that is flawed, it is your knowledge of history.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 18, 2007 12:59 am
The proletariat will need some type of organization and coordination to represent its interests and work towards those interests.
And it is that attitude and thought that leads to the failed application of the theory.

"We will co-ordinate the workers on behalf of the workers because we know what the interests of the workers are"

This is essentially saying you need a vanguard to lead the workers on behalf of them. Why? Because you are the intelligentsia of the working class - The most class conscious.

A vanguard of intellectuals leading the workers on their behalf. This is what you advocate and this is what is created.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:19 pm

Every Marxist-Leninist party has strict centralisation and hierarchy and every Marxist-Leninist party that has ever managed to gain control of a country has done so using this strict centralisation and hierarchy in consolidating political power into their hands.

In Russia, after the February revolution, but before the October revolution, Lenin (who was leader) was jeered by all the party, the Central committee didn't listen to him at all, when he said, that the revolution had not yet occurred. As at that time, the SR and Bolsheviks were both arguing that it had.

So, Lenin had to keep arguing, turning to the workers because he was constantly voted down in side party debates.

So, you can see, the first Marxist-Leninist party, a non Stalinist one, actually contradicts your assertion.

Its not our theory that is flawed, it is your knowledge of history.
What you have asserted here is that Lenin debated with this party officials and that his party officials often disagreed with him.

So what? I don't see what relevance that has or how it demonstrates my flawed knowledge of history. It certainly does not disprove the strict centralisation and hierarchy of his party in consolidating political power into his hands.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What it shows is that, inside the party, a central argument, one of the most crucial in that year, if not the most crucial, the party was opposed to Lenin.

Lenin thought the revolution was not complete because their were still capitalists owning the industry, and workers were still being exploited etc. Capitalism still existed.

Lenin argued that the Bolshevik party at that time had become conservative, like the SR's, and the workers were more radical than the Bolsheviks.

This meant Lenin had to argue for ages to win support from the party, and to mobilize the party to help coordinate the workers.

Eventually he won the party over through internal party debate.

So, the Bolshevik party was not dictatorial, it was democratic.

[KC]

And it is that attitude and thought that leads to the failed application of the theory.

"We will co-ordinate the workers on behalf of the workers because we know what the interests of the workers are"

This is essentially saying you need a vanguard to lead the workers on behalf of them. Why? Because you are the intelligentsia of the working class - The most class conscious.

A vanguard of intellectuals leading the workers on their behalf. This is what you advocate and this is what is created.

I have no idea how you went from "the proletariat must be organized if it is going to succeed" to "we should organize on behalf of the workers and command them". Care to explain that leap in logic to me?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 18, 2007 03:03 pm

And it is that attitude and thought that leads to the failed application of the theory.

"We will co-ordinate the workers on behalf of the workers because we know what the interests of the workers are"

This is essentially saying you need a vanguard to lead the workers on behalf of them. Why? Because you are the intelligentsia of the working class - The most class conscious.

A vanguard of intellectuals leading the workers on their behalf. This is what you advocate and this is what is created.

I have no idea how you went from "the proletariat must be organized if it is going to succeed" to "we should organize on behalf of the workers and command them". Care to explain that leap in logic to me?
You said: "The proletariat will need some type of organization and coordination to represent its interests and work towards those interests."

What we all know that means is: "A vanguard of intellectuals leading the workers on their behal"

That is exactly the meaning of what you have said and it is exactly the reality of your ideas in practice.

Why deny it?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:17 pm
What it shows is that, inside the party, a central argument, one of the most crucial in that year, if not the most crucial, the party was opposed to Lenin.

Lenin thought the revolution was not complete because their were still capitalists owning the industry, and workers were still being exploited etc. Capitalism still existed.

Lenin argued that the Bolshevik party at that time had become conservative, like the SR's, and the workers were more radical than the Bolsheviks.

This meant Lenin had to argue for ages to win support from the party, and to mobilize the party to help coordinate the workers.

Eventually he won the party over through internal party debate.
Irrelevant.


So, the Bolshevik party was not dictatorial, it was democratic.

I never made that claim.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 11:10 pm
SP, are you saying that it is a Marxist position that the Party seizes power in the name of the proletariat?

Because it is not.
Agreed.

You'll notice that I never said anything about "in the name of" the proletariat. That isn't a Marxist position (nor is it a Leninist position nor a Maoist position).

[rouchambeau]

As I have said in the past, it is concerted political action; the overthrow of an entire social order, and it's replacement with another, that can only be done only with planning and organization.
Why? I've seen this belief articulated dozens of times in the past but have yet to hear anyone justify it.

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 02:15 pm

So, the Bolshevik party was not dictatorial, it was democratic.

I never made that claim.
You implied it when you said there was a centralization of power into his hands; there was never any such centralization. A lot of the decisions he made and orders he delegated were done clandestinely. If he did indeed have all the power you say he did, he wouldn't have had to run around giving orders in the dark.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Marxist-rev+July 18, 2007 05:36 pm--> (Marxist-rev @ July 18, 2007 05:36 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 02:15 pm

So, the Bolshevik party was not dictatorial, it was democratic.

I never made that claim.
You implied it when you said there was a centralization of power into his hands [/b]
I said it because it is a fact.


there was never any such centralization.

Are you claiming to me that the Soviet state was not centralised?


A lot of the decisions he made and orders he delegated were done clandestinely. If he did indeed have all the power you say he did, he wouldn't have had to run around giving orders in the dark.

Is this school boy history hour?

There is no value in what you say and is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, it makes very little sense.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:18 pm
You'll notice that I never said anything about "in the name of" the proletariat. That isn't a Marxist position (nor is it a Leninist position nor a Maoist position).
Why is it then that it becomes a reality?

[Black Cross]

Are you claiming to me that the Soviet state was not centralised?

What? You just ignored the rest of that sentance. I didn't say it wasn't centralized; I said it wasn't centralized in Lenin; pay attention.


There is no value in what you say and is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, it makes very little sense.

It's irrelevant because you say so? Get your head out of your ass.

If Lenin had all the power you say he did, then why did he hide some of his orders (i.e the formation of the Cheka)? Lenin had people who were loyal to him; I don't think that constitutes a consolidation of political power.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Marxist-[email protected] 18, 2007 06:38 pm

Are you claiming to me that the Soviet state was not centralised?

What? You just ignored the rest of that sentance. I didn't say it wasn't centralized; I said it wasn't centralized in Lenin; pay attention.
He was Primier of the Soviet Union and Chairman of the Council of the People's Commissars. If it wasn't centralised to him, who was it centralised to?



There is no value in what you say and is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, it makes very little sense.

It's irrelevant because you say so?

No, it's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


If Lenin had all the power you say he did, then why did he hide some of his orders (i.e the formation of the Cheka)?

That makes no sense.


Lenin had people who were loyal to him; I don't think that constitutes a consolidation of political power.

No, you are right it doesn't. What constitutes a consolidation of political power is the process by which Lenin achieved control over the state.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It quite the irony an anarchist calling into question the validity of the vanguard party, when the anarchists just go straight to forming bourgeois governments :lol:

Revolutions are never perfect, but the Russian Revolution was about as good as it can get. Thanks, in part, to the Bolsheviks. Fact. (compare that to Spain lol)

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 18, 2007 02:14 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 18, 2007 02:14 pm)
Zampanò@July 18, 2007 03:03 pm

And it is that attitude and thought that leads to the failed application of the theory.

"We will co-ordinate the workers on behalf of the workers because we know what the interests of the workers are"

This is essentially saying you need a vanguard to lead the workers on behalf of them. Why? Because you are the intelligentsia of the working class - The most class conscious.

A vanguard of intellectuals leading the workers on their behalf. This is what you advocate and this is what is created.

I have no idea how you went from "the proletariat must be organized if it is going to succeed" to "we should organize on behalf of the workers and command them". Care to explain that leap in logic to me?
You said: "The proletariat will need some type of organization and coordination to represent its interests and work towards those interests."

What we all know that means is: "A vanguard of intellectuals leading the workers on their behal"

That is exactly the meaning of what you have said and it is exactly the reality of your ideas in practice.

Why deny it? [/b]
And a lack of good leadership is why so many revolutions have failed (Germany, Spain, France 1968, etc.).

You are also in no position to talk, given that the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized power, and therefore [i]voluntarily helped fascism triumph. Anarchism has been exposed as an utterly reactionary ideology, and this is further proven by the fact that all you people seem to do is copy and paste from bourgeois propaganda books about Bolshevism. I.e., you do their propaganda work for them!

Anarchism is dead and buried. The bourgeoisie aren't even scared of it. They don't even bother mentioning it. Petty-bourgeois anarchism has no connections whatsoever with the working class. It mainly just draws in dinsgruntled teenagers, only for them to grow up and ditch anarchism a few years later. Anarchism is not revolutionary - it is de facto pro-capitalism. Your "anti-capitalism" consists of ineffective hoolian tactics like breaking a few thousand dollars' worth of windows of a multi-billion dollar corporation, chipping some cop's tooth, and vandalizing everything in site, annoying the public. Your real side is exposed when you side with the bourgeoisie both in theory and practice, both in the propaganda field and in reality (Spain - voluntarily letting bourgeois in power, Russia - siding with White Guard reactionaries, etc.).

Ted Grant's book, Russia: From Revolution to Counter-revolution, contains irrefutable information that shows what a pile of nonsense the bourgeois/anarchist propaganda really is. See http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-c...olution-116.htm (http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-counterrevolution-116.htm)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:49 pm
It quite the irony an anarchist calling into question the validity of the vanguard party, when the anarchists just go straight to forming bourgeois governments :lol:
So you are attacking anarchists for doing what you defend? I always thought revolutionaries must do what is pragmatic according to material conditions? You attack the CNT for doing exactly what you claim we should be doing; and I add you also did...


Revolutions are never perfect, but the Russian Revolution was about as good as it can get. Thanks, in part, to the Bolsheviks. Fact. (compare that to Spain lol)

I've grown out of playing the "my cock's bigger than yours" game. Suffice to say, if it is true that the Russian revolution is "as good as it can get" then we are all well and truely fucked.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Axel1917+July 18, 2007 06:52 pm--> (Axel1917 @ July 18, 2007 06:52 pm)
The Anarchist Tension
"A vanguard of intellectuals leading the workers on their behalf"

Why deny it?
And a lack of good leadership is why so many revolutions have failed (Germany, Spain, France 1968, etc.). [/b]
So you don't deny it then?


You are also in no position to talk, given that the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized power, and therefore [i]voluntarily helped fascism triumph.

Firstly, you are talking about the CNT leadership, not about the grassroot anarchists of the FAI and FoD who collectivised massive parts of the country, re-organised production and began redistributing resources; free from the Popular goverment's control I might add (with and without the CNT).

Secondly, it is a matter of opinion whether the CNT's withdrawel from the popular government led to "fascism[s] triumph" but what can certainly be assured is that the refusal to continue arming the anarchist and POUM militias and the subsequent violent destruction of them allowed Franco's forces to gain a foot hold that could not be recovered from.

It is in fact irrelevant what the CNT leadership decided to do with the popular goverment, because had the popular government (ultimately controlled by Moscow) armed the militia's defending the aragon front, Franco just may not have been able to succeed and the slaughter of tens of thousands of workers and peasents may well have been avoided.


Anarchism has been exposed as an utterly reactionary ideology

If that is reactionary then what is the betrayel of collectivised workers and peasents fighting fascists?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:53 pm
if it is true that the Russian revolution is "as good as it can get" then we are all well and truely fucked.
So, since we dont want to think we're fucked lets all think the Russian Revolution was shite. That will make us feel good !

[PRC-UTE]

like armchair said in another topic of a related theme, we should look at the actual concrete policies of "Leninists" and anarchists as well as their class content before judging them.

both the anarchists and Marxist movements made mistakes during revolutions. Which is not exactly a shock to anyone familiar with real life struggle. Constructive criticism is necessary but dismissing them out of hand is a bit silly.

[Amusing Scrotum]

[i]Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)You are also in no position to talk, given that the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized power, and therefore voluntarily helped fascism triumph.[/b]

Honestly, if you want to understand historical events, you need to look beyond the simplistic ideological accounts that you seem to put so much faith in. Because whilst they may present you with lovely little quips -- like the one above -- they won't help you develop a rounded and accurate understanding of the events you're discussing.

For starters, it's completely absurd to suggest that "the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie" when it's a documented fact that in CNT strongholds the bourgeoisie was expropriated. That is, the CNT rank and file didn't "[leave] power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized " -- they actually seized it.

However, the CNT didn't represent the whole working class; it shared that with another organ of the working class, the UGT. And they, at best, tentatively expropriated some industries -- but generally preferred to follow the lead of the Government. Which, of course, didn't favour expropriation.

So right there you have one reason why the whole of the Republican territories weren't expropriated and brought under workers' control.

But the fact remains that certain areas were under working class control. And the working class fought to keep those areas under control -- the May fighting in Barcelona, for example. But, unfortunately, they were suppressed, along with their political organs -- the CNT and the POUM.

And that the CNT leadership sold out, shouldn't deflect from the fact that the overwhelming majority of Spanish anarchists continued promoting a revolutionary program. Along with the only Marxists in Spain worthy of the name, the POUM. And I think the thousands of revolutionaries executed by the Government, is testament to that fact.

So no, it wasn't "voluntary". Rather, the reason "power [remained] in the hands of the bourgeoisie" was because the whole working class didn't rise -- namely those workers' in the UGT -- and because a revolutionary working class, weakened by this fact, was violently suppressed.

Those are the material reasons for the degeneration of the Spanish revolution, though it's no surprise that a "Marxist" like yourself would choose to overlook these and just point the finger of blame.
_ _ _ _ _

Aside from this, I don't really know why you object to the CNT leadership joining the Government and de facto accepting the Communist Parties position of widespread nationalisations. After all, this approach has been the approach of your particular tendency from the Militant through to your current view of the Chavez Government.

And had the Government defeated Franco, and the Communist Party come into power and followed its programme, then you'd be calling Spain a deformed workers' state. In other words, you'd have no fundamental structural problem with the state that you are now denouncing as "bourgeoisie".

But consistency is not your aim, is it? Your aim is to prove that your Party has the "correct" programme, methods, tactics, blah, blah, blah -- and to do that, you'll say whatever bullshit comes to mind. Case in point:


Axel1917
Petty-bourgeois anarchism has no connections whatsoever with the working class.

Nah, the hundreds, if not thousands, of syndicalist unions, both historic and present, are just figments of my imagination. Because if anarchists are organising workers into fighting organs, then that suggests they have some connection, however tenuous, with the working class -- and that can't be true.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 11:05 am
This is not the debate.

I fully understand what you think a vanguard is but the way that it is applied ultimately is not and never has been the way you apparently think it should be. You can quote Lenin and Trotsky all you want but what relevance does any of that have if what they did was something entirely different?

Every Marxist-Leninist party has strict centralisation and hierarchy and every Marxist-Leninist party that has ever managed to gain control of a country has done so using this strict centralisation and hierarchy in consolidating political power into their hands.

What you say and think and what is done and created are two very different things and that is the debate. Quite frankly I'm bored to death reading about what you people think.

My position on this is that a) Lenin was lying b) You have interpreted Lenin wrong or c) the practical application of the theory is an inevtiable conseuqnce of it. By that I mean there is no other outcome to be had from the application of what you "think".

The theory is flawed.
The Anarchist Tension, if you are politically active in the agitation and education of workers' control, then you are the vanguard.

Lenin and Trotsky reacted to material conditions; industry had declined by 15-20% with their economic superstructure completely wrecked from a world war and now a civil war, famine was stalking every street corner in the cities, a foreign blockade had isolated the entire country, and now armies were surrounding them from all sides. In the final analysis, the rule of the working class is only assured when it is materially possible for the working class to dissolve itself as a class, therefore, we do not stick to moralistic garbage on our principles, but first and foremost, on the reality of the situation that we are trying to put our principles into practice. The economic problems (to which all political problems are tied) were at that time insurmountable. No ruling party could have done much better or worse. There were no fast and easy solutions. Only a vapid idealist would consider the economic and political problems facing Russia at the time as entirely seperate. It is only by doing so that one can demand with full force on the one hand an immediate solution to all economic problems and then cringe when those solutions take political forms that don't align with the ideals of democracy.

I would argue if "every" Marxist-Leninist party was even truly what they claimed to be; their programme, tactics, and class base is of the utmost importance, and as history has taught us, many parties became reliant on the peasantry and proprietors, degraded themselves to opportunism and class collaborationist tactics, and subordinated themselves to a bureaucratic stratum or the capitalists themselves. That is not to say that the "idea" of vanguardism is somehow flawed - rather because the historical and material conditions in which these parties were formed made it impossible for them to develop, and instead caused them to rot from the inside out, with thousands of sects forming like pieces of flesh falling off a rotting corpse. But the anarchist conception of history reduces every historical event to a struggle between the formless masses and the conspiracies of the leaders. The notion that party could represent the interests of a class (and actually be supported by a majority of that class) is alien to individuals such as yourself, The Anarchist Tension.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 18, 2007 05:11 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 18, 2007 05:11 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 04:18 pm
You'll notice that I never said anything about "in the name of" the proletariat. That isn't a Marxist position (nor is it a Leninist position nor a Maoist position).
Why is it then that it becomes a reality? [/b]
You are confusing the policies of the Bolsheviks with the policies of the Stalinists; the Stalinists elevated the actions taken by the Bolsheviks during a time of wartime necessity into political virtue and dogma. These arguments were paper-thin rationalizations for the genuine historical and economic interests of the layers represented by the bureaucracy. It would be idealist nonsense in the extreme to assume that the "logic" of these policies, floating in the ether above real history, was primarily to blame for the conslidation of the bureaucratic regime. The policies certainly played a role in cementing the usurpation of power, but had the Bolsheviks never enacted them during the civil war they would have had to have been invented by the Stalinists. To argue otherwise is to argue that formal arrangements on pieces of paper that "ensure" democratic forms can act as some eternal bulwark against the overwhelming historical weight of backwardness and primitiveness, of a massive, uneducated peasantry, of a relatively young proletariat, of a legacy of Tsarism, of barely developed capitalism still standing far behind that of the most advanced capitalist countries, of the conditions of general want and poverty.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:48 pm
He was Primier of the Soviet Union and Chairman of the Council of the People's Commissars. If it wasn't centralised to him, who was it centralised to?
The bourgeois press normally refered to any high-level official as the "premier of the Soviet Union" regardless of whether the man actually held the office. Lenin was elected however, by the Soviets themselves, as the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. Also, he could only offer input on certain resolutions, and did not have the 'absolute control' that is common in dictatorships. It was after Lenin's death, that the General Secretary became the key position in the Politburo.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:34 pm
The Anarchist Tension, if you are politically active in the agitation and education of workers' control, then you are the vanguard.
If by vanguard you mean a worker who campaigns against capitalism and the state as apart of a decentralised, non-hierarchical, federated organisation then that's fine by me.


The notion that party could represent the interests of a class (and actually be supported by a majority of that class) is alien to individuals such as yourself, The Anarchist Tension.

Don't patronise me! I've been apart o the radical left for 11 years including being a district organiser for a Leninist party. I'm fully aware of what interests these parties represent.

The rest of your post is just the same old mantra and it bores me to tears.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 18, 2007 09:21 pm--> (RedDali @ July 18, 2007 09:21 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:11 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 04:18 pm
You'll notice that I never said anything about "in the name of" the proletariat. That isn't a Marxist position (nor is it a Leninist position nor a Maoist position).
Why is it then that it becomes a reality?
You are confusing the policies of the Bolsheviks with the policies of the Stalinists [/b]
No I'm not. I am saying that it is an inevitable consequence. Lenin paved the way for Stalin; perhaps unconsciously but the ground work was layed for Stalin to take the reigns. Just as with all other applications of this theory.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 18, 2007 09:36 pm--> (RedDali @ July 18, 2007 09:36 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:48 pm
He was Primier of the Soviet Union and Chairman of the Council of the People's Commissars. If it wasn't centralised to him, who was it centralised to?
The bourgeois press normally refered to any high-level official as the "premier of the Soviet Union" regardless of whether the man actually held the office. Lenin was elected however, by the Soviets themselves, as the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. Also, he could only offer input on certain resolutions, and did not have the 'absolute control' that is common in dictatorships. It was after Lenin's death, that the General Secretary became the key position in the Politburo. [/b]
I accept that the dictatorship of the party takes a different form to an absolute dictatorship, but whether it was Lenin who had absolute control or whether it was a collection of high ranking party officials or even an assembly of them it makes no difference to the fact that there was a strict and hierarchical centralisation of political power.

[RNK]

Nobody had absolute control, except the Soviets themselves; they were an integral part of the Bolsheviks and, vice versa, the Bolsheviks were an integral part of the Soviets -- are you asserting that these workers' soviets were meaningless, nothing but an impotent facade? Do you actually have any constructive criticism of the relation between the state and the Soviets and workers? Or was the Soviet Union a centralised heirarchy starting the morning after the revolution?

[BreadBros]

I think RedDali's post is hopelessly idealist. How can you say:

In every piece of propaganda, in every news article, in every essay and treatise produced by a socialist is an implicit understanding that something "more" is needed than direct, personal experience to craft a revolutionary consciousness.
when the entire basis of materialism (as backed up by the quotes you included in your own post) asserts exactly that. The idea that you or anyone's ideas are able to mobilize historical economic change is the same idealism that Marx wrote against. It is direct experience that forms the basis of revolutionary consciousness.

A vanguard may or may not have a role in the organization of a revolutionary take-over, but it does not at all construct the basis of revolution. The existent class tension in capitalist society does that. So I think, no you are completely wrong. Not that this is even "the" debate in regards to vanguardism. The question of what happens AFTER the revolution is a debate of far more contention and far more reality than what the vanguard does before. If we want to talk about historical records, far worse than the record of anarchism is the record of vanguardism. Every vanguard that has been successful has inevitably degraded first back to some "inauthentic" form where it violates it's own founding principles (whether you name such a critique state capitalism, deformation, bureaucratization, whatever) and eventually back to class society.

In this regard, it's extremely ironic that BCS and RedDali are "laughing" at anarchism (let alone trying to give people lessons in theory). No ideology on the revolutionary left has been more victory-less and failed than Trotskyism (or "Bolshevism" as RedDali euphemistically put it) because it is based on a view of the vanguard that is a complete abstraction. Both anarchism and anti-revisionism tend to recognize the authentic nature of a vanguard, one accepts it, one tries to look beyond it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 pm
Nobody had absolute control, except the Soviets themselves
Which were controlled by the Communist Party, which was controlled by Lenin.

[Axel1917]

So you don't deny it then?

I think that Red Dali already explained this.


Firstly, you are talking about the CNT leadership, not about the grassroot anarchists of the FAI and FoD who collectivised massive parts of the country, re-organised production and began redistributing resources; free from the Popular goverment's control I might add (with and without the CNT).

What is this? I thought that you wern't supposed to have leadership and vanguards, as you reject all authority! So then you are showing that an argument of mine has merit, i.e. the need for a far-sighted, revolutionary leadership!

Why didn't these anarchists expose Stalin and continue going forward, making Stalin openly choose between supporting the revolution and Franco? Instead of using that whole "we need arms" nonsense, an unclever lie, why didn't they go to all of those civilian plants sitting around and convert them for war production?


Secondly, it is a matter of opinion whether the CNT's withdrawel from the popular government led to "fascism[s] triumph" but what can certainly be assured is that the refusal to continue arming the anarchist and POUM militias and the subsequent violent destruction of them allowed Franco's forces to gain a foot hold that could not be recovered from.

No, it is not, for as history has shown, if the bourgeoisie is not overthrown when it can be, it will regroup its forces and strike back later in a very fierce manner. It wans't a withdrawal from the popular front, but rather the leadership's refusal to take power when they could have that aided Franco's victory. Stalin was actively sabotaging the revolution (he wanted to get allies for an impending second world war, to get the West on his side, for he wanted to show them that he could be trusted and that fascism would not be needed to save capitalism.), and the refusal to take power only hampered things more.


It is in fact irrelevant what the CNT leadership decided to do with the popular goverment, because had the popular government (ultimately controlled by Moscow) armed the militia's defending the aragon front, Franco just may not have been able to succeed and the slaughter of tens of thousands of workers and peasents may well have been avoided.

As I said before, what they should have done is continue with the revolutionary work, the collectivization, militias, etc.. They should have followed this up with constantly exposing Stalin every step of the way, and to get arms, they should have taken civilian plants and converted them to war production.


If that is reactionary then what is the betrayel of collectivised workers and peasents fighting fascists?

Stalinism has also done its reactionary things (including being largely responsible for Hitler's rise to power.), and the leadership did the very same thing in Spain as well, to betray these workers and peasants.

My break at work is almost over. More later.

[Labor Shall Rule]

To The Anarchist Tension


"If by vanguard you mean a worker who campaigns against capitalism and the state as apart of a decentralised, non-hierarchical, federated organisation then that's fine by me."

I guess, if that is how you view your organization.


"Don't patronise me! I've been apart o the radical left for 11 years including being a district organiser for a Leninist party. I'm fully aware of what interests these parties represent."

I am sorry, I did not mean to come off that way. What party would that be? As I said, if you even noticed it from my original post, I don't trust any of the currently existing parties, but not because the "idea" of vanguardism is somehow flawed - rather because the historical and material conditions in which these parties were formed made it impossible for them to develop, and instead caused them to rot from the inside out, with thousands of sects forming like pieces of flesh falling off a corpse. It has been a contemporary history of power struggles, lying, factionalism, and petty-sectarianism; they are enterprises that profit from collecting dues from their members, in other words, their business is not socialism, but socialism is their actual business. The whole shambling mishmash of ortho-Trot, neo-Trot, New Left organizations is a legacy I just want to distance myself from. Keep in mind, I almost became involved in the Socialist Equality Party and was friends with many members, and then it was discovered that David North actually owned a printing company that employed hundreds of workers.


"The rest of your post is just the same old mantra and it bores me to tears."

Sorry for that.


"No I'm not. I am saying that it is an inevitable consequence. Lenin paved the way for Stalin; perhaps unconsciously but the groundit work was layed for Stalin to take the reigns. Just as with all other applications of this theory."

So, uhm, did you even read that entire post? As Trotsky said, "the present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism not simply a bloody line but a whole river of blood. The annihilation of all the older generation of Bolsheviks, an important part of the middle generation which participated in the civil war, and that part of the youth that took up most seriously the Bolshevik traditions, shows not only a political but a thoroughly physical incompatibility between Bolshevism and Stalinism. How can this not be seen?" If Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not even institute these wartime measures, the bureaucracy would of eventually instituted them themselves. Perhaps the Bolsheviks shouldn't of placed in these measures of building up and mobilizing their military, utilizing their secret police, reconstructing their economic superstructure by laying the groundworks for heavy industry through their command economy, and handing out several concessions to the peasantry and small proprietors, but then again, what would of the concequences been if they did not do such things? If the revolutionary army is not a unified, centralized force when surrounded on all sides by hostile enemies (with far greater resources), then there may as well be no revolution to begin with. What is the point of fighting, when you will inevitably be defeated? The reaction of Stalinism was first and foremost a product of historical and material circumstances, and not the categorical rejection of revolutionary democracy.

To Breadbros

We are people and we primarily 'learn' things from other people. By definition, we cannot 'learn consciousness' from another person, because consciousness is something which pertains to the experience of the waking hours of an individual. It is entirely organic and material. Likewise, consciousness is the 'self', but the self always lacks innately or internally what is specifically necessary to live and survive in human society, except that we innately have the ability to learn (which is no small thing). Using that logic, revolutionary consciousness is only class consciousness with tactical and strategic considerations. Revolutionary consciousness is also class consciousness prioritized over other consciousness. In the United States, we still have to fight the romaniticized notion of the "hardworking American" - who is supposedly under constant assault from the job-stealing Mexican.

While it wouldn't be exactly accurate to say that we learn how to feel exploited, or rather, while it is essentially still within enlightenment humanism to say that the feeling of oppression is a reflection of the problems of life and are not a necessary product of our very consciousness which are simply misunderstood and discarded as having an alien source (as sexual arousal was considered in the Dark Ages), it is true that others must teach us the word 'oppression' and others are part of the creation of the paradigm in our own mind that there are a number of related processes between our inner thinking and the world which can all be lumped together as a 'concept' (ontologically speaking) called 'exploitation'. It should be known that the tools and ideas which are better for the majority do not arise from the class of the majority, but rather, from the relationship and struggle within civil society between the classes.

As for our "victory-less" theory of Bolshevism, I guess the foundation of the world's first workers' republic, which legalized the peasants' seizure of estates, announced workers' control of factories, determined that officials would not be paid more than the average wage of a skilled industrial worker, made education and healthcare free, instituted welfare programs, legalized homosexuality while giving women rights that they did not yet have, is not some sort of 'victory' to you?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 18, 2007 06:53 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 18, 2007 06:53 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 06:49 pm
It quite the irony an anarchist calling into question the validity of the vanguard party, when the anarchists just go straight to forming bourgeois governments :lol:
So you are attacking anarchists for doing what you defend? I always thought revolutionaries must do what is pragmatic according to material conditions? You attack the CNT for doing exactly what you claim we should be doing; and I add you also did...


Revolutions are never perfect, but the Russian Revolution was about as good as it can get. Thanks, in part, to the Bolsheviks. Fact. (compare that to Spain lol)

I've grown out of playing the "my cock's bigger than yours" game. Suffice to say, if it is true that the Russian revolution is "as good as it can get" then we are all well and truely fucked. [/b]
Yes the Bolsheviks formed a Bourgeois government didn't they ........ :lol:

If you know your history, the Bolsheviks and the SR's joined together in the Congress of the Soviets, from that they formed a government.

Two parties, won majority of the soviets, formed one government. So, you see, the Bolsheviks didn't control the soviets through top down methods. Or, the SR's wouldn't have got any seats.

Your responses are either trolling or blatant fabrication and lies.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:03 pm

Firstly, you are talking about the CNT leadership, not about the grassroot anarchists of the FAI and FoD who collectivised massive parts of the country, re-organised production and began redistributing resources; free from the Popular goverment's control I might add (with and without the CNT).

What is this? I thought that you wern't supposed to have leadership and vanguards, as you reject all authority!
The decision for the CNT to join the Popular Front government was a decision heavily criticised by the FAI and FoD. It was a deviation from ideology and it ultimately failed. As they should have expected.


So then you are showing that an argument of mine has merit, i.e. the need for a far-sighted, revolutionary leadership!

I don't think accepting historical facts is a vindication of that argument (it isn't yours, by the way).


Why didn't these anarchists expose Stalin and continue going forward, making Stalin openly choose between supporting the revolution and Franco?

I don't see how I could possibly answer such an abstract tactical question. You'd need to have that specific conversation with someone who was there.


Instead of using that whole "we need arms" nonsense, an unclever lie, why didn't they go to all of those civilian plants sitting around and convert them for war production?

Where were these weapons factories "sitting around"? Are you actually talking from some historical source or just extrapolating?

By the time the anarchist and POUM militias needed weapons the Popular Front government had already begun smashing the collectives and purging them.



Secondly, it is a matter of opinion whether the CNT's withdrawel from the popular government led to "fascism[s] triumph" but what can certainly be assured is that the refusal to continue arming the anarchist and POUM militias and the subsequent violent destruction of them allowed Franco's forces to gain a foot hold that could not be recovered from.

No, it is not, for as history has shown, if the bourgeoisie is not overthrown when it can be, it will regroup its forces and strike back later in a very fierce manner.

I do no accept that to overthrow a bourgeois government you must be apart of it.


It wans't a withdrawal from the popular front, but rather the leadership's refusal to take power when they could have that aided Franco's victory.

The anarchist workers and peasants had already taken power in large parts of Spain. I do not accept and you have no sufficiently demonstrated, except to spew Leninist dogma, how the CNT's withdrawal from a government allowed Franco victory.


As I said before, what they should have done is continue with the revolutionary work, the collectivization, militias, etc.. They should have followed this up with constantly exposing Stalin every step of the way, and to get arms, they should have taken civilian plants and converted them to war production.

Perhaps they should have...

[Axel1917]

The decision for the CNT to join the Popular Front government was a decision heavily criticised by the FAI and FoD. It was a deviation from ideology and it ultimately failed. As they should have expected.

So, what was really done to prevent it? This does show that with shoddy leadership, things get nowhere.


I don't think accepting historical facts is a vindication of that argument (it isn't yours, by the way).

History has proven much. It shouldn't be ignored.


I don't see how I could possibly answer such an abstract tactical question. You'd need to have that specific conversation with someone who was there.

What I mentioned was a good point brought up by Trotsky.


Where were these weapons factories "sitting around"? Are you actually talking from some historical source or just extrapolating?

Trotsky had made note of such factories when analyzing the situation in Spain. I can't remember the exact work at the moment. Given his immense revolutionary experience, I think he was in a good position to judge.


By the time the anarchist and POUM militias needed weapons the Popular Front government had already begun smashing the collectives and purging them.

Due to shoddy leadership of both organizations. They failed to step up the revolutionary measures and take the factories. Plus, the Bolsheviks didn't get any international aid, and based on a bold, internationalist programme, they managed to win anyway.


I do no accept that to overthrow a bourgeois government you must be apart of it.

They should have overthrown the bourgeoisie when they had the chance. Since they didn't, the bourgeoisie regrouped and emerged victorious.


The anarchist workers and peasants had already taken power in large parts of Spain. I do not accept and you have no sufficiently demonstrated, except to spew Leninist dogma, how the CNT's withdrawal from a government allowed Franco victory.

It was their refusal to take power in all of Spain that helped Franco win, not their withdrawal from the Stalin scheme. The bourgeois state was essentially suspended in mid-air at one point, and it could have easily been smashed by the anarchists if they wanted to destroy it. This is what "anti-politics" really is; subordinating the interests of the proletariat to bourgeois politics under the guise of "abolition of politics."


Perhaps they should have...

And as has been so often in history, the revolution was destroyed by shoddy leadership.


Honestly, if you want to understand historical events, you need to look beyond the simplistic ideological accounts that you seem to put so much faith in. Because whilst they may present you with lovely little quips -- like the one above -- they won't help you develop a rounded and accurate understanding of the events you're discussing.

I am looking at historical facts, not mere "ideological accounts." And considering that bourgeois and anarchist propaganda are often identical, you are in no position to judge.


For starters, it's completely absurd to suggest that "the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie" when it's a documented fact that in CNT strongholds the bourgeoisie was expropriated. That is, the CNT rank and file didn't "[leave] power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized [it]" -- they actually seized it.[/quote

And they could have seized power in all of Spain, as the bourgeois government for a time had essentially been suspended in mid-air, and a blow could have brought it down. They did not actually seize Spain when they could have seized Spain.

[quote]However, the CNT didn't represent the whole working class; it shared that with another organ of the working class, the UGT. And they, at best, tentatively expropriated some industries -- but generally preferred to follow the lead of the Government. Which, of course, didn't favour expropriation.

Again, shoddy leadership.


So right there you have one reason why the whole of the Republican territories weren't expropriated and brought under workers' control.

And we also have the fact that the anarchist leadership derailed things when a good deal of the workers were in favor of expropriation.


But the fact remains that certain areas were under working class control. And the working class fought to keep those areas under control -- the May fighting in Barcelona, for example. But, unfortunately, they were suppressed, along with their political organs -- the CNT and the POUM.

Yes, and due to the struggle not being taken up, exposing and defying Stalin, taking the civilian plants to produce arms, etc., the revolution failed. The POUM was also a centrist organization that also helped derail things.


And that the CNT leadership sold out, shouldn't deflect from the fact that the overwhelming majority of Spanish anarchists continued promoting a revolutionary program. Along with the only Marxists in Spain worthy of the name, the POUM. And I think the thousands of revolutionaries executed by the Government, is testament to that fact.

Many workers had in fact wanted to blast their way through to the correct road, but they did not find any new leadership corresponding to their interests.


So no, it wasn't "voluntary". Rather, the reason "power [remained] in the hands of the bourgeoisie" was because the whole working class didn't rise -- namely those workers' in the UGT -- and because a revolutionary working class, weakened by this fact, was violently suppressed.

And it was weakened by the fact that the power was not seized when it could have been seized. Anarchists had sabotaged the uprising of the workers in May of 1937. The anarchist leaders were in fact servants of Stalin and the bourgeoisie. And the fact that anarchists to this very day hide behind their reactionary nonsense of Kronstadt and "Stalinism being the inevitable result of Bolshevism" proves that they are forever dead for revolution.

The anarchists also did not understand that the point of a proletarian revolution is to put the working class in power. This was a fatal mistake. Reject this, and you reject revolution. Period.

The POUM had also failed to mobilize the masses against the reformist and anarchist leaders. The POUM also failed to carry out work in the CNT because they were afraid of clashing with the anarchists. They also refused to work within the Republican army, being afraid of sharp conflicts. The made "their own" militia, unions, etc. This isolated the vanguard from the working class, and made the POUM the chief obstacle to the creation of a revolutionary party.


Those are the material reasons for the degeneration of the Spanish revolution, though it's no surprise that a "Marxist" like yourself would choose to overlook these and just point the finger of blame.

Given that you use bourgeois propaganda, I think it is clear who the real anti-scientist really is.
_ _ _ _ _


Aside from this, I don't really know why you object to the CNT leadership joining the Government and de facto accepting the Communist Parties position of widespread nationalisations. After all, this approach has been the approach of your particular tendency from the Militant through to your current view of the Chavez Government.

Chavez isn't a Stalinist agent hell-bent on destroying the revolution. The popular front was.


And had the Government defeated Franco, and the Communist Party come into power and followed its programme, then you'd be calling Spain a deformed workers' state. In other words, you'd have no fundamental structural problem with the state that you are now denouncing as "bourgeoisie".

Assuming that would happen. We have to remember that Stalin wanted to destroy the revolution to prove to the imperialists he wanted to ally with that he could be trusted to protect capitalism and show that there was no need for fascism.


But consistency is not your aim, is it? Your aim is to prove that your Party has the "correct" programme, methods, tactics, blah, blah, blah -- and to do that, you'll say whatever bullshit comes to mind. Case in point:

Considering that you are the de facto pro-capitalist, we can see who is really the inconsistent, anti-scientific one.


Nah, the hundreds, if not thousands, of syndicalist unions, both historic and present, are just figments of my imagination. Because if anarchists are organising workers into fighting organs, then that suggests they have some connection, however tenuous, with the working class -- and that can't be true.

If so many such unions exist today, then this is truly pathetic, given that in spite of this, anarchism's influence is still nil! And in anarchism's crowing moment, we had the voluntary refusal to seize all of Spain when they could have! And that can't change the fact that most people calling themselves anarchists are in fact disgruntled teenagers. A middle-aged anarchist is a very rare thing these days.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Stalin started demanding the capitulation of the revolutionary forces far before Moscow's intervention; the anarchist and socialist leadership started to surrender their principles and conscience far before they extorted them with the threat of withhelding arms. Allow me to repeat myself, 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. They could of seized power, but they choose not to due to their fear of states and power; their ramblings about hierarchy and tyranny ran smack against the face of the working class in Spain.

Axel1917 has basically covered it all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Axel, I'm not going to reply to you unless you sort your post out.

[Tower of Bebel]

In Trotsky's book on the Russian Revolution, in volume one, the writer wrote:


To the question, Who led the February revolution?, we can then answer definitely enough: Conscious and tempered workers educated for the most part by the party of Lenin. But we must here immediately add: This leadership proved sufficient to guarantee the victory of the insurrection, but it was not adequate to transfer immediately into the hands of the proletarian vanguard the leadership of the revolution.

Ignore the way Trotsky discribed how the workers got their (class) consciousness. The most important parts are at the beginning and the end. The workers, through revolution start the fight to reach communism, yet we believe the wokers need to have a democratic and centralized organisation to help them reaching it. The party cannot be apart from the working class, it's part of the working class.
Yet the Russian revolution was special because the working class was small, the world revolution did not come or succeed, the reaction did not triumph by itself yet it left the country behind with severe damage, the economy was broken even from the sart of the revolution, etc.
The Russian revolution was not the ideal situation and therefore I can understand that people like Rosa Luxemburg or Pannekoek both criticized and admired the work done by the Russian wokers and the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks made mistakes. To err is human, yet we must stay focused on the fact that the Russian revolution did not undergo a healthy revolution and struggle for survival.

-----

This thread is dominated by the difference between marxian emphasis on socio-economy and the anarchist emphasis on the reactionary effects of leadership accompanied with control.


I fully understand what you think a vanguard is but the way that it is applied ultimately is not and never has been the way you apparently think it should be. You can quote Lenin and Trotsky all you want but what relevance does any of that have if what they did was something entirely different?

Every Marxist-Leninist party has strict centralisation and hierarchy and every Marxist-Leninist party that has ever managed to gain control of a country has done so using this strict centralisation and hierarchy in consolidating political power into their hands.

The theory is flawed.

Which were controlled by the Communist Party, which was controlled by Lenin.

I am saying that it is an inevitable consequence. Lenin paved the way for Stalin; perhaps unconsciously but the ground work was layed for Stalin to take the reigns. Just as with all other applications of this theory.

I accept that the dictatorship of the party takes a different form to an absolute dictatorship, but whether it was Lenin who had absolute control or whether it was a collection of high ranking party officials or even an assembly of them it makes no difference to the fact that there was a strict and hierarchical centralisation of political power.

VS.


And a lack of good leadership is why so many revolutions have failed (Germany, Spain, France 1968, etc.).

Lenin and Trotsky reacted to material conditions

I would argue if "every" Marxist-Leninist party was even truly what they claimed to be; their programme, tactics, and class base is of the utmost importance, and as history has taught us, many parties became reliant on the peasantry and proprietors, degraded themselves to opportunism and class collaborationist tactics, and subordinated themselves to a bureaucratic stratum or the capitalists themselves. That is not to say that the "idea" of vanguardism is somehow flawed - rather because the historical and material conditions in which these parties were formed made it impossible for them to develop, and instead caused them to rot from the inside out, with thousands of sects forming like pieces of flesh falling off a rotting corpse. But the anarchist conception of history reduces every historical event to a struggle between the formless masses and the conspiracies of the leaders.

This thread will not progress or clear any difficulties. RedDali made an excelent attempt to try to explain what is really meant by a vanguard party. Everytbody knew critic would follow.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)And they could have seized power in all of Spain...[/b]

Says who? Leon Trotsky?

Because the simple fact of the matter is that at the time, half of Spain was under fascist control. And in the Republican territories, the CNT only had a stronghold in the North East. In these territories, they seized power -- but it's absurd to blame them for not seizing power where they couldn't seize power.

It would be like blaming you for the American SWP dropping Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. You were in no position to stop that from happening, the only thing you could do would be to advise them against doing this. But you couldn't be blamed for them doing in, that would be absurd.

And likewise, the CNT can't be blamed because the UGT refused to carry the revolution forward. They called on the UGT to do this, but they didn't. So again, blaming them would be absurd.

But as I've said before, this doesn't matter to you. All you really care about is slandering your opponents, in order to make your particular sect seem more important than it is. And because of that, to you facts, the truth, and everything else become unimportant -- they're just inconvenient concepts, that you'll happily disregard.


Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Again, shoddy leadership.[/b]

What kind of response is this? You assert that the "anarchists" -- the CNT -- are to blame for not seizing power all over Spain, to which I responded by pointing out that, on their own, they couldn't do this, and that is your response.

Yes, the UGT leadership was "shoddy". Indeed it was worse than that, it was thoroughly reformist. But that is not what is being discussed here, the discussion relates to your comments on the CNT. Your position "that the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized power, and therefore voluntarily helped fascism triumph."

So now, you've got to back that position up. Explain how "the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie".

I've already countered your argument, both in this post and my last one. In my view, during the early stages of the Spanish civil war, the leadership and the rank and file of the CNT went as far as they could given their level of influence and their power. But because the other mass organ of the working class, the UGT, wasn't willing to accept a revolutionary platform and act on it, the revolution hit a tumbling block.

Basically, it ran into a brick wall.

Things could have been done differently, yes. And the CNT probably could have done more. But without the UGT coming on board, the revolution was always going to hit a brick wall. It was always going to degenerate, in other words.

Which, firstly, makes your claims about "the anarchists in Spain voluntarily [leaving] power in the hands of the bourgeoisie" absurd. And secondly, makes your offhand response to my argument and your repetition of dogmas which fly in the face of the documented facts, completely pointless and devoid of anything which could be considered a legitimate counter argument.


Originally posted by Axel1917
And we also have the fact that the anarchist leadership derailed things when a good deal of the workers were in favor of expropriation.

How did the "anarchist leadership [derail] things when a good deal of the workers were in favor of expropriation" during the early stages of the revolution? Granted, the CNT leadership betrayed the working class once the revolution began to degenerate -- and their betrayal is linked to that degeneration.

But during the early stages of the revolution, the CNT leadership was pushing forward a revolutionary platform and calling on the CNT rank and file -- and the UGT rank and file, for that matter -- to act upon said platform. So your position that it was the "anarchist leadership" that stopped the revolution from going forward is, once again, absurd.

And what's more, this is the second time that I've dealt with this line of argument, and so far you've provided no legitimate counter argument. Which makes what we're having here anything but a political debate, given it's more like someone explaining something to a petulant child who's only response is to stick his fingers in his ears and stick his tongue out.

Secondly, you talk about "a good deal of the workers were in favor of expropriation." Well, I don't know what you consider "a good deal", but the majority of the UGT membership was, obviously, against expropriation. With the majority of the CNT rank and file, taking the other side of the argument -- and actually putting it into practice.

So, given that, and unless memory deceives me, the fact that the UGT was the larger of the two unions, it was probably on 30-40% of the working class in the Republican territories that favoured expropriation. And an even smaller percentage who acted upon this -- which shouldn't detract from the fact that widespread expropriations did take place.


Originally posted by Axel1917
Many workers had in fact wanted to blast their way through to the correct road, but they did not find any new leadership corresponding to their interests.

Again, this is not a response to my point. The point being that, despite the actions of the CNT leadership, the overwhelming majority of the anarchists in Spain continued to promote a revolutionary programme -- which, in turn, shows that your statements about Spanish anarchists are inaccurate.

As for your point, about there not being "any new leadership corresponding to their interests", that's also inaccurate. Well, if by "leadership" you mean political organs that promoted a revolutionary programme.

This is because, at the time, both the POUM -- who were really the only group that moved leftwards during the civil war -- and the Friends of Durruti were proposing a revolutionary programme. And therefore, there was "new leadership corresponding to their interests."

That you choose to ignore this, is neither here nor there. Because what's for certain, is that the POUM posed a significant threat to the Government. Something the Government fully understood -- which is why they were so severely repressed by that very Government.


Originally posted by Axel1917
And it was weakened by the fact that the power was not seized when it could have been seized. Anarchists had sabotaged the uprising of the workers in May of 1937.

I've already addressed the issue of power seizure, more than once. But the other point, regarding the anarchists "sabotaging" the May fighting, just shows how little you know about the subject in discussion.

For starters, what happened in Barcelona in the May of 1937, was not an "uprising". The only people who called it that, were the Communist press -- who made out it was an "uprising" in order to justify their suppression of the POUM.

(Initially, they reported that the CNT led the "uprising" -- but when they definitively decided to suppress the POUM, no more than two weeks later, they changed their tune. And the international press, ignoring the inconsistencies in Communist reporting, took their lead from the Communist press and also started calling it a "fascist coup" led by Franco's fifth (?) column: the POUM.)

Rather, the May fighting, from the CNT/POUM perspective, was a defensive struggle. The Government had decided to take back the expropriated industry and nationalise it, and after successfully taking over the Telephone Exchange, the CNT and the POUM took up defensive positions in strategic buildings. With the aim being, of course, to hold onto these buildings.

It's true that the CNT leadership didn't particularly favour aggressive action, but that was not "sabotage". Because, as accounts from the time corroborate, the general feeling within the CNT and POUM rank and file was that the Guards were still their class brothers and sisters -- and therefore, they didn't really want to kill or injure them.

That was the general feeling, and it was only really a few hundred hard nosed anarchists who took the opposite position. Deciding against defensive action, they attacked positions held by the Government -- which was, arguably, the correct position to take.

Though again, it shows that your assertions are just that. And it also shows that your understanding of the Spanish civil war and the events that surround it, is poor at best.


Originally posted by Axel1917
The anarchists also did not understand that the point of a proletarian revolution is to put the working class in power.

Just a brief browse over the document Towards a fresh revolution, written by the Friends of Durruti, shows this to be completely inaccurate. And even the most basic understanding of what happened in revolutionary Catalonia, would show you that what we have above is sectarian dogma -- nothing more, nothing less.


Originally posted by Axel1917
The POUM... also refused to work within the Republican army, being afraid of sharp conflicts. The made "their own" militia, unions, etc.

You're a fucking hypocrite. What's more, you're an opportunistic scoundrel who has no platform of his own, so he'll just criticise the actions of everyone else.

I mean how on earth can your criticism of the POUM be that they didn't do what the CNT leadership did, given that you've also criticised the CNT leadership for doing what they did? It makes no sense, and it makes your allegation that POUM were "centrist" silly.

Because if they had "[worked] within the Republican army" then they would have been joining the Government. They would have been accepting the destruction of the egalitarian militias, which were one of the revolutions foundations. And accepting in its place, an army divided by class.

And if they'd done that, whilst espousing revolutionary slogans, then they would be acting in a decidedly "centrist" manner. And if you know what this word means, then you'll know why -- but, to be honest, I suspect you're just throwing around phrases in the vain hope that they'll make your arguments look more intelligent.

Anyway, back on point, this just shows how inconsistent your criticisms are. And how you have nothing of any real value to add to this debate.


Originally posted by Axel1917
We have to remember that Stalin wanted to destroy the revolution to prove to the imperialists he wanted to ally with that he could be trusted to protect capitalism and show that there was no need for fascism.

Trotsky's opinions aside, it's quite clear from the actions of the Communist Party that the overall aim was to set up a regime similar in style to the one in Russia. And given that, and given your own theoretical preferences, you shouldn't really have an objection to the Popular Front.

After all, if it had won it would have created a "deformed workers' state". And hows you little gambit go again? Something like a deformed workers' state is a thousands times better than a capitalist one.


[email protected]
Trotsky had made note of such factories when analyzing the situation in Spain. I can't remember the exact work at the moment. Given his immense revolutionary experience, I think he was in a good position to judge.

I don't. And if what you are presenting here is an accurate depiction of Trotsky's views on the civil war, then I certainly don't.

What's more, I'd love to see you cite the work you referencing, mainly because I'd like to know where he thought these factories were. Because, for starters, at the time the prevalent view of the civil war was the one provided by the Communist press -- with the anarchist perspectives only really being heard inside Spain itself.

And Trotsky wasn't in Spain, of course. And he certainly didn't have access to any detailed maps of Spain, the type which would show the location of deserted factories capable of producing weapons, because no maps of Spain existed at this time. It simply hadn't been surveyed.

So I really can't see Trotsky's views being anything other than speculation. And I find it hard to believe that at a time when the CNT and POUM militias were using German rifles from the 1890's, they wouldn't have opened up weapons factories when they could. Because they did make plenty of bombs -- although they were, apparently, rather shit.


Axel1917
And that can't change the fact that most people calling themselves anarchists are in fact disgruntled teenagers. A middle-aged anarchist is a very rare thing these days.

I'm nearly 19 myself, and I've never met an anarchist who's younger than me. The closest, if memory serves me correctly, was a couple, both of whom were 23-24 and had a baby. Anecdotal evidence, I know; but I really doubt you've met more than a handful of anarchists.

[Axel1917]

Says who? Leon Trotsky?

There is no more credible source given his revolutionary experience.


Because the simple fact of the matter is that at the time, half of Spain was under fascist control. And in the Republican territories, the CNT only had a stronghold in the North East. In these territories, they seized power -- but it's absurd to blame them for not seizing power where they couldn't seize power.

I like how you ignored Red Dali's point.


It would be like blaming you for the American SWP dropping Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. You were in no position to stop that from happening, the only thing you could do would be to advise them against doing this. But you couldn't be blamed for them doing in, that would be absurd.


And likewise, the CNT can't be blamed because the UGT refused to carry the revolution forward. They called on the UGT to do this, but they didn't. So again, blaming them would be absurd.

Again, you completely ignored Red Dali's point, which smashes your nonsense to bits.


But as I've said before, this doesn't matter to you. All you really care about is slandering your opponents, in order to make your particular sect seem more important than it is. And because of that, to you facts, the truth, and everything else become unimportant -- they're just inconvenient concepts, that you'll happily disregard.

Baseless accusation. But what else could I expect? Anarchism is founded on baseless stuff.


What kind of response is this? You assert that the "anarchists" -- the CNT -- are to blame for not seizing power all over Spain, to which I responded by pointing out that, on their own, they couldn't do this, and that is your response.

Again, Red Dali's point.


Yes, the UGT leadership was "shoddy". Indeed it was worse than that, it was thoroughly reformist. But that is not what is being discussed here, the discussion relates to your comments on the CNT. Your position "that the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized power, and therefore voluntarily helped fascism triumph."

And they refused to seize it. Red Dali covered this as well.


So now, you've got to back that position up. Explain how "the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie".

It would help if you would actually read other peoples' posts instead of posting just to attack me.


I've already countered your argument, both in this post and my last one. In my view, during the early stages of the Spanish civil war, the leadership and the rank and file of the CNT went as far as they could given their level of influence and their power. But because the other mass organ of the working class, the UGT, wasn't willing to accept a revolutionary platform and act on it, the revolution hit a tumbling block.

You have failed miserably, and you ignored Red Dali's point that isn't very helpful to your argument.


Basically, it ran into a brick wall.

I think we all know that the leadership failed and that there was no new revolutionary leadership to correspond to the masses that wanted to go forward.


Things could have been done differently, yes. And the CNT probably could have done more. But without the UGT coming on board, the revolution was always going to hit a brick wall. It was always going to degenerate, in other words.


Which, firstly, makes your claims about "the anarchists in Spain voluntarily [leaving] power in the hands of the bourgeoisie" absurd. And secondly, makes your offhand response to my argument and your repetition of dogmas which fly in the face of the documented facts, completely pointless and devoid of anything which could be considered a legitimate counter argument.

Not at all. You also like to ignore posts from others that invalidate your points.


How did the "anarchist leadership [derail] things when a good deal of the workers were in favor of expropriation" during the early stages of the revolution? Granted, the CNT leadership betrayed the working class once the revolution began to degenerate -- and their betrayal is linked to that degeneration.

I believe myself and others have already explained that.


But during the early stages of the revolution, the CNT leadership was pushing forward a revolutionary platform and calling on the CNT rank and file -- and the UGT rank and file, for that matter -- to act upon said platform. So your position that it was the "anarchist leadership" that stopped the revolution from going forward is, once again, absurd.

Yeah, it just failed for some mysterious reason, you know. :rolleyes:


And what's more, this is the second time that I've dealt with this line of argument, and so far you've provided no legitimate counter argument. Which makes what we're having here anything but a political debate, given it's more like someone explaining something to a petulant child who's only response is to stick his fingers in his ears and stick his tongue out.

And the child here is you.


Secondly, you talk about "a good deal of the workers were in favor of expropriation." Well, I don't know what you consider "a good deal", but the majority of the UGT membership was, obviously, against expropriation. With the majority of the CNT rank and file, taking the other side of the argument -- and actually putting it into practice.

You are forgetting POUM rank-and-file and other workers.


So, given that, and unless memory deceives me, the fact that the UGT was the larger of the two unions, it was probably on 30-40% of the working class in the Republican territories that favoured expropriation. And an even smaller percentage who acted upon this -- which shouldn't detract from the fact that widespread expropriations did take place.

And the point is that the leadership refused to take power when it could have.


Again, this is not a response to my point. The point being that, despite the actions of the CNT leadership, the overwhelming majority of the anarchists in Spain continued to promote a revolutionary programme -- which, in turn, shows that your statements about Spanish anarchists are inaccurate.

Not consistently. I mean, they didn't continue on when Stalin started the blackmail, didn't seize the factories, etc.

As for your point, about there not being "any new leadership corresponding to their interests", that's also inaccurate. Well, if by "leadership" you mean political organs that promoted a revolutionary programme.


This is because, at the time, both the POUM -- who were really the only group that moved leftwards during the civil war -- and the Friends of Durruti were proposing a revolutionary programme. And therefore, there was "new leadership corresponding to their interests."

So, were they proposing to expose Stalin, understand the purpose of a revolution, etc.? I doubt it.

A revolutionary party is also very unlikely to get anywhere in the course of the revolution, as revolution does not afford time to educate and expand cadres.


That you choose to ignore this, is neither here nor there. Because what's for certain, is that the POUM posed a significant threat to the Government. Something the Government fully understood -- which is why they were so severely repressed by that very Government.

And their centrism certainly did not help.


I've already addressed the issue of power seizure, more than once. But the other point, regarding the anarchists "sabotaging" the May fighting, just shows how little you know about the subject in discussion.

And quite poorly, as you concentrate on this or that area, while ignoring the leaderships reactionary role.


For starters, what happened in Barcelona in the May of 1937, was not an "uprising". The only people who called it that, were the Communist press -- who made out it was an "uprising" in order to justify their suppression of the POUM.

(Initially, they reported that the CNT led the "uprising" -- but when they definitively decided to suppress the POUM, no more than two weeks later, they changed their tune. And the international press, ignoring the inconsistencies in Communist reporting, took their lead from the Communist press and also started calling it a "fascist coup" led by Franco's fifth (?) column: the POUM.)[/quote]

Rather, the May fighting, from the CNT/POUM perspective, was a defensive struggle. The Government had decided to take back the expropriated industry and nationalise it, and after successfully taking over the Telephone Exchange, the CNT and the POUM took up defensive positions in strategic buildings. With the aim being, of course, to hold onto these buildings.

It's true that the CNT leadership didn't particularly favour aggressive action, but that was not "sabotage". Because, as accounts from the time corroborate, the general feeling within the CNT and POUM rank and file was that the Guards were still their class brothers and sisters -- and therefore, they didn't really want to kill or injure them.[/quote]

A good deal of the rank-and-file wanted to go on the revolutionary road here. And again, the leadership acted in a reactionary way.


That was the general feeling, and it was only really a few hundred hard nosed anarchists who took the opposite position. Deciding against defensive action, they attacked positions held by the Government -- which was, arguably, the correct position to take.

Though again, it shows that your assertions are just that. And it also shows that your understanding of the Spanish civil war and the events that surround it, is poor at best.

Considering that you are an anarchist, I think your credibility is nil. If you really understood revolutions, you would not be copying bourgeois propaganda about vanguard parties.


Just a brief browse over the document Towards a fresh revolution, written by the Friends of Durruti, shows this to be completely inaccurate. And even the most basic understanding of what happened in revolutionary Catalonia, would show you that what we have above is sectarian dogma -- nothing more, nothing less.

So, these anarchists support the setting up of a workers' state?


You're a fucking hypocrite. What's more, you're an opportunistic scoundrel who has no platform of his own, so he'll just criticise the actions of everyone else.

Baseless nonsense from a megalomaniac.


I mean how on earth can your criticism of the POUM be that they didn't do what the CNT leadership did, given that you've also criticised the CNT leadership for doing what they did? It makes no sense, and it makes your allegation that POUM were "centrist" silly.

You did not read what I wrote. They did not do work with the CNT to win the rank-and-file over to a revolutionary way. They did not win over elements of the army.


Because if they had "[worked] within the Republican army" then they would have been joining the Government. They would have been accepting the destruction of the egalitarian militias, which were one of the revolutions foundations. And accepting in its place, an army divided by class.

How so? The Bolsheviks weren't exactly helping the capitalists.


And if they'd done that, whilst espousing revolutionary slogans, then they would be acting in a decidedly "centrist" manner. And if you know what this word means, then you'll know why -- but, to be honest, I suspect you're just throwing around phrases in the vain hope that they'll make your arguments look more intelligent.

The Bolsheviks were not centrists. Again, you have no idea how revolutions work. You just pay lip service to them while supporting capitalism in deeds.


Anyway, back on point, this just shows how inconsistent your criticisms are. And how you have nothing of any real value to add to this debate.

You never add anything useful to a debate.


Trotsky's opinions aside, it's quite clear from the actions of the Communist Party that the overall aim was to set up a regime similar in style to the one in Russia. And given that, and given your own theoretical preferences, you shouldn't really have an objection to the Popular Front.

This is completely out of touch with reality. Why would Stalin prop up the bourgeoisie if he wanted what you say he wanted? He acted differently in Eastern Europe to get states in the image of his.


After all, if it had won it would have created a "deformed workers' state". And hows you little gambit go again? Something like a deformed workers' state is a thousands times better than a capitalist one.

His intention was to protect capitalism without Spain becoming fascist, to prove that he could be trusted by the imperialist bourgeois democracies. There is a crying contradiction between how he acted in Spain and postwar E. Europe.


I don't. And if what you are presenting here is an accurate depiction of Trotsky's views on the civil war, then I certainly don't.

Trotsky managed to analyze Fascism very well without being in Germany and Italy at the time. He was able to do the same with Spain.


What's more, I'd love to see you cite the work you referencing, mainly because I'd like to know where he thought these factories were. Because, for starters, at the time the prevalent view of the civil war was the one provided by the Communist press -- with the anarchist perspectives only really being heard inside Spain itself.

See http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/xx/spain01.htm


And Trotsky wasn't in Spain, of course. And he certainly didn't have access to any detailed maps of Spain, the type which would show the location of deserted factories capable of producing weapons, because no maps of Spain existed at this time. It simply hadn't been surveyed.

Trotsky was able to analyze the situation in the Stalinist USSR, Fascism, etc. without being in those nations for very long periods of time, if at all. He was also able to do the same with Spain. Are you denying that civilian factories existed?


So I really can't see Trotsky's views being anything other than speculation. And I find it hard to believe that at a time when the CNT and POUM militias were using German rifles from the 1890's, they wouldn't have opened up weapons factories when they could. Because they did make plenty of bombs -- although they were, apparently, rather shit.

Trotsky was highly experienced, and also made note of another way they could have done things without foreign aid, as the Bolsheviks did not have any.


I'm nearly 19 myself, and I've never met an anarchist who's younger than me. The closest, if memory serves me correctly, was a couple, both of whom were 23-24 and had a baby. Anecdotal evidence, I know; but I really doubt you've met more than a handful of anarchists.

Note the word "most." I haven't met an Anarchist in person that is an adult. They also have a sectarian knack - they don't show up to anything they can't control for the most part, i.e. they put their own interests above those of the proletariat. I have yet to see them get involved in the immigrant rights movement over here in the USA, Venezuela and Cuba solidarity, etc. for instance.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Amusing Scrotum, "they couldn't do this", is simply not an appropriate excuse for the compromising of their leadership and political principles in exchange for positions as bourgeois ministers.

Axel1917 is correct, considering that they immediately started to subordinate themselves to the Popular Front as soon as the attacks on their revolutionary bodies had started, they voluntarily surrendered their political independence to the bourgeoisie; in the face of total annihilation, they decided that "they couldn't do this", and they fell into the arms of Callabero and Negrin. It doesn't matter if the Friends of Durruti, Party of Marxist Unification, and Iberian Anarchist Federation had later developed a programme that was "new leadership corresponding to their interests", their role was sadly over due to their weakness and inability to take the revolutionary initiative when they could of.

The Bolsheviks were not the majority. They were confined primarily to Petrograd and Moscow. However, when Kornilov attempted to destroy the Soviets, and when Kerensky attempted to disarm the Soviets of Soldiers' Deputies when they refused to go to the front, they did not decide that "they couldn't do this", and voluntarily surrender to these brutal acts that would of not only cost the lives of tens of thousands of workers, but also would of meant that the world's first workers' republic would of never been founded

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Red Dali covered this as well.[/b]

Given how often you mention him, it seems that you think that in 6 lines Red Dali basically covered everything. According to you, he's delivered a crushing blow, one which renders all other counter arguments pointless. So let's have a look at what he said:


Originally posted by RedDali+July 19, 2007 10:47 pm--> (RedDali @ July 19, 2007 10:47 pm)Stalin started demanding the capitulation of the revolutionary forces far before Moscow's intervention; the anarchist and socialist leadership started to surrender their principles and conscience far before they extorted them with the threat of withhelding arms. Allow me to repeat myself, 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. They could of seized power, but they choose not to due to their fear of states and power; their ramblings about hierarchy and tyranny ran smack against the face of the working class in Spain.[/b]

Okay, so this is the argument that Axel seems so fond of. The argument that, as far as he's concerned, means he doesn't need to respond to any of my points. The 105 most powerful words written on Rev Left, if you will.

But despite this argument being so crushing, I think I'll still try and respond...

1. I don't think I've ever, anywhere "[layed] all of the blame on Stalin". In fact, if you look back over this thread, I don't think I've even mentioned his name. And if you look back over my posts on the subject, you'll see that I "blame" the failure of the Spanish revolution, certainly in its early stages, on the UGT leadership acting out a reformist program.

From my first post in this thread: ...the reason "power [remained] in the hands of the bourgeoisie" was because the whole working class didn't rise -- namely those workers' in the UGT -- and because a revolutionary working class, weakened by this fact, was violently suppressed.

So, clearly, this point doesn't apply to my position, and it never would -- mainly because, unlike lots of people on the left, I don't overestimate the power of "Stalinism".

2. Again, you assert that the "anarchist leadership" refused to seize power when they had the chance, something I've already gone over. As I've said, it was not materially possible for the CNT to seize power in all of the Republican territories -- they simply weren't strong enough.

Where they were strong enough, in Catalonia for example, they did seize power. Virtually all the industry in the area was expropriated and collectivised.

Indeed, there's only one section of industry in this area that I've heard of that wasn't collectivised: barbers shops. Yet, for some reason, the barbers in Catalonia were strongly anarchist -- keeping CNT posters in their windows even when the CNT were being suppressed.

That does worry me a bit. Because if you've ever seen a group of anarchists, and their hair, you wouldn't really want them to become barbers. But maybe that's just my taste...

Anyway, back on point, as I said, that's the only section of industry that, as far as I know, wasn't collectivised. Though I still suspect there were certain, fairly radical changes to the way in which these shops operated. Mainly because it would be slightly strange if the rest of the service industry changed in the way it did, without this particular section.

So there, I've addressed this Axel. What's more, I've addressed this on more than one occasion. Whether you choose to respond, is your choice. And although I don't think you'll respond, I hope Red Dali will -- because at least then we'll have the possibility of an actual debate taking place.
_ _ _ _ _

As far as I can see, they are the two main points in Red Dali's post. I can't see another counter argument in there, but if there is one I'll be happy to address it -- because, so far, I'm not seeing how his post was so devastating. In fact, I don't really see anything special about it.

Moving on, Red Dali's latest post move the debate on somewhat:


Originally posted by RedDali
Amusing Scrotum, "they couldn't do this", is simply not an appropriate excuse for the compromising of their leadership and political principles in exchange for positions as bourgeois ministers.

I'm not saying it was, in fact I have no interest in "excusing" the actions of the CNT leadership. It's just, unlike you, I at least try to look at what caused these actions. And in my view it was the overall degeneration of the revolution -- which was primarily caused by the failure of the UGT to follow the CNT's lead.

And the degeneration was far reaching. That is, it wasn't just limited to the CNT leadership. As Orwell comments, for example, even though there was still a revolutionary spirit in Barcelona when he arrived, there were still elements of degeneration.

Women volunteers, for example, had to train out of the men's sight. Because the men round their training funny -- something which wouldn't have happened even a few months ago. Likewise, the phrase maricon -- Orwell says it means "nancy boy", Spanish people who I've worked with have told me it means "faggot" -- returned as a popular insult. Usually aimed at the younger fighters, who struggled more.

So there was a general degeneration of the revolution, which caused things to move rightwards. You can call this me "excusing" the actions of people if you like, but it would be a huge logical fallacy. And what's more, it's the kind of tactic used by the anti-materialist pro-war left.

As Johan Hari has pointed out in this review of a book written by the pro-war author Nick Cohen (http://www.johannhari.com/index.php), "In an attempt to dismiss a facile explanation for Islamism - "it's all about Israel!" - Cohen [a member of the pro-war left] ends up offering a more facile case still - "it has no causes except its own crazy ideas!". His dismissal of any precondition or cause for jihadism - no matter how thoroughly documented - as "appeasement" and "making excuses" is profoundly disabling, leaving him unable to understand or account for the movement he so desperately wants to suppress. This scars his entire analysis."

It says something when a left-liberal columnist like Hari is more capable of using materialist analysis that self proclaimed Marxists. But really, it shouldn't come as a surprise. Because you're not interested in understanding what happened during the Spanish revolution, you just want to prove that "anarchism" is useless.

And that in its place, we need the correct kind of "Trotskyist" leadership -- the kind provided by whatever Trotskyist international you belong to. These guys wouldn't have been affected by the degeneration of the revolution, they would have stood above all that.

Why? Because they would have had the correct program, of course. Which would have allowed them to stand above material reality, unaffected by it. And therefore, if they had compromised the leadership of the CNT, the Spanish revolution would have succeeded -- and we'd all be holidaying in communist Malaga.

Well, I suppose you could call that an argument, just not a very good one. Mainly because it's opportunistic, idealistic bollocks.


Originally posted by RedDali
...in the face of total annihilation, they decided that "they couldn't do this", and they fell into the arms of Callabero and Negrin.

What, in your view, should they have done? I know what I think they should have done, but I'm interested in what you think they should of done. We already know that Axel has no idea what they should have done -- given that he criticises the POUM for not doing what the CNT did, and he criticises the CNT for not doing what the POUM did.


Originally posted by RedDali
The Bolsheviks were not the majority...

As has been pointed out to you before, you can't compare the CNT with the Bolshevik Party. The CNT were the equivalent of the Soviets, with the FAI, Friends of Durruti, POUM, etc., being the equivalent of the Bolshevik Party. So that little biscuit ain't going to work here.
_ _ _ _ _

Axel has commented in this thread, that one of the failures of the anarchists in Spain was that they didn't create a war industry. This position, apparently, has come from Trotsky, who said, in the work The Lessons of Spain: The Last Warning:


Originally posted by Trotsky
But the world does not revolve around Stalinist Moscow. During a year and a half of civil war, the Spanish war industry could and should have been strengthened and developed by converting a number of civilian plants to war production. This work was not carried out only because Stalin and his Spanish allies equally feared the initiative of the workers’ organizations. A strong war industry would have become a powerful instrument in the hands of the workers. The leaders of the Popular Front preferred to depend on Moscow.

(Note: this is the only reference that I could find in that piece to the war industry; plus, from my reading, it seems that Trotsky considers the anarchists Stalin's "Spanish allies".)

So that's Trotsky's position, "the Spanish war industry could and should have been strengthened and developed by converting a number of civilian plants to war production."

Personally, I agree. Indeed, I'd go even further myself: I propose that the CNT should have created a fleet of bombers, bombers that would rival the German bombers supplied to Franco's forces. And, on top of that, I think the CNT should have developed a range of chemical weapons, trained a battalion of fighters who would rival the Navy Seals, and constructed a number of tanks.

Logistically, I don't know if this was possible. But then again, Trotsky doesn't say whether, realistically, this could be done -- so I don't think there is any need for me to aim for a higher standard than his.

After all, if he says a war industry could have been constructed, then I believe him.

Of course, we do know that the a certain amount of time and effort was put into the production of bombs. But these bombs turned out to be mediocre, at best. Which suggests to me that developing weapons is not something that can be done that easily.

A country at peace, for example, which was able to call upon a range of specialists, technicians, and so on, would probably struggle to develop a particularly good war industry in "a year and a half". And Spain was in no such shape.

There were shortages, meaning that civilian plants were needed for civilian produce. The weapons experts who would oversee this type of operation, were mostly fighting for Franco. And those that weren't, probably weren't CNT members. And there was also a shortage of materials, that is the materials that would be needed to support a war industry.

So, really, unless you're going to provide more than a paragraph in favour of this hypothesis -- that is, unless you provide something substantial which indicates how this could be done -- then I'm not going to accept this hypothesis. Regardless of whether "There is no more credible source [than Trotsky] given his revolutionary experience."

Because frankly, this just strikes me as Trotsky blowing smoke out his arse. And if you're going to do that, at least do it with a bit of gusto -- by demanding that they develop what I said they develop, for example.


Originally posted by Axel1917
Yeah, it just failed for some mysterious reason, you know. :rolleyes:

Wow there kiddo, don't roll your eyes at me. I've already spent a lot of time explaining why it failed, and there's nothing "mysterious" about my explanation. And if you can't counter my arguments, at least have the decency to admit to that -- don't just make flippant remarks, because they only highlight your own intellectual bankruptcy.


Originally posted by Axel1917
And the point is that the leadership refused to take power when it could have.

Right, I've repeatedly argued two things: (1) where it could take power, the CNT did; and (2), it wasn't able to take power in any other area than North East Spain.

Now -- and this is the last time I'll ask you to do this, because if you don't, I'll just see it as you conceding the debate -- either counter the argument I presented by backing your claims, or stop making those claims. The ball is in your court, and it has been for some time now.


Originally posted by Axel1917
Not consistently. I mean, they didn't continue on when Stalin started the blackmail...

Uh, yes they did. The slogan "revolution or fascism", for example, was still being used when the Government was suppressing them, that's just a historical fact.


Originally posted by Axel1917
So, were they proposing to expose Stalin, understand the purpose of a revolution, etc.? I doubt it.

You honestly know nothing about this subject, do you.

There was a direct conflict between the revolutionaries and the Government -- "Stalin", if you want. And during this conflict, the revolutionary publications were continuously pointing out that the Government stood against the interests of the working class.

Which is why, of course, those publications were censored and suppressed. And why members of the POUM and the CNT who were travelling to other countries to tell people about the revolution, were stopped and imprisoned.

Just because you don't know about this, doesn't mean it didn't happen.


[email protected]
A good deal of the rank-and-file wanted to go on the revolutionary road here. And again, the leadership acted in a reactionary way.

Look, I've already addressed this, in some detail. Either you respond to that, or I'm going to assume that you have no legitimate response. Because all you're doing right now is repeating what you've already said, which I've already refuted.


Axel1917
How so?

Are you being serious? Do you really not know how important the militias were to the overall revolution? And how damaging an army organised along class lines was?
_ _ _ _ _

That's all I've got to say for now, because I'm just repeating what I've already said. When you counter my arguments, I'll respond -- but until then, I've got better things to do.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Amusing Scrotum, I appreciate your historical analysis of the events in Spain, but I think we have a variating conception of what could of, and what should of been done in the situation that the anarchist leadership was in. I would not like to nitpick anymore on that issue, because I am simply not that much of an historian on that subject, for all I know, you are correct - they might not of been in a position to do that much. As for how the Bolsheviks are 'unrelated', I disagree; the Bolsheviks proved that, with the leadership and the programme based around their class base, they could go against the odds. The Bolsheviks were not a majority in the Urals, Ukraine, or the Central Industrial Area, which are all vast parts of the entire country; as I have said, their power lied mostly in Petrograd and Moscow, however, they seized control of the political power, and even though Yudernich had them surrounded and a foreign blockade was choking the entire country, they built up a large, unified revolutionary army that was capable of fighting back. Where did their weapons come from? How did that small, militant proletariat, defeat imperialism and counterrevolution at the same time? How did the Bolsheviks, in competition with the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries who far outnumbered them, take the revolutionary initiative?

There is no doubt that they could of easily converted the civillian plants into arms factories; as a matter of fact, they had the capability to even produce chemical weapoons, though I am unsure about their ability to consider making bombers that would rival the Germans. As for your excuse that they were experiencing 'shortages', the Bolsheviks experienced a famine as a result of the grain strike of the kulaks, and two regions of their country descended into a state of hell-on-earth as cannabalism started to prop up.

I have nothing against anarchists, I consider them to be our revolutionary twin, but I think they rely on their abstract perspective that all forms of hierarchy are inherently evil far too much. That is just like saying "since there are worms in some apples, I am going to avoid eating any apple at all", it's an absence of reasoning, and a distraction from the true foe, which is the capitalist class. I think that they are wrong, but I don't think that they are useless. Anarchists have been more productive to the workers' movement than many self-proclaimed Marxists have been.

[syndicat]

i'm having to catch up on this thread. so bear with me.

Axel1917:
You are also in no position to talk, given that the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized power, and therefore [i]voluntarily helped fascism triumph. You are also in no position to talk, given that the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized power,

You have to distinguish between the national government and the regional government of Catalonia. The CNT could not overthrow the national government without an alliance with the UGT. The CNT and UGT were each about half the organized working class. In Madrid and other central areas of Spain, the CNT was in the minority and was in no position to take over.

Moreover, it wasn't a question of "the anarchists" seizing power. You're thinking in terms of a political party seizing power, and then running things top-down, in Leninist fashion. In this case it was a question of the organized working class taking power. It was therefore a question for the mass organizations of the workers to decide. In Catalonia the CNT was in the majority and could have seized power after defeating the army in July of 1917. To debate this question they had an assembly of their union delegates. In that debate there were some unions that advocated overthrowing the regional government and the unions taking over, which is what the CNT's program called for. It was the representatives of the FAI who argued for a "temporary" collaboration with the Popular Front parties, against the more revolutionary anarcho-syndicalists in some of the industrial unions.

However, the debate continued, and in Sept 1936 the CNT at a national conference reversed course, and voted to propose to the UGT jointly replacing the Popular Front government with a new structure of a workers congress and an elected Defense Council, and a unified militia controlled jointly by the UGT and CNT.

It was the Marxist parties, the Socialsts and Communists, who vetoed this. A number of revolutionaries in the CNT, such as Durruti then advocated taking power in the regions where they could to force the hand of the Left Socialists. They did this in the region of Aragon. But the CNT in Catalonia was internally divided and the more cautious people got the upper hand and the CNT joined the regional government at the end of September.

So, the situation is complicated. The CNT was a mass union organization and the anarcho-syndicalists within it had different views as to the way forward.

The Trotskyists traditionally have said "Oh, the anarchists didn't take power becaue they don't believe in that." But that's not true. The CNT's program called for the working class to take over power, both in governance and in industry, and in the communities. It was a problem of not consistently carrying out their own program.

Anarchist Tension:
Firstly, you are talking about the CNT leadership, not about the grassroot anarchists of the FAI and FoD who collectivised massive parts of the country, re-organised production and began redistributing resources; free from the Popular goverment's control I might add (with and without the CNT).

The Friends of Durruti were not formed til Mar 1937, long after the wave of expropriations of industry. Moreover, as I pointed out above, it was the FAI leadership -- the members of the Peninsular Committee -- who persuaded the CNT not to take power in Catalonia in July of 1917. It was part of their syndicalist base who wanted to take political power. So your alleged disagreement between "CNT leadership" and FAI is mistaken. That's not the way it was in July of 1936. Later on, in 1938, the FAI began to realize it had made a mistake and began to criticize the policy of Popular Front collaboration. But that was way too late.

Scrotum:
For starters, it's completely absurd to suggest that "the anarchists in Spain voluntarily left power in the hands of the bourgeoisie" when it's a documented fact that in CNT strongholds the bourgeoisie was expropriated. That is, the CNT rank and file didn't "[leave] power in the hands of the bourgeoisie when they could have seized [it]" -- they actually seized it.

The main area where it could be said the CNT could have overthrown the government by itself was in Catalonia and their failure to do was indeed a serious mistake. But it wasn't the "bourgeoisie" who were able to gain control of the government that was left in place. It was the Communists, who were working towards a coordinator class regime as existed in the USSR, and who were thus recruiting from the middle strata of Spanish society (shopkeepers, managers, lawyers, cops, landowning farmers). The bourgeoisie had been expropriated, especially in Catalonia and most of them had fled.



However, the CNT didn't represent the whole working class; it shared that with another organ of the working class, the UGT. And they, at best, tentatively expropriated some industries -- but generally preferred to follow the lead of the Government. Which, of course, didn't favour expropriation.

So right there you have one reason why the whole of the Republican territories weren't expropriated and brought under workers' control.

But the fact remains that certain areas were under working class control. And the working class fought to keep those areas under control -- the May fighting in Barcelona, for example. But, unfortunately, they were suppressed, along with their political organs -- the CNT and the POUM.

Actually, 18,000 enterprises and 14 million acres of farm land were expropriated. Virtually the whole of the country's industry, and the workplaces that weren't expropriated had "worker control committees" that vetoed management and were ready to take over if things progressed.

Axel1917:

Why didn't these anarchists expose Stalin and continue going forward, making Stalin openly choose between supporting the revolution and Franco? Instead of using that whole "we need arms" nonsense, an unclever lie, why didn't they go to all of those civilian plants sitting around and convert them for war production?

Actually they did do what you say they should have done. They opposed the transfer of the gold to Russia for arms. They suggested the money be used to build up a native war industry in Catalonia. As it is, the CNT created from scratch 24 factories to make ammo and armored vehicles in Catalonia within a couple weeks of the defeat of the army. But they lacked resources to build up this armament making capability. The main resource available was the 500 tons of gold in the Bank of Spain, the 4th largest gold reserves in the world. The CNT negotiated with Caballero, the socialist prime minister in Sept 1936 to give the Catalan warm industries money and he promised but stabbed them in the back, letting the Communist-controlled social democrat Negrin send the gold to Russia.

They could have avoided this outcome if they had been able to force Caballero to go along with their proposal in early Sept. for a joint CNT-UGT government. But the Socialists and Communists were opposed to that.



As I said before, what they should have done is continue with the revolutionary work, the collectivization, militias, etc.. They should have followed this up with constantly exposing Stalin every step of the way, and to get arms, they should have taken civilian plants and converted them to war production.

This is exactly what they did do.

bloody:
If you know your history, the Bolsheviks and the SR's joined together in the Congress of the Soviets, from that they formed a government.

Two parties, won majority of the soviets, formed one government. So, you see, the Bolsheviks didn't control the soviets through top down methods. Or, the SR's wouldn't have got any seats.

This is not quite accurate. First of all you're confusing the soviets, which were local bodies, with the soviet congress. The Left SRs (not SRs) had a majority among the peasantry and that's why for a few months the Bolsheviks were forced into a coalition with them. But there was never really another free vote of the soviet congress, with freedom of the competing left working class organizations.

The main local soviets were in fact organized on a top-down basis, with power concentrated into the executive, and the assemblies treated as just rubber stamps. This is described in: http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm
This is historian Pete Rachlef's article "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution."

On the question of the "vanguard," I'd point out that it used to be the case that anarchists also used this term. The FAI in Spain referred to itself as "the vanguard of the proletariat." The reason it fell out of favor with anarchists is because the interpretation given to the role of the "vanguard" by Leninists.

Where we can agree is the purely sociological facts. The working class is very heterogeneious, in that there is a great diversity of levels of activism, political aims or vision, commitment and so on. There is within the working class a layer of activists, organizers and publicists, who are often motivated by ideas about social change. Not all of them, certainly not at present, are revolutionaries in the sense of seeing the possibility of getting rid of bosses and the workers taking over.

The sense of how far it is possible to change things varies over time, and this is part of what we mean by shifting "consciousness" within the working class.

The spread of revolutionary consciousness is not simply a product of the activity of the self-conscious revolutionaries but depends upon a change -- organic, as one person in this thread put it -- within the working class itself. This derives from a host of influences but especially the level of struggle and commitment and solidarity, because the level of collective struggle will shape the sense of power people have to change things, and thus their willingness to entertain revolutionary ideas.

What is important, insofar as we discussing the differences of opinion between the Leninist and libertarian Left is concerned, is the question of the role of revolutionaries in regard to decision-making in the movement and in the struggle. For a political minority to attempt to aggrandize power in its hands, in the name of "effective leadership", is vanguardist in the sense that it empowers the vanguard and not the masses. but proletarian liberation is a project of mass liberation, and thus has to be about mass empowerment.

[Rawthentic]

You're thinking in terms of a political party seizing power, and then running things top-down, in Leninist fashion. In this case it was a question of the organized working class taking power.
Political parties dont seize power, the proletariat did, like in October 1917.

[syndicat]

me: "You're thinking in terms of a political party seizing power, and then running things top-down, in Leninist fashion. In this case it was a question of the organized working class taking power."



Political parties dont seize power, the proletariat did, like in October 1917.

The working class had little control over anything after Oct 1917 and what power they had faded. There were a few hundred enterprises where the workers had taken over management, but that was soon gone. The local soviets were top-down, and in the spring of 1918 when the workers voted the Bolsheviks out in 19 cities the Bolsheviks just ignored the vote, and did away with the soviets. so, supposing the working class controlled the government how did they control it? and it's naive to imagine that the working class can control things simply by voting to elect a few leaders into government offices.

[Rawthentic]

Until the Stalinist counter-revolution, the proletariat did wield political power. The Bolsheviks and the Soviets were one in the same, the were an integral part of each other.

[syndicat]

voz:
Until the Stalinist counter-revolution, the proletariat did wield political power. The Bolsheviks and the Soviets were one in the same, the were an integral part of each other.

then you believe that the working class can "wield power" by a political party running the state. the Bolsheviks were 250,000 people, and its top leadership were largely drawn from the intelligentsia. that is not literally the working class. the workers and peasants were millions of people. for them to hold power they would have had to be in a position to make the decisions, or immediately control them. and that was not the case.

[Rawthentic]

Then again we return to the materialist (communist) understanding of the state and how a class wields it. The working class had their soviets, they controlled them, and they elected the Bolshevik Party to their leadership. Keep in mind that elections are vastly different in a country where the working class is in power than in standard bourgeois states. You seem to think that because the Bolsheviks were elected to leadership, that they controlled everything, which is of course wrong.

[The Grey Blur]

I'll just stop by to say Raccoon's post was excellent and says all that needs to be said.

Bye.