The Socialist Alternative's critique of anarchism

[Bilan]

I just thought I'd post this article. It's from the Socialist Alternative, an Australian socialist group, who define themselves as Marxists.
This article is their critique of Anarchism, and the modern Anarchist movement.
It's tilted "is their anything radical about anarchism?"


Is there anything radical about anarchism?
Mick Armstrong

In recent years anarchism has gained a following among people repelled by the horrors of twenty-first century globalised capitalism - environmental destruction, third world poverty, imperialist wars and rampaging transnational companies.

In the wake of the collapse of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and the abandonment of any pretence of radicalism by reformist Labor parties, and in the absence of a mass socialist movement, anarchism can appeal to radical young people who do not see the collective power of workers as the force to achieve social change.

Anarchists claim to be irreconcilable rebels against the existing order, opposed to the state and all forms of hierarchy. They portray themselves as "libertarians" - defenders of individual freedom - and dismiss Marxists as "authoritarian".

One of the problems in writing about anarchism is the sheer variety of political currents that adopt the label. On the far right we have libertarians committed to a no-holds-barred capitalism. This branch of anarchism opposes any interference by the state in an individual's right to exploit others for their personal gain. For these anarchists, any restriction on the freedom of Rupert Murdoch to go on raking in billions is "authoritarian".

At the other end of the spectrum there are syndicalists who largely agree with the Marxist critique of capitalism and look to collective working class action to change the world. Syndicalists argue for strong union organisation and mass action - such as general strikes - to overthrow capitalism. This makes syndicalism vastly superior to other forms of anarchism - indeed many syndicalists entirely reject the anarchist label and call themselves socialists or Marxists.

The weakness of syndicalism is that it downplays the importance of political action and the need for a clear working class political leadership to challenge every aspect of capitalist power and ideology. This means that while syndicalists have led many heroic struggles, they have not been able to turn those revolts into a successful challenge to capitalist rule.

However, very few of today's self-styled anarchists identify as syndicalists. The predominant currents are various forms of lifestyle anarchism which in turn merge into "autonomism" and/or the masked Black Blocs with their terrorist-style antics.



Lifestyle anarchism

Lifestyle anarchism is the predominant form. As the anarchist author Murray Bookchin, who is critical of some aspects of lifestylism but shares the underlying politics, writes:

"The 1990s are awash in self-styled anarchists who - their flamboyant radical rhetoric aside - are cultivating a latter day anarchist individualism... Ad hoc adventurism, personal bravura, an aversion to theory oddly akin to the anti-rational biases of postmodernism, celebrations of theoretical incoherence, a basically apolitical and anti-organisational commitment to imagination, desire, and ecstasy, and an intensely self-oriented enchantment of everyday life, reflect the toll that social reaction has taken on Euro-American anarchism."

Some environmental activists have been influenced by this approach, combining individual lifestyle politics with efforts to "create living alternatives to our present ways". Hence the emphasis on "affinity groups" (usually just another name for friendship circles), consensus, squatting, hostility to driving cars, not eating at McDonalds, veganism etc.

This lifestyle approach focuses on how we live our lives rather than on the best means of winning a struggle. It challenges no aspect of the repressive and exploitative society it supposedly opposes.

Lifestylism usually goes hand in hand with the dismissal of workers as at best bought off or at worst, according to Bookchin, as "our enemies". "Indoctrinated from birth," says Bookchin, workers are "an organ within the body of capitalism."

The anarchist view of "freedom" is basically a form of extreme individualism. It is based on the absolute inviolability of the individual Ego in relation to the outside world - the total impermissibility of the imposition of authority of any kind upon the unconditional autonomy of the sovereign Ego.

As the Marxist writer Hal Draper describes the anarchist approach: "It does not mean freedom through democracy, or freedom in society, but, rather, freedom from any democratic authority whatsoever or any social constraint: in short, not a free society but freedom from society."



Individualism

The most logically consistent form of anarchism is absolute individualism. "Freedom," wrote Michael Bakunin, one of the founders of anarchism, "is the absolute right of every human being to seek no other sanction for his actions but his own conscience, to determine these actions solely by his own will, and consequently to owe his first responsibility to himself alone."

But there is nothing radical in this argument. It is used to justify every conceivable form of anti-social behaviour: the right of the well-off to send their kids to elite private schools, the right of scabs to cross picket lines, the right of racists to spew their filth, the right of business owners to despoil the planet and exploit workers.

As Draper puts it: "Of all ideologies, anarchism is the one most fundamentally anti-democratic in principle, since it is not only unalterably hostile to democracy in general but particularly to any socialist democracy of the most ideal kind that could be imagined." In rejecting "all authority, even with consent," it upholds "the right of a small minority to impose its conception on the large majority, if necessary by violence."

This is very much the approach of Black Bloc anarchists who specialise in violent attacks on the symbols of authority. In Europe there has been a recurring pattern of masked squads of Black Bloc anarchists disrupting mass protests with provocative attacks on police, smashing up banks with iron bars and the like.

These antics have been remarkably effective in sabotaging genuine protests and imperilling the lives of other protesters - but singularly ineffective in challenging capitalism. All they have done is play into the hands of the authorities who use the mindless violence of the Black Blocs as an excuse to crack down on all dissent. Unsurprisingly the Black Blocs are riddled with undercover police acting as provocateurs.

There is a long tradition of anarchists resorting to individual terrorism - so-called "propaganda of the deed". The US anarchist Alexander Berkman attempted to assassinate the hated industrialist Henry Clay Frick, French anarchists engaged in waves of bombings, Russian anarchists repeatedly attempted to kill the Tsar, while small groups of Italian Bakuninists launched "insurrections" in an attempt to spark a wider rebellion.



Elitism

This approach reflects the underlying elitism of anarchist politics. Rather than attempting to organise the mass of workers to fight for their own self-emancipation, they rely on the actions of a self-chosen minority.

The US anarchist Emma Goldman - still very popular among anarchists today - puts the anarchist position most starkly:

"The multitude, the mass spirit, dominates everywhere, destroying quality...

"The majority cannot reason; it has no judgement. Lacking utterly in originality and moral courage, the majority has always placed its destiny in the hands of others...

"I therefore believe with Emerson that ‘the masses are crude, lame, pernicious in their demands and influence, and need not to be flattered, but to be schooled. I wish not to concede anything to them, but to drill, divide, and break them up'.

"In other words, the living, vital truth of social and economic well-being will become a reality only through the zeal, courage, the non-compromising determination of intelligent minorities and not through the mass."

The conclusion for anarchists like Goldman is identical to that of conservatives - opposition to mass, democratic control from below: the working class can't and shouldn't rule. This extreme elitism is not an aberration of Goldman's, but addresses a contradiction at the heart of anarchism: if a mass movement or organisation aimed at concerted action does not operate on the democratic method of open debate, followed by majority rule and centralised implementation, how does a movement go forward?

There are two possible outcomes: either there is no concerted action because the participants are each "doing their own thing," and the movement therefore dissolves or collapses in defeat; or decisions are made by individuals who are not elected and not accountable to anyone.

But anarchist principles don't allow open, accountable leadership. So instead anarchists fall back on secret, elite bands - the "invisible" leaders that Bakunin praised.

Marxists hold to a vision of human liberation that is totally different from that of anarchists. We look to the conscious action of the mass of workers to win their own liberation.

The task of socialists is not to substitute their own actions for those of the working class as a whole, but rather to intervene in mass struggles to argue a way forward and to patiently explain the ideas of socialism. In order to have any hope of achieving liberation, the most politically conscious workers need to organise their own revolutionary party to challenge the hold of reformist parties and union leaders.

For Karl Marx - who had considerable experience of the disastrous impact of anarchists on the early working class movement - anarchism was not a beautiful vision of saintly dreamers but a sick social ideology. Rooted in an idealist theory of the state, it oscillated between opportunism in politics and a frenzied flight from political reality to adventures in individual terrorism.

Anarchism continually regenerates itself as a kind of primitive rebellion against tyranny and oppression. But in practice it is a dead end.

Anarchism invites young people who are radicalising to move into elitist politics that focus on lifestylism which challenges nothing, or attempts to set up "liberated" spaces - not to change the world, but to escape from it. Alternatively it leads to the pseudo-radicalism of the Black Blocs with their futile, violent attacks on the symbols of capitalist privilege.

Those seeking to genuinely challenge capitalism must reject anarchism and commit themselves to revolutionary Marxism - the politics of mass, democratic struggle of workers to collectively transform society.


Thoughts?

[bombeverything]

Thanks for posting that. I read it awhile ago. Basically I think its bullshit and even they could have done better :D


Anarchism can appeal to radical young people who do not see the collective power of workers as the force to achieve social change.

The only class that can overthrow capitalism is the working class. This can only be achieved through mass collective action. The working class must liberate itself. They are capable of, and certainly do not need a party leadership to do it for them. The issue of the state is where we differ. Claiming that we oppose mass collective action is (I feel) intentionally misleading.


One of the problems in writing about anarchism is the sheer variety of political currents that adopt the label. On the far right we have libertarians committed to a no-holds-barred capitalism. This branch of anarchism opposes any interference by the state in an individual's right to exploit others for their personal gain. For these anarchists, any restriction on the freedom of Rupert Murdoch to go on raking in billions is "authoritarian".

Anarchists recognise that the freedom is the individual is only possible within a context of complete social equality. Any theory that focuses on only one of these is thus false. Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Anarchists oppose all exploitation. Simply calling oneself an anarchist does not make it so.
Once again, lies.


The weakness of syndicalism is that it downplays the importance of political action and the need for a clear working class political leadership to challenge every aspect of capitalist power and ideology. This means that while syndicalists have led many heroic struggles, they have not been able to turn those revolts into a successful challenge to capitalist rule.

Hmm ok, I wonder what they would define as a "successful challenge to capitalist rule". I assume they mean that the only 'real' challenge to capitalist rule occured in Russia in 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power. In this case this is completely false as the revolutionary consciousness and actions of the masses (which included anarcho-syndicalists) was far more advanced than that of the party at the time. Most importantly however, look how that turned out.


As Draper puts it: "Of all ideologies, anarchism is the one most fundamentally anti-democratic in principle, since it is not only unalterably hostile to democracy in general but particularly to any socialist democracy of the most ideal kind that could be imagined." In rejecting "all authority, even with consent," it upholds "the right of a small minority to impose its conception on the large majority, if necessary by violence."

Oh yes, the typical 'anarchists are undemocratic' argument. Says those who support representative democracy - a basic principle of liberal bourgeois ideology. Rather than anarchism being undemocratic, it is democracy that is so. Moreover, the arguments against direct democracy are far more applicable to a hierarchical system rather than a non-hierarchical one.


All they have done is play into the hands of the authorities who use the mindless violence of the Black Blocs as an excuse to crack down on all dissent. Unsurprisingly the Black Blocs are riddled with undercover police acting as provocateurs.

The police do not need an excuse to crack down on protesters or infiltrate protests.


There is a long tradition of anarchists resorting to individual terrorism - so-called "propaganda of the deed". The US anarchist Alexander Berkman attempted to assassinate the hated industrialist Henry Clay Frick, French anarchists engaged in waves of bombings, Russian anarchists repeatedly attempted to kill the Tsar, while small groups of Italian Bakuninists launched "insurrections" in an attempt to spark a wider rebellion.

Yes, and we have learnt from this history.

This article really annoyed me when it was published, athough Socialist Alternative are one of the most sectarian socialist groups in Australia so it shouldn't really be surprising.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anarchism has gained "quite a following?" That's news to me.

I'd like to see some statistics, but I'm guessing this is all based on anecdotal evidence (i.e. the author has seen more kids with bandannas over their faces at recent protests).

[rouchambeau]

lol anarcho-elitism

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 31, 2007 07:43 pm
Anarchism has gained "quite a following?" That's news to me.

I'd like to see some statistics, but I'm guessing this is all based on anecdotal evidence (i.e. the author has seen more kids with bandannas over their faces at recent protests).

You know your probably right, this was written after the g20 protests in Melbourne. Although they also noted that those at the protests were 'foreign anarchists' from nz. Given that socialist alternative only have about 50 members I guess they felt threatened.


lol anarcho-elitism

Yeah I got accused of sectarianism after the protest. How ironic. I believe that their idea of 'elitism' is someone refusing to do what SAlt tells them.

[Bilan]

My favorite part of it is definitely this bit :


The anarchist view of "freedom" is basically a form of extreme individualism. It is based on the absolute inviolability of the individual Ego in relation to the outside world - the total impermissibility of the imposition of authority of any kind upon the unconditional autonomy of the sovereign Ego.

It's just laughable.

[Bilan]

You know your probably right, this was written after the g20 protests in Melbourne. Although they also noted that those at the protests were 'foreign anarchists' from nz. Given that socialist alternative only have about 50 members I guess they felt threatened.

It's really odd how they accused the anarchists (of course, everyone who wasn't singing the classic "Hey hey, ho ho, Johnny Howard's got-s-to go" chant must be an anarchist, a lifestylist, and a foreign activist!!!) of being sectarian an "undemocratic" because of Arterial Bloc's actions, and then demand that "anarchists no longer be allowed at our protests". The intelligence of these people is overwhelming...

But seriously, what the fuck is the point of this article?
It's so inaccurate, not to mention totally sectarian and achieves absolutley nothing!
It's no fucking wonder the left in Australia ends up in such a fucking shamble.

[rouchambeau]

Yeah I got accused of sectarianism after the protest. How ironic. I believe that their idea of 'elitism' is someone refusing to do what SAlt tells them.
What happend?

[PRC-UTE]

Is that the entire article?

It's a bit weak so. To attack the entire anarchist / libertarian communist movement based on the lumpen kids is like attacking thye entire communist movement based on the Communist Parties.

Could've been more honest and delved into some actual anarchist struggles, examined the actual programmes made by The Friends of Durruti, etc. A different picture would've emerged: that some anarchists have had viable ideas that are similar to some Marxists. The anarchists that emerged more organically from the workers' movement were every bit as effective as the Marxist wing.

The weakness of anarchism is just that they don't know what a state is in the Scientific Socialist definition, and end of advocating a workers state while denying it. Workers' councils, syndicalism, etc. are a method for one class to weild power of another.

The endless Marxist v Anarchist debates really only aid certain sects in promoting themselves to the detriment of the overall movement. We should tease out what concrete policies are and deal with that.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:19 pm

Yeah I got accused of sectarianism after the protest. How ironic. I believe that their idea of 'elitism' is someone refusing to do what SAlt tells them.
What happend?

Their argument was that we (meaning all anarchists I guess) were sectarian because 'left the main rally and went straight to the barricades', and because we participated in 'undemocratic violence'. I didn't realise we had to get their permission to leave. Real revolutionaries should not 'offer comfort' to 'anarchist crazies' by hanging out with them socially. It was good that the squats were busted (there were raids right before g20) because we (anarchists in general I am assuming once again, this person simply used the term 'you people') should not be able to organise at all.

I think they simply felt threatened. They frantically need to recruit new members because SAlt has a very high turnover rate. After the protests the same person who wrote that article (Mick Armstrong) released this statement on behalf of the group which basically argued the same line. It was hysterical, and Socialist Alternative officially sided with the state.


Is that the entire article?

Yes I believe that it is, and I agree, I have heard much better arguments. I believe that it was simply meant to be sectarian propaganda rather than anything else.

[rouchambeau]

Their argument was that we (meaning all anarchists I guess) were sectarian because 'left the main rally and went straight to the barricades', and because we participated in 'undemocratic violence'. I didn't realise we had to get their permission to leave.
Seriously. That's the problem with fetishization of democracy. Nothing is ever okay unless the majority makes itself actively in favor of something, and alternative, effective forms of struggle are sacrificed in favor of centralism.

[Bilan]

There's a good response to this article here. (http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=728)

[fredbergen]

This is very much the approach of Black Bloc anarchists who specialise in violent attacks on the symbols of authority. In Europe there has been a recurring pattern of masked squads of Black Bloc anarchists disrupting mass protests with provocative attacks on police, smashing up banks with iron bars and the like.

These antics have been remarkably effective in sabotaging genuine protests and imperilling the lives of other protesters - but singularly ineffective in challenging capitalism. All they have done is play into the hands of the authorities who use the mindless violence of the Black Blocs as an excuse to crack down on all dissent. Unsurprisingly the Black Blocs are riddled with undercover police acting as provocateurs.

It's disgusting that these "socialists" (actually liberal social-democrats) blame anarchists for police-state repression. But not surprising. See this article from The Internationalist no. 26 (http://www.internationalist.org/danishyouthhouse0703.html):


Some in the punk/anarchist youth milieu around Ungdoms*huset may be hostile to the workers movement, but the opportunist antics of the social-democratic pseudo-left only reinforce such tendencies.

Socialistisk Standpunkt (SS – Socialist Standpoint), the Danish affiliate of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) founded by the late Ted Grant and now led by Alan Woods, lectures autonomist activists that “their strategy is completely counter-productive.” SS complains that a December 16 demonstration “was converted into violence with individual fighting with the police and the smashing of shops” (Socialistisk Standpunkt, 22 January 2007). While allowing that “the police carry their part of the responsibility for these acts of violence,” these cheerleaders for Venezuelan bourgeois populist Hugo Chávez call to “take the demand for more youth houses up in the three workers’ parties, in the Social Democratic Party, in the Socialist Peoples’ Party, in the Unity-list.” So for to these “Marxists,” the correct strategy is to beg from crumbs from the Social Democrats who are co-responsible for capitalist state violence against autonomist youth!

The same slavish loyalty to Social Democracy and denunciation of “violence” is displayed by Socialistisk Modstand (SM – Socialist Resistance), affiliated to the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) led by Peter Taaffe. In a March 6 Internet statement, SM complained: “In addition, unfortunately, there is a group of ‘autonomists’ with no interest in cooperating with any politicians, the police or even other movements on the left, if they disagree on the smallest thing. This group has a lot of power, which is very bad as they have a negative influence on the rest of the peaceful movement of young people.” The CWI, like the Grantites, with whom they were formerly aligned in the British Militant tendency, holds that the cops are “workers in uniform” rather than guard dogs of capital, no matter how rabid they get.

Socialistisk Arbejderparti (SA – Socialist Workers Party), Danish affiliate of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USec), similarly avers that “the police hold part of the responsibility” for escalating the conflict. SA adds: “That the police have let themselves be used as a tool in a political conflict cannot (alas) come as a surprise” (International Viewpoint, March 2007). So the cops, the armed fist of the bourgeois state, “let themselves be used”?! It certainly comes as no surprise that these pseudo-Trotskyists pretend that the police could somehow be neutral. After all, their Brazilian comrades are part of the bourgeois government and have sent police against landless peasants. Like SS and SM, SA tells autonomist youth to orient to social-democratic parliamentarism, through the “Red-Green Alliance,” which for its part “condemned the use of political violence” (SA statement, December 2006). It’s also no surprise when radical-minded youth say “no thanks” to this dead-end.

All these groups, with their even-handed condemnation of “violence”, are pining for the “good old days” of the capitalist “welfare state”, but the bourgeoisie, in Denmark, as elsewhere, has repeatedly demonstrated in past few decades that this form of capitalist rule is history. The events in Denmark are a serious warning to the workers and oppressed. This is nothing less than a rehearsal for a police state. In Europe, as in North America, “anti-terrorism” masks a desire to regiment the entire population, starting with immigrants, rebellious youth and others considered by the capitalist rulers to be a “threat to the state.”

The problem with the anarchist-autonomist tactics and “strategy” is not that they are too “radical” or “violent,” that they alienate “ordinary people” and the “broad masses” who would otherwise sympathize with them, but rather that street skirmishes and acts of frustration are wholly inadequate to take on the organized violence of the capitalist state power. They seek “autonomy” from capital so they can do their own thing, but they can’t escape the class struggle. And some of today’s petty-bourgeois street fighters may well become tomorrow’s bourgeois ministers and imperialist warmongers: look at the example of Joschka Fischer in Germany.

[apathy maybe]

@andy's blog is a good read. And also, redstar2000's papers... Specifically, http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subacti...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082916220&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

To quote,

Every Leninist party has, tucked securely away in its verbal arsenal, a pamphlet called "Marxism vs. Anarchism" or words to that effect. Whether copied from someone else or an original effort of their own, it will always be laid out in pretty much the same fashion: a smattering of quotes from Marx but usually Engels, a "class analysis" of anarchism that has no basis in reality (attributed to Lenin or just asserted as "fact"...), and a "cartoon summary" of anarchist thought that makes anarchists look like well-meaning buffoons at best and conscious "counter-revolutionaries" at worst.

The purpose of such literary efforts rarely has much to do with anarchism as such; it is an effort to find "Marxist justifications" for the exercise of arbitrary power by a self-appointed elite over the working class as a whole.

Of course, this isn't directly relevant, but the ideas are there.

Leninist critiques of anarchism seems to share two things in common. The first is the authors misunderstanding and ignorance of anarchist thought and theory. The second is the deliberate misrepresentation of (both what actually is, and what the author thinks is) anarchist thought and theory.

The piece quoted in the beginning of the thread is a fine example of both.

[syndicat]

the article begins with a falsification:

anarchism can appeal to radical young people who do not see the collective power of workers as the force to achieve social change.

there are in fact a number of anarchist tendencies that see the power for change as lying in the potential collective power of workers. this includes anarcho-syndicalists, Platformists, and some other anarchist trends. anarcho-syndicalism historically based itself on the slogan "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." in fact a more common criticism of anarcho-syndicalists is not that they don't understand worker power but are allegedly too "workerist."

i suppose the writer sort of back-handedly acknowledges this in the following passage:



At the other end of the spectrum there are syndicalists who largely agree with the Marxist critique of capitalism and look to collective working class action to change the world. Syndicalists argue for strong union organisation and mass action - such as general strikes - to overthrow capitalism. This makes syndicalism vastly superior to other forms of anarchism - indeed many syndicalists entirely reject the anarchist label and call themselves socialists or Marxists.

The weakness of syndicalism is that it downplays the importance of political action and the need for a clear working class political leadership to challenge every aspect of capitalist power and ideology. This means that while syndicalists have led many heroic struggles, they have not been able to turn those revolts into a successful challenge to capitalist rule.


What does this piece mean by "political action"? Syndicalists do indeed oppose a strategy based on running candidates in government elections, i.e. it is anti-parliamentary. on the other hand, it might mean that syndicalists are opposed to all political organization. this is not the case. in the famous case of the syndicalist revolution in Spain in the '30s there was the political organization, the FAI, of anarcho-syndicalist activists.


The anarchist view of "freedom" is basically a form of extreme individualism. It is based on the absolute inviolability of the individual Ego in relation to the outside world - the total impermissibility of the imposition of authority of any kind upon the unconditional autonomy of the sovereign Ego.

As the Marxist writer Hal Draper describes the anarchist approach: "It does not mean freedom through democracy, or freedom in society, but, rather, freedom from any democratic authority whatsoever or any social constraint: in short, not a free society but freedom from society."


first of all, lifestylism isn't the dominant form of anarchism, especially not in places like Latin America or South Africa, and in the wealthier countries is maybe about half of the self-described anarchists.

secondly, he makes a leap of logic when he quotes Hal Draper. because Draper's quote attributes extreme individualism to anarchism in general, not just to lifestyle anarchism. i would tend to agree with Bookchin that the theory of absolute individual autonomy does underlie certain forms of anarchism, such as lifestyle anarchism and the obsession certain people have on requiring complete unanitity for decisions in groups. but there are many on the libertarian Left who are not accurately characterized this way.

another falsification:

There is a long tradition of anarchists resorting to individual terrorism - so-called "propaganda of the deed". The US anarchist Alexander Berkman attempted to assassinate the hated industrialist Henry Clay Frick, French anarchists engaged in waves of bombings, Russian anarchists repeatedly attempted to kill the Tsar, while small groups of Italian Bakuninists launched "insurrections" in an attempt to spark a wider rebellion.


Berkman was a Russian Populist at the time of the attack on Frick and the many assassinations in Russia before World War I were carrried out mainly by the Populists, tho it's true that some anarchists advocated "propaganda by the deed" in the late 19th century also. but that was peculiar to that historical epoque and does not define the nature of anarchism as such. moreover the mass popular insurrections Bakunin supported are not at all the same thing as attempted assassinations...another leap in logic.


This approach reflects the underlying elitism of anarchist politics. Rather than attempting to organise the mass of workers to fight for their own self-emancipation, they rely on the actions of a self-chosen minority.


actually this is ironic because the importance of a vanguard -- which is what Goldman is arguing for in this quote -- is a characteristically Leninist position and is argued for by Leninists for essentially the same reasons, which they call "uneven consciousness." There are those who do have revolutionary ideas and they are in the minority. And it is precisely the management role of this vanguard that Leninism emphasizes the importance of. On the other hand, it is highly characteristic of the libertarian left to emphasize self-management of struggles by the masses. that's because they would be inconsistent otherwise since self-management of society and industry is what they advocate. moreover, the author here is guilty of cherry picking quotes from Emma, who was not a particularly important theorist, rather than focusing on her more syndicalist and mass self-management oriented pieces.

moreover, another fallacy in this whole piece is to select damaging quotes from certain invididuals and then smear all of anarchism as having that characteristic. this is the methodology of the hatchet job.


But anarchist principles don't allow open, accountable leadership.

no argument is made for this bogus claim. what about the way the CNT functioned? An actual mass movement organized on anarchist lines. there were shop stewards councils made of elected and revocable delegates and anarchists had to get agreement to their proposals in open assemblies of the rank and file.


the politics of mass, democratic struggle of workers to collectively transform society.


that is exactly what anarcho-syndicalism is all about.

[Rawthentic]

actually this is ironic because the importance of a vanguard -- which is what Goldman is arguing for in this quote -- is a characteristically Leninist position and is argued for by Leninists for essentially the same reasons, which they call "uneven consciousness." There are those who do have revolutionary ideas and they are in the minority. And it is precisely the management role of this vanguard that Leninism emphasizes the importance of. On the other hand, it is highly characteristic of the libertarian left to emphasize self-management of struggles by the masses
I don't want to play devil's advocate, but it is a reality that there is an "uneven consciousness"; there are workers who have communist consciousness and workers that do not, and it is the responsibility of the conscious workers to struggle alongside their brothers and sisters while raising the necessary questions and points relevant to their immediate struggle and the struggle for a complete break with capitalism.

The other reality is that what you call "Leninist" parties are the ones that organize the workers into mass struggles for self-emancipation (which is a core Marxian concept) much like the Black Panther Party did, the Bolshevik Party, as well as some real and original revolutionary political parties.



that is exactly what anarcho-syndicalism is all about.
As is Marxism. Ever hear of the "revolution in permanence"? (Nothing to do with Trotsky by the way).


"the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves."
I don't think its fair to attribute it just to syndicalists. Just recall that Karl Marx was the first to bring in and emphasize that very slogan. He fought and struggled against those who thought the proletariat would be emancipated from above and philanthropically. Lots of petty-bourgeois socialists dressed up in "Marxism" conveniently forget this.

[syndicat]

me: ""the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves."

voz:
I don't think its fair to attribute it just to syndicalists. Just recall that Karl Marx was the first to bring in and emphasize that very slogan. He fought and struggled against those who thought the proletariat would be emancipated from above and philanthropically.

i didn't say only syndicalists like this phrase. Marxism i see as being complex, contradictory and having many different interpretations. the phrase, by the way, wasn't invented by Marx. he used it as the first principle of the proposed statutes of the first International Workers Association in 1864. but the phrase was already well known in radical worker circles at that time. it had been first articulated by Flora Tristan in 1843, she was a socialist-feminist of the 1840s.

in regard to "uneven consciounsess," i'm not denying it exists. I'm not denying there is a layer that could be called the "vanguard." Emma herself agreed with this...she referred to the activists and revolutionaries who were "in the avant garde of social progress". my point was that it was inconsistent for a Leninist to be criticizing her for recognizing uneven consciousness. of course, there are different theories about the proper way to understand the role of the "vanguard" layer and its relationship to the whole mass of the working class.

[Leo]

This article more or less belongs to theory so I'm gonna move it. Please let me know if anyone has any objections.

[Mujer Libre]

Thanks for posting this. I noticed that at their APEC gathering (which incidentally is focussed on targeting Bush and Howard, rather than capitalism) SAlt is running a session on "Why anarchism fails"- which I found hilarious given the piss-poor arguments that their members have put up against anarchism. Pretty much whenever I try to engage them on the issue I get told that "anarchism is petty bourgeois," and that's about all. :lol:

What this article demonstrates is that their position on anarchism as a whole organisation is also piss-poor and uninformed. It's just a pity that such a cult-like group has such a presence, at least at actions and on campuses.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 07, 2007 08:21 pm
Thanks for posting this. I noticed that at their APEC gathering (which incidentally is focussed on targeting Bush and Howard, rather than capitalism) SAlt is running a session on "Why anarchism fails"- which I found hilarious given the piss-poor arguments that their members have put up against anarchism. Pretty much whenever I try to engage them on the issue I get told that "anarchism is petty bourgeois," and that's about all. :lol:

What this article demonstrates is that their position on anarchism as a whole organisation is also piss-poor and uninformed. It's just a pity that such a cult-like group has such a presence, at least at actions and on campuses.
heh heh. I heard about that discussion, but I didn't hear how it went - I assumed it would be much like their article; full of blatant inaccuracies.

Their posters on APEC are no better than this article either...

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 07, 2007 11:07 am
This article more or less belongs to theory so I'm gonna move it. Please let me know if anyone has any objections.
If anything it should be moved to Learning. Politics is a fine place for it though, because that is all the SAlties are doing, playing politics.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+August 07, 2007 09:27 pm--> (apathy maybe @ August 07, 2007 09:27 pm)
Leo [email protected] 07, 2007 11:07 am
This article more or less belongs to theory so I'm gonna move it. Please let me know if anyone has any objections.
If anything it should be moved to Learning. Politics is a fine place for it though, because that is all the SAlties are doing, playing politics. [/b]
So my placement of it in politics was right after all!
Zing!

[Rawthentic]

there are different theories about the proper way to understand the role of the "vanguard" layer and its relationship to the whole mass of the working class.
The materialist understanding is the class conscious workers at the leadership of worker's struggles.


Marxism i see as being complex, contradictory and having many different interpretations.
Thats either because you really don't understand it (from what I've seen you post) or you are too weathered by the petty-bourgeois socialists.

Look, if you want to discuss this more in-depth, please PM me.


the phrase, by the way, wasn't invented by Marx. he used it as the first principle of the proposed statutes of the first International Workers Association in 1864.
Which is what brought it into prominence. And what many "Marxists" pay lip-service to.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 07, 2007 06:07 pm

there are different theories about the proper way to understand the role of the "vanguard" layer and its relationship to the whole mass of the working class.
The materialist understanding is the class conscious workers at the leadership of worker's struggles.
That's possibly one "materialist understanding", though of course you claim that only your "Marxist" view point of the state is materialist so...

Basically, no matter what you want to believe, social science and politics is not science! Interpretation of politics cannot be materialist in the scientific sense. Your understanding of Marxism or anything else is only one possible understanding. And it may not even be correct.

I could easily say that the "materialist understanding" of the "vanguard layer" is those petite-bourgeois and lumpen-proletariat who have the time to study Marxism, claim to understand it, become professional revolutionaries (and thus distanced from actual workers) and then go on to try and lead the workers via the means of a new state!

And my understanding is just as materialist and correct as yours. You see, the meaning of words don't always mean what you want them to mean. And trying to claim to have the only correct materialist understanding is fucking arrogant and isn't going to make you any friends.



Marxism i see as being complex, contradictory and having many different interpretations.
Thats either because you really don't understand it (from what I've seen you post) or you are too weathered by the petty-bourgeois socialists.

Look, if you want to discuss this more in-depth, please PM me.[/quote]
I don't really want to discuss it, because frankly I doubt that it would achieve anything. Marxism is complex (I don't know how you could describe it as anything different...).
Marxism could easily be seen as "contradictory" (even if you don't think it is...).
And it has got many many interpretations (Leninist-Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and the various autonomist theories etc.).
And I don't hang out with "petty-bourgeois" socialists either, I don't think I even know any! I might know some petit-bourgeois socialists, but I believe that those are a different fucking breed. However, they happen to be Marxists so...

[Wanted Man]

Every Leninist party has, tucked securely away in its verbal arsenal, a pamphlet called "Marxism vs. Anarchism" or words to that effect. Whether copied from someone else or an original effort of their own, it will always be laid out in pretty much the same fashion: a smattering of quotes from Marx but usually Engels, a "class analysis" of anarchism that has no basis in reality (attributed to Lenin or just asserted as "fact"...), and a "cartoon summary" of anarchist thought that makes anarchists look like well-meaning buffoons at best and conscious "counter-revolutionaries" at worst.

The purpose of such literary efforts rarely has much to do with anarchism as such; it is an effort to find "Marxist justifications" for the exercise of arbitrary power by a self-appointed elite over the working class as a whole.
Well, hell. I'm sure every libertarian communist or anarchist group has, "tucked securely away", a tract against Leninism. A smattering of quotes of anarchist theoreticians, a "class analysis" of all Leninists being petty-bourgeois who want to hijack the workers' struggle. A "cartoon summary" of Leninism. It's authoritarian, a vanguard always concentrates power, there is a continuation to Stalinism, etc. The summary makes them look like well-meaning useful idiots at best, and power-hungry demagogues at worst.

Oh, and every Trotskyist groupuscule has, tucked securely away, a pamphlet called "The Failure of Stalinism" or words to that effect. A smattering of quotes from Trotsky about how life is beautiful and socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen, as well as quotes from "Lenin's Testament". A "class analysis" about Stalinists, who are obviously all careerist party bureaucrats. A cartoon summary. They want to purge and gulag everyone. At best, they are well-meaning communists in with the wrong crowd. At worst, they are already thinking of ways to put you on show trial. Join our Trotskyist group today, we won't make the Stalinist mistakes because we're different! Oh, and all the other Trotskyist groups are to be referred to as "the sects", and they are not really Trotskyist, because they're not like us.

And surely, all those who support Stalin have something to the extent of "Trotskyism or Leninism?". Some Lenin quote about socialism being possible in one country. A "class analysis": "Trotskyites" are all petty-bourgeois students who are just doing it as a hobby. They end up becoming "Trotsky-cons" later on. At best, they are well-meaning comrades who are just stuck with a dead-end sect. At worst, they are about to make the jump to neo-conservatism.

See where this is going? Let's not fool ourselves, many groups have superficial "criticisms" of other currents. Solidarity is going to be pretty hard when you give "all those other guys" more flak than the capitalists.

[Rawthentic]

Hey Apathy, that post was for syndicat, not you.


However, they happen to be Marxists so...
So they say.

[syndicat]

me:"there are different theories about the proper way to understand the role of the "vanguard" layer and its relationship to the whole mass of the working class."


The materialist understanding is the class conscious workers at the leadership of worker's struggles.

"leadership" is a very slippery term. has a number of different meanings. also, if you are thinking of a leader/follower relationship, is this supposed to be something that exists for all time? is it something that, in your view, is not affected by the opportunities and affects on consciousness of the class system or the degree of struggle? If so, that wouldn't be very "materialist".

"leading" can refer to an informal relationship of influence. there is someone who is charismatic and articulate, or they've been around a long time and have a lot of friends, people who respect them, so when they speak in a union meeting, say, people listen to them. that is the sense of "leadership" as influence, as pointing the way.

but then there is being a "leader" where this means occupying a formal leadership position.

a person's poltiical skills such as good speaking skills might get them elected but they might be lacking in other "leadership skills" such as a willingness to press people to be involved or a good ability to think strategically.

and then a person might be a "leader" simply in virtue of the power they have to get people to do what they want. Managers are in this sense the "leadership of the production process."

so which sense of "leader" do you have in mind?

also, if the the "vanguard" is the layer of activists, organizers and publicists who have influence within working class organizations/movements/communities, they might not be "communists", they might not have revllutionary ideas. the ideological revolutionaries may lack influence or may even be lacking in "leadership skills." at the present time in the USA the working class isn't revolutionary and much of the "vanguard" -- the activist/organizer/publicist layer -- isn't revolutionary in terms of its explicit consciusness.

that's because the consciousness of the class changes with the real circumstances and level of collective struggle. insofar as there is a higher level of collective struggle, and workers are able to gain a greater sense of their potential power, their interest in more far reaching changes may increase, and thus class consciousness rises and revolutionary ideas meet a better reception.

but if our aim is the liberation of the working class from class subordination, we have to keep in mind what the real consitions are that generate that subordination. one of the conditions under advanced capitalism has been the concentration of conceptual and decision-making tasks into the coordinator class, the hierarchies of professionals and managers in the state and corporations. this means that if a revolution is to liberate the working class, it cannot generate internal to its own movements the same tendency towards concenration of expertise and control over decision-making that we see in coporate and state hierarchies, becuase this would prefigure a revolution evolving into coordinator class control, as has happened in all the socalled "Communist" countries.

to the degree that the vanguard layer tends to substitute its own control and decision-making for that of working people themselves, it becomes substitionist, which is one form of the disease called "vanguardism". "vanguardism" is a view concerning the role of the vanguard that over-emphasizes its role and attributes to it a degree of control that is not empowering for workers, a degree of control that gets in the way of worker self-management of working class movements, and eventually gets in the way of worker self-management of industry and society.

[Rawthentic]

so which sense of "leader" do you have in mind?
A worker who has influence in his workplace, is respected and well-known, and agitates for worker's rights and issues that revolve around the break with capitalism.


one of the conditions under advanced capitalism has been the concentration of conceptual and decision-making tasks into the coordinator class, the hierarchies of professionals and managers in the state and corporations. this means that if a revolution is to liberate the working class, it cannot generate internal to its own movements the same tendency towards concenration of expertise and control over decision-making that we see in coporate and state hierarchies, becuase this would prefigure a revolution evolving into coordinator class control, as has happened in all the socalled "Communist" countries.
I agree with everything here, which is why I always emphasize self-liberation, and why the Communist League is an only proletarian organization. Yes, I agree, we (in our organization) have spoken much about this.


also, if you are thinking of a leader/follower relationship, is this supposed to be something that exists for all time?
I'm not talking about 'a "leader/follower" relationship, and of course it isnt something that would exist for all time. But even under a stateless, classless society, there would be people with more prominence, influence, and special leadership skills that gives them the responsibility to help others.

I really like the Black Panther Party, so allow me to bring them up again. What they did is the leadership that needs to be used, such as where they came together with their knowledge of the ghettos and experience with poor and working Black folk, and created these community organizations that gave people a sense of empowerment they had never experienced before, beside taking care of their basic needs.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 07, 2007 11:35 pm
Hey Apathy, that post was for syndicat, not you.
I don't care who the post was for. You posted it in a thread which I had participated in, making comments which I thought were fucking stupid, and thus I responded.



However, they happen to be Marxists so...
So they say.Indeed, you claim to be a Marxist too... Let's see if I can compare your responses and ideas to theirs shall I...

You both claim to have the one true understanding of Marx (or at least appear too..., dismissing anyone else's interpretation).

Ah fuck it, I think that is enough to demonstrate my point.

[Rawthentic]

Indeed, you claim to be a Marxist too... Let's see if I can compare your responses and ideas to theirs shall I...

I am, disprove me motherfucker. What I said was if there are "Marxists" who conveniently throw out Marx's core ideas on self-liberation, they are not Marxists. Thats like saying they are still Marxists after they throw the class struggle off the table.

But fuck it, I can't expect better from your kind.

[apathy maybe]

Why the fuck should I attempt to disprove what you are saying any more then I should attempt to disprove what god bothers say? I don't know why you are coming across as being so antagonistic. When you say my "kind", I assume you mean anarchists? Or perhaps people who can actually think for themselves?

Anyway, your post proves my point once more.

You say they aren't Marxists, they say you aren't. Frankly I don't care about your internal struggles, it is like saying that redstar2000, Rosa and ComradeRed aren't Marxists because they throw away dialectical bullshit. You said nothing about self-liberation in the posts I responded to, in fact, that isn't fucking relevant.

I simply was trying to get forward the point that Marxism is complex and open to many interpretations, to claim otherwise is both stupid and arrogant. Of course, it appears that you have claimed the second, I'm leaning towards thinking that you are the first too, lets see what your response is shall I? Disprove me motherfucker!

[Rawthentic]

When you say my "kind", I assume you mean anarchists? Or perhaps people who can actually think for themselves?

No, there are some anarchists I like. Its more like you mindless drone types.

And in that case you are going to have to prove how Marxism is complex, and what different interpretations you can come up with.

[apathy maybe]

I think that goes to show that you are both stupid and arrogant. Thanks for the confirmation. I'll let my self out.

[Rawthentic]

No, it just shows you can't prove what you were saying that Marxism is "contradictory" and thus is susceptible to many different interpretations.

Until you prove that, I'll assume you "let yourself out" because you can't prove shit.

Thanks for my confirmation.

[apathy maybe]

Let me say it again, slower perhaps this time...

Marxism is complex and open to interpretation, there are many different types of Marxism (note: I never said it was contradictory, simply that it could be interpreted that way).

Let me remind you of a thread, one that might be a bit embarrassing to you. You claimed to be an anarchist communist (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69559) remember? Specifically a post in that thread..., I'll even quote a bit for you...

Originally posted by TragicClown
What you're describing as "marxist-leninists" are only a specific tendency among marxist-leninists, namely anti-revisionists.
Obviously there are a few different interpretations of "Marxist-Leninism". What about all those autonmen? Perhaps they aren't really Marxists either? OK, so I've established that it is open to interpretation (given the number of interpretations...), it should be obvious to all that it is complex, and I can bring in any number of "eye-witnesses" to testify to that...

Perhaps because of its complexity is why it is open to so many interpretations?
Perhaps because of its complexity is why it is open to being called contradictory?

Besides, where did I have to prove anything? You wanted me to prove that you weren't a Marxist? I never said you weren't...

Try reading this thread again, slowly, after a good nights sleep.

[Labor Shall Rule]

A political group, whether they claim they are Marxist or anarchist, is not merely the product of the sum total of what they theoretically claim to be. It is, in the final analysis, the expression of a certain relationship, forged in the course of social and political struggles, between the main classes in society. In the outcome of those struggles the character of the political leadership of the contending classes, and the program upon which they base their struggle, are of immense significance. Therefore, I don't think you could say that the Chinese Communist Party is Marxist, considering that they do not genuine proletarian leadership; they do not have the most advanced workers leading the way.

The vanguard is necessitated - in the first place, how are supporters supposed to come to "understanding" and "self-reliance" all on their own? People who are new to socialism naturally look to others for guidance - the working class is not composed of auto-didacts and geniuses-in-waiting, but individuals who more or less devote their lives to creating surplus value for others. The emergence of leaders - exceptional workers, petit-bourgeois intellectuals - for better or worse, is inevitable under such circumstances. When the workers, after a prolonged convlusion of capitalism and their interaction with militant socialists, come over en masse to a revolutionary position, they will naturally look to the parties that their prespective most closely aligns with for political leadership, these parties will not go away because anarchists wishes them to. Candidates for leadership will always exist, and the majority of workers will always fall behind one of them.

[apathy maybe]

OK, I'm a bit tired, but I'm not sure what the relevance of that was? I think I understand and agree with your first paragraph, but the second? It seems partly a random absurd attack on anarchism and partly a defence of your definition of vanguardism.

Care to explain? And why it is relevant?

[Axel1917]

The article seems to be a decent criticism of a reactionary ideology. Maybe it is just me, but there is some ultra-left crap toward the end, but nevertheless, it is a decent, basic criticism of anarchism.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:32 pm
The article seems to be a decent criticism of a reactionary ideology. Maybe it is just me, but there is some ultra-left crap toward the end, but nevertheless, it is a decent, basic criticism of anarchism.

It is nothing but propaganda. It's a horrible 'critique' of anarchism. Could you respond to some of the arguments against the article? Or namely, how is anarchism 'reactionary'?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by bombeverything+August 09, 2007 12:09 am--> (bombeverything @ August 09, 2007 12:09 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 11:32 pm
The article seems to be a decent criticism of a reactionary ideology. Maybe it is just me, but there is some ultra-left crap toward the end, but nevertheless, it is a decent, basic criticism of anarchism.

It is nothing but propaganda. It's a horrible 'critique' of anarchism. Could you respond to some of the arguments against the article? Or namely, how is anarchism 'reactionary'? [/b]
Did you even read the article, anarchism's individual terrorism, etc.? Anarchism's reactionary attributes have been repeatedly proven by history (almost all of them supporting the bourgeois lies against Bolshevism, their betrayal of the Spanish Revolution - refusing to seize power when they could have, many of them supporting tactics that play into the hands of the bourgeoisie, i.e. black blocs and the like, the list goes on.). Anarchism subordinates a workers' movement to bourgeois politics under the guise of "abolition of politics." They have a fatal lack of understanding of the role of the state and proletarian revolution as well, and this comes to its inevitable conclusion - anarchists oppose workers' democracy, proven by their regurgitation of the Bourgeois and Stalinist lies on the early USSR.


it is like saying that redstar2000, Rosa and ComradeRed aren't Marxists because they throw away dialectical bullshit.

They aren't Marxists. redstar2000 is a racist, ComradeRed dwells in the clouds of formalism and ultra-leftism, as well as Rosa, and to Rosa supports reactionaries like George Galloway.


The police do not need an excuse to crack down on protesters or infiltrate protests.

If this were true, then they would crack down on every protest. You are forgetting a highly important aspect of bourgeois propaganda, i.e. the moulding of public opinion. In times of extreme crisis, of course, the bourgeois will kill anything that even resembles a leftist, but in "normal," times, that is not always the case. If they just blindly attacked everything, public opinion would quickly turn against them. If the bourgeoisie were really as dumb as you seem to make them out to be, they would have been overthrown internationally a long time ago!

[Rawthentic]

Let me remind you of a thread, one that might be a bit embarrassing to you. You claimed to be an anarchist communist remember? Specifically a post in that thread..., I'll even quote a bit for you...
Thats not embarrassing, its funny to think that I would ever become an anarchist.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 08, 2007 09:40 pm
OK, I'm a bit tired, but I'm not sure what the relevance of that was? I think I understand and agree with your first paragraph, but the second? It seems partly a random absurd attack on anarchism and partly a defence of your definition of vanguardism.

Care to explain? And why it is relevant?
The second paragraph was aimed at Syndicat, who attacking the concept of the vanguard.

[syndicat]

Axel1917:
Did you even read the article, anarchism's individual terrorism, etc.? Anarchism's reactionary attributes have been repeatedly proven by history (almost all of them supporting the bourgeois lies against Bolshevism, their betrayal of the Spanish Revolution - refusing to seize power when they could have, many of them supporting tactics that play into the hands of the bourgeoisie, i.e. black blocs and the like, the list goes on.). Anarchism subordinates a workers' movement to bourgeois politics under the guise of "abolition of politics." They have a fatal lack of understanding of the role of the state and proletarian revolution as well, and this comes to its inevitable conclusion - anarchists oppose workers' democracy, proven by their regurgitation of the Bourgeois and Stalinist lies on the early USSR.

The accusation of "individual terror" is bourgeois propaganda. There were a handful of people in the late 19th century who engaged in such methods. The people who the article refers to were mostly not anarchists but Russian Populists (who became the SR party in 1901). Advocacy or practice of "terrorism" is not inherent to anarchism.

The Spanish revolution has been discussed before. The Spanish anarchists proposed doing away with the Republican state and replacing it with a workers government, but this was blocked by the Marxist leadership of the UGT union federation, the Socialists and Communists. The CNT did make the mistake of not taking over in the region of Catalonia, but that was a mass union movement with different tendencies in it. It wasn't a political organization of anarchists. I've discussed this before in various threads.

The libertarian Left critique of the Bolsehviks in the Russian revolution does not depend upon, nor is it similar to, bourgeois propaganda, since advocates of capitalism aren't in favor of workers management of production or direct worker power.

Anarcho-syndicalism and related left libertarian trends like Platformism are all staunch advocates of workers' democracy. Remember, it was the Bolsheviks' failures in regard to worker democracy that are the backbone of the libertarian Left critique, as in Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, for example.

The piece is basically a hatchet job. It's a smear job because it confuses together a lot of different tendencies and people. The quote out of context by Emma Goldman for example was in piece where she was trying to explain the conservatism and passivity of most American workers in the face of the repressive anti-radical moves of the government at the end of World War II. She's referring to the facts of what Leninists call "uneven consciousness." It's i guess the height of wisdom when Leninists refer to this but "elitism" for Emma to do so.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:42 am










The accusation of "individual terror" is bourgeois propaganda. There were a handful of people in the late 19th century who engaged in such methods. The people who the article refers to were mostly not anarchists but Russian Populists (who became the SR party in 1901). Advocacy or practice of "terrorism" is not inherent to anarchism.

It is an actual fact that this stuff is still carried out by anarchists, such as by the Black Blocs at Rostock this year. A majority of revleft anarchists support this kind of crap.



The Spanish revolution has been discussed before. The Spanish anarchists proposed doing away with the Republican state and replacing it with a workers government, but this was blocked by the Marxist leadership of the UGT union federation, the Socialists and Communists. The CNT did make the mistake of not taking over in the region of Catalonia, but that was a mass union movement with different tendencies in it. It wasn't a political organization of anarchists. I've discussed this before in various threads.

It has, and you anarchists have been refuted.


The libertarian Left critique of the Bolsehviks in the Russian revolution does not depend upon, nor is it similar to, bourgeois propaganda, since advocates of capitalism aren't in favor of workers management of production or direct worker power.

The libertarian "left" "critique" of Bolshevism is idenical to the bourgeois, i.e. baseless assertions of totalitarianism, betrayal of revolution, etc.



Anarcho-syndicalism and related left libertarian trends like Platformism are all staunch advocates of workers' democracy. Remember, it was the Bolsheviks' failures in regard to worker democracy that are the backbone of the libertarian Left critique, as in Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, for example.

Anti-workers' democracy under the guise of "greater democracy," as history has so richly proven.


The piece is basically a hatchet job. It's a smear job because it confuses together a lot of different tendencies and people. The quote out of context by Emma Goldman for example was in piece where she was trying to explain the conservatism and passivity of most American workers in the face of the repressive anti-radical moves of the government at the end of World War II. She's referring to the facts of what Leninists call "uneven consciousness." It's i guess the height of wisdom when Leninists refer to this but "elitism" for Emma to do so.

Even if that were true, it would not change the historical proof of anarchism's anti-worker ideology.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:32 am
The article seems to be a decent criticism of a reactionary ideology. Maybe it is just me, but there is some ultra-left crap toward the end, but nevertheless, it is a decent, basic criticism of anarchism.
You've got to be kidding me.
In comparison, this article is like that of an article that claimed Russia was true communism.
You're criticism of anarchism is pathetic, and inaccurate.

[Bilan]

Axel1917


It is an actual fact that this stuff is still carried out by anarchists, such as by the Black Blocs at Rostock this year. A majority of revleft anarchists support this kind of crap.

Actually, about 6 of us responded to your petty sectarian critisms, not "the majority". What a bullshit claim.



Even if that were true, it would not change the historical proof of anarchism's anti-worker ideology.

Anarchism is in no way shape or form "anti-worker". You're baseless assertions, and simply regurgitating the same old petty inaccurate crap.

[La Comédie Noire]

terrorist-style antics.

That just jumped out at me. I thought the article was rather to simplistic to be worth seriously discussing. it's more like a rant in someone's blog space.

There is a fine line between reactionary tactics and useful tactics but to chalk up the Anarchist's entire revolutionary track record as nothing more then a teenage fling is unfair.

Seriously he sounded like an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn. :D

Marxism was once a way to throw off the oppressive yolk of dogmatic tradition, now,in most cases, it has become that tradition. We need to constantly analyze and critque our theories as worker's struggle evolves or else we will become divided.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The article is pretty stupid and juvenile; the author obviously has approached anarchist theory and practice from a narrow perspective.

However, without organization, you cannot withstand the capitalist reaction. Without something directing that organization, you cannot withstand the capitalist reaction. That directed organization is what a state is. That is 'authority' and 'hierarchy', whether you like it or not. If you have an organized power to suppress another class, in this case, the capitalists, then you have a state, even if you refuse to call it that. This is not 'semantics', this is a fact. I think the article also is fantastic in emphasizing the importance of the working class being organized into a political party; Engels once called the capitalist nation-state the "fortress" of the bourgeoisie, and in the same we we must make the revolutionary party the "fortress" of the working class. And a solid fortress must be built out of the best materials, capable of withstanding the most devestating impact. You can not wage a fight against the capitalist class unless you are organized and coordinated by a league, association, political party, or a militant trade-union, which in turn, would pressure, infiltrate, or build alternative political structures, while also working within existing ones in order to build an independent socialist movement with the strength of the discontented masses.

[Bilan]

We have different definitions of what a state is, how it functions, and for what purposes. Anarchists are not against organisation.
A good quote from Malatesta,

""Organisation, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders."


The article is pretty stupid and juvenile; the author obviously has approached anarchist theory and practice from a narrow perspective.

This is the truth.

[Labor Shall Rule]

But Tierra y Libertad, political organization can not take place without leadership; humans can not come to "understanding" and "self-reliance" on decisions all on their own, considering that most of humanity is more or less devoted to producing a surplus-value for the capitalists, they will have to reach to individuals that have the time and material resources for intellectual development; there will be, as in all revolutionary situations, a core of revolutionaries, a base of supporters, a periphery of supporters and allies, and probably a great deal more who do everything they can to abstain from the struggle. They will reach to, and delegate their powers to, a political party (or organization, as Malatesta put it) that represents the working class most fruitfully. The leadership we speak of, however, is leadership of the entire working class through the political party, not the dictatorship of one individual; it is the fortress, as I said, of the working class that will educate and organize them into accomplishing it's objectives through it's guidance.

It seems we more or less agree?

[apathy maybe]

"Grown men do not need leaders" - Edward Abbey
I don't need another parent, thanks. I have two already.

RedDali, you posit the idea that political organisation requires leadership. I'ld like you to explain what you mean by the term, and then explain why your statement is correct. Because, the way I see it, leadership isn't always required (but of course, what is leadership?).

You say, "considering that most of humanity is more or less devoted to producing a surplus-value for the capitalists, they will have to reach to individuals that have the time and material resources for intellectual development", surely this is the point that Marx was making? That as technology takes over more and more, people will have more leisure time, and thus won't need this intellectual "vanguard".

Anyway, your individuals who have "the time and material resources for intellectual development", surely they can't be proletarian? Surely they must be something else? For isn't the proletariat dulled by their days work, and just wants to relax afterwards?

Seems to be a bit elitist...

[Tower of Bebel]

The time is ripe to ask myself where this statement: "no leadership is neccessary" comes from.

[Rawthentic]

You say, "considering that most of humanity is more or less devoted to producing a surplus-value for the capitalists, they will have to reach to individuals that have the time and material resources for intellectual development", surely this is the point that Marx was making? That as technology takes over more and more, people will have more leisure time, and thus won't need this intellectual "vanguard".
I think what I might add to this is the culture of liberation concept, sort of how the Black Panthers did it. The Panthers created these social programs that were able to meet many needs of urban blacks that could not be met before, and, as a result, black poor and working class folk could attend political education classes and get involved in the struggle.

The task of communists is not to funnel all importance and theory into one chosen and 'experienced' leader, but to you use all the resources possible to make sure that proletarians become leader and 'intellectuals' themselves, thus emphasizing empowerment and self-emancipation.

[syndicat]

reddali:
But Tierra y Libertad, political organization can not take place without leadership; humans can not come to "understanding" and "self-reliance" on decisions all on their own, considering that most of humanity is more or less devoted to producing a surplus-value for the capitalists, they will have to reach to individuals that have the time and material resources for intellectual development; there will be, as in all revolutionary situations, a core of revolutionaries, a base of supporters, a periphery of supporters and allies, and probably a great deal more who do everything they can to abstain from the struggle. They will reach to, and delegate their powers to, a political party (or organization, as Malatesta put it) that represents the working class most fruitfully. The leadership we speak of, however, is leadership of the entire working class through the political party, not the dictatorship of one individual; it is the fortress, as I said, of the working class that will educate and organize them into accomplishing it's objectives through it's guidance.

As I've said before, "leadership" is a slippery term. You have a workplace, let's say. There is a workers organization rooted there, and there are certain individuals who have been there quite awhile, they are well-known, they are respected due to their commitment to support their coworkers, they are likely to express ideas in a union meeting, say. They are articulate, they are not afraid to speak up. They need not hold any formal position, tho they might. but in virtue of their influence, they are exerting "leadership." I've here described a variety of "ledership skills": ability to point a way forward, speaking ability, commitment to defend one's coworkers, trust earned.

Now, anarachists have no problem with "leadership" in this sense of the word, and indeed would want their activists, the members of their political organization, to have such skills and a purpose of a political organization should be to help develop skills like speaking and running meetings, thinking strategically. But intellectual ability or theoretical knowledge is only one potential leadership skill, not the essence of it as reddali seems to think.

Secondly, another meaning of the word "leader" is someone who holds a formal leadership position, such as member of a shop committee or local union executve board. Now, if you have an unpaid elected position such as a shop steward, where this person is directly accountable to their coworkers, and the role is to coordinate common struggle, most anarchists also would have no problem with the existence of "leadership" in this sense either. the anarcho-syndicalist labor unions in Spain, the CNT, were run through mass assemblies of members, and elected shop steward committees, elected labor council delegates, elected administrative committees.

but a formal position of "leadership" can also mean one is presiding over a top-down hierarchy, where the decision-making authority is concentrated at the top. Think of Jimmy Hoffa Jr in the Teamsters. For that manner, think of the managers in this workplace. They are the authorized "leaders of the production process" in the sense that they can get people to follow their orders.

Now, anarchists ARE opposed to "leaders" in this third sense. That is, the libertarian Left is opposed to top-down hierarchies. That's because for the libertarian Left self-management is a basic principle. And self-management means that decisions are directly controlled by the people who are affected by them. This presupposes that the ultimate control lies in the participatory democracy of the general meetings and gaining mass involvement and participation in struggles and organizations. Substituting the decision-making of some small group for that of those affected would be substitutionism, vanguardism, which violates the principle of self-management.

When you speak of "intellectual development" you seem to be assuming that this is confined to some special breed apart, and that the making of decisions is to be concentrated in their hands. This same principle is at work in the control of day to day production by the coordinator class, the professionals and managers in the corporations and the state. The problem with Leninism is that its programmatic and strategic commitments tend to empower this class in a period of revolutionary transformation. That's because of its lack of emphasis upon the importance of direct decision-making by those affected by decisions, and its over-emphasis upon "leadership" to the point that slides into leadership in sense three above, leaders who are in control of a hierarchical apparatus.

Anarchists are thus not opposed to "leadership" or "authority" in the abstract. But to the concentration of decision-making authority, and the capacity for participation in making decisions, into a minority. The working class cannot be empowered by a minority -- a "party" -- taking control over some hierarchical apparatus like a state, but only through a process of developing more widespread participation and capacity for participation -- capacity for self-leadership -- within the working class, precisely because it is not changing bosses that we're aiming at but getting rid of bosses.

now of course i realize that there are some people who call themselves "anarchists" who will disagree with some of the things i've said here. but most will not.

[syndicat]

voz:
The task of communists is not to funnel all importance and theory into one chosen and 'experienced' leader, but to you use all the resources possible to make sure that proletarians become leader and 'intellectuals' themselves, thus emphasizing empowerment and self-emancipation.

this is correct and for all those who support working class self-emancipation even if you don't consider yourself a "communist."

[Labor Shall Rule]

I'm "elitist"? Oh please, seperate yourself from such an adjective. I have argued that revolutions are created by masses of people, but that a core of revolutionaries; activists, artists, economists, theorists, workers, and soldiers; a stratum of more or less class conscious individuals, will lead the revolution, whether we like that or not. This does include petit-bourgeois intellectuals. As I said, when the workers, after a prolonged convlusion of capitalism and their interaction with militant socialists, come over en masse to a revolutionary position, they will naturally look to the parties that their prespective most closely aligns with for political leadership - these parties will not go away because the anarchists wishes them to; they will always exist, because the necessity for leadership will always exist, and they also will always consist of exceptional workers and petit-bourgeois intellectuals.

Syndicat, leadership that is 'top-down' is not undemocratic; this notion that it is 'undemocratic' doesn't even appear valid on its face - a leader can obviously be elected through a majority vote. Even if it is, I don't believe in the fetishism of democracy. It seems that you believe that revolutions begin with "a good idea" or something similar. A mythical force overtakes the masses in which a spontaneous enthusiasm for self-management and self-reliance brings them shouting down the streets with their guns in their air through some political alchemy. This is the "V for Vendetta" scheme of revolution, a Hollywood fantasy. I don't think we are materially capable of "self-reliance" immediately - if you fancy yourself with such a romanticizing notion, you will find yourself historically wrong in the end. And guess what, we don't necessarily control what the historical factors will be; we do not if the economic crisis will be deep enough to see workers immediately occupying their factories, we don't know these things.

As a matter of fact, we do not control the flow of history at all. We can either learn to surf, or be crushed by the wave. Certainly there is more to surfing than believing that it is a good idea. You have to have a board and you have to know how to use it. Our board is the revolutionary party and our knowledge is Marxism. I suggest you get on board!

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 09, 2007 04:01 pm

You say, "considering that most of humanity is more or less devoted to producing a surplus-value for the capitalists, they will have to reach to individuals that have the time and material resources for intellectual development", surely this is the point that Marx was making? That as technology takes over more and more, people will have more leisure time, and thus won't need this intellectual "vanguard".
I think what I might add to this is the culture of liberation concept, sort of how the Black Panthers did it. The Panthers created these social programs that were able to meet many needs of urban blacks that could not be met before, and, as a result, black poor and working class folk could attend political education classes and get involved in the struggle.

The task of communists is not to funnel all importance and theory into one chosen and 'experienced' leader, but to you use all the resources possible to make sure that proletarians become leader and 'intellectuals' themselves, thus emphasizing empowerment and self-emancipation.
This is the purpose of the vanguard. To educate and organize the working class so they can become involved in the political sphere.

[syndicat]

i didn't say you were an "elitist", reddali. I don't suppose that Leninists are "secret elitists" who consciously accept some idea of class division being inevitable. the thing is, people can have good intentions but their ideas may lead somewhere other than where they hope it will lead. so it's not enough that Leninists have good intentions. we need to evaluate the programmatic and strategic orientation to see what its real life consequences are likely to be.


Syndicat, leadership that is 'top-down' is not undemocratic; this notion that it is 'undemocratic' doesn't even appear valid on its face - a leader can obviously be elected through a majority vote. Even if it is, I don't believe in the fetishism of democracy.

First of all, our existing society is said to be a "democracy" here in the USA. people are allowed to vote for leaders to run the state every couple years. you think this is sufficient for the mass of the people to be in control of their lives? It obviously is not.

liberation from subordination to bosses means that the working class comes to a situation where working class people get to make the decisions that affect their lives. if they don't make the decisions someone else will, and if it is an institutionalized minority power over them, then you have a class system.

so, there is no getting around the fact that self-management -- people controlling the decisions that affect them -- is a necessary condition of working class liberation. there is no way this is going to happen unless the mass movement that brings the transformation of society is a movement self-managed by the working class itself.

authentic democracy means that we collectively decide those things that have a collective import, decisionis that affect us together. the reason that democracy is needed is that the opposite of democracy is domination by a minority. institutionalizing a domination by a minority in the political economy means you end up with a layer in charge who can effectively dominate the rest, and this is the basis of a new class system.



It seems that you believe that revolutions begin with "a good idea" or something similar. A mythical force overtakes the masses in which a spontaneous enthusiasm for self-management and self-reliance brings them shouting down the streets with their guns in their air through some political alchemy. This is the "V for Vendetta" scheme of revolution, a Hollywood fantasy. I don't think we are materially capable of "self-reliance" immediately

don't put words in my mouth. that is a strawman fallacy. as i've said repeatedly, a liberatory revolution, a revolution that can liberate the working class from class oppression and dismantle the other structures of oppression, can only be brought about my a mass movement, a movement of millions of people.

i do not say this happens "spontaneously." On the contrary, it can't happen spontaneously because the existing system sustains itself through habits of obedience, deference, lack of faith in alternatives, that are engrained into people from living and working day after day in a society where they expected to simply obey. the only way to develop a sense of the potential power of the working class to change things is thru collective struggle, through a protracted process of people gaining experience, learning new skills, gaining self-confidence.

this is why the layer of activists, organizers and publicists -- what Leninists call the "vanguard" -- needs to focus on developing in more and more of the people, active participation, building of leadership skills, greater understanding of the system they are fighting, self-confidence, and an understanding of the possibility of building a new world based on self-management and social ownership. in other words, they need to fight for self-management, self-management of the movement, self-management of the unions, etc.

to say that the mass of the people will not be able to manage their own affairs as an outcome of the revolutionary process -- what you call "self-reliance" -- is to actually commit yourself to the consequence that class domination will continue even after a revolution, as has happened in all the socalled Communist countries. Either the working class ends up in direct, collective power, direct self-management of their lives and industry, when the smoke clears, or there will simply be a continuation of class society, of oppression and exploitation, under some new guise.

so, your idea seems to be that it is the "vanguard party" that needs to exercise supervision and control over this mass who can't "practice self-reliance"? if so, then you are not proposing a strategy that could possibly lead to the self-emancipation of the working class.

in practice what this also does is lead to Leninist sects fighting with each other and everyone else over control or influence in movements. it ends up derailing the movement. this is what happened to the movement of neighorhood assemblies in Argentina after the crash in 2001. the left sects entered them with the aim of dominating and people didn't have the sophistication and organization to fend this off. so the assemblies withered.

[Rawthentic]

this is why the layer of activists, organizers and publicists -- what Leninists call the "vanguard" -- needs to focus on developing in more and more of the people, active participation, building of leadership skills, greater understanding of the system they are fighting, self-confidence, and an understanding of the possibility of building a new world based on self-management and social ownership. in other words, they need to fight for self-management, self-management of the movement, self-management of the unions, etc.
Thats the purpose of the proletarian vanguard. RedDali has made this point and refuted you quite nicely.


is to actually commit yourself to the consequence that class domination will continue even after a revolution,
Class domination will exist after the revolution, the proletariat will exert it against the ex-oppressors.


the left sects entered them with the aim of dominating and people didn't have the sophistication and organization to fend this off. so the assemblies withered.
This is smells of elitism actually. You are implying that the workers in the assemblies were too stupid and thats why the "left" destroyed them.

[Rawthentic]

This is the purpose of the vanguard. To educate and organize the working class so they can become involved in the political sphere.
Exactly, this is so simple yet some "libertarians" seem hell bent on distorting what it means. Self-emancipation, a core Marxist concept, is not antithetical to the concept of the vanguard and revolutionary leadership. Its very tied together.

[syndicat]

me: "the left sects entered them with the aim of dominating and people didn't have the sophistication and organization to fend this off. so the assemblies withered. "



This is smells of elitism actually. You are implying that the workers in the assemblies were too stupid and thats why the "left" destroyed them.

I'm telling you what people who were involved say. The thing about a political organization is that it provides resources for people, it gives them opportunities to learn to put forward their agenda in meetings, to do public speaking, and they can get together to support each other in pursuing that agenda inside an organization.

now, if that political organization has an emphasis on self-management -- if that is what they are seeking -- then they may actively oppose and counter attempts to manipulate a mass organization or concentrate decision-making in their hands, or whatever. i would hope that this is what a libertarian socialist group would do.

but in the absence of other people who are trained in organizing and political activism, the group who are trained in political activism, who have a whole organization behind them, have an advantage. these groups in Argentina were using this organizational advantage to push their agenda and control the assembly. and because of their adherence to the "vanguard party" concept, they saw it as essential that their group be the controlling "leadership."

i've seen this same thing happen to organizations in the USA. this competition between would-be vanguard parties to control SDS in the late '60s ended up destroying it. Progressive Labor Party was the would-be "vanguard party" that ended up in control, but it turned out to be a pyrrhic victory because most everyone else left due to the way PL dominated and manipulated and turned SDS into a mere front for their party. this was something i experienced personally.

at the particular university where I saw PL take over the local SDS chapter and turn it into a mere front group, i also saw them attempt to manipulate the union i had helped to organize, of teaching assistants. they paid no attention to the union, even tho they had members working in that field, for over five years, until it became a major movement and organized a strike, and then they started taking up too much speaking time, dominating the conversation, with all their "cadre" showing up, etc. Other members of the union insisted that the union set some rules to prevent this domination by this Leninist sect or they would quit. so the union set some rules, things like limited speaking time, etc. at public speak outs or meetings. but this worked because there were people with the poliltical understanding and support in an organization that had been around for six years, to be able to effectively control that group. but the neighborhood assemblies in Argentina may have been lacking in people with that degree of experience.

[Bilan]

But Tierra y Libertad, political organization can not take place without leadership;

I disagree. I think political organisations can operate without a hierarchical structure - without a set leadership. Many anarchist organisations have done so in the past.
This (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bookchin/leftletter.html) is a good article on Anarchist organisation. As well as the various articles at Zabalaza (http://www.zabalaza.net) on building collectives and what not.


humans can not come to "understanding" and "self-reliance" on decisions all on their own,

no, but they can by working together to mutually beneficial ends.


as in all revolutionary situations, a core of revolutionaries, a base of supporters, a periphery of supporters and allies, and probably a great deal more who do everything they can to abstain from the struggle. They will reach to, and delegate their powers to, a political party (or organization, as Malatesta put it) that represents the working class most fruitfully.

See, this is where, for me, much confusion lies. The use of "political party" by Marxists (the various categories) and the use of Organisation by anarchists. If the way you put it now is so, then we're looking in the same direction, but due to our different use of words, we're fighting.

However, political parties do take part in the current (Capitalist) elections. I don't agree with this. And I think you've probably heard a million times over why we, as an anarchists, disagree with such a practice.
If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.


The leadership we speak of, however, is leadership of the entire working class through the political party, not the dictatorship of one individual; it is the fortress, as I said, of the working class that will educate and organize them into accomplishing it's objectives through it's guidance.

I don't believe a political party can work to these ends effectivley. The decentralisation of education and "guidance" is, IMO, far more affective. It gives us the ability to really analyse what is being said, what it means, and how it effects us. It gives us the ability to debate, and to build our ideas.

As for Leadership, I believe it was sub. Marcos who said "We are all soldiers, so that are no soldiers".
For me, this applies to organisations as well. We are all leaders, so that are no leaders.

[syndicat]

me: "this is why the layer of activists, organizers and publicists -- what Leninists call the "vanguard" -- needs to focus on developing in more and more of the people, active participation, building of leadership skills, greater understanding of the system they are fighting, self-confidence, and an understanding of the possibility of building a new world based on self-management and social ownership. in other words, they need to fight for self-management, self-management of the movement, self-management of the unions, etc. '

VOZ

Thats the purpose of the proletarian vanguard. RedDali has made this point and refuted you quite nicely.

But reddali did NOT say that the role of the proletarian vanguard is to fight for self-management of the movement by its rank and file participants, or fight for the self-management of unions and other mass organizations by their members. on the contrary, he suggested there is no reason to not concentrate the decision-making in leaders who elected, and he even suggested that democracy is unimportant. and those things are flatly incompatible with self-management of a movement, because self-management of a movement presupposes participatory democracy, the members being able to make decisions, not merely electing or following leaders.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I did?

I think we have different concepts of leadership; while I see nothing 'undemocratic' about top-down management if it is democratically accountable through a majority vote and a universal right to recall, I have advocated political structures that could be called 'self-managing' or a form of 'participatory democracy'. As a matter of fact, socialism is incompatible without it. I have argued that, in the process of socialist revolution, we can not expect for it to be lead by some romanticized concept of spontaneous uproar where these 'democratic' bodies will be popular and powerful at the same time.


You can not wage a fight against the capitalist class unless you are organized and coordinated by a league, association, political party, or a militant trade-union, which in turn, would pressure, infiltrate, or build alternative political structures, while also working within existing ones in order to build an independent socialist movement with the strength of the discontented masses.

As organs of political power, these alternative political structures would act as guides of the dictatorship of the proletariat and realize it in practice. The role of the party is to put decisions through these mass organs; it is this political association that will act as the facilitator of concerted action.

And by the way, I didn't argue that it wasn't important, but that we shouldn't make a fetish out of it, because it is an idealistic notion; as I said a few posts ago, we can't imagine a bunch of angered workers full of unrelentless revolutionary zeal to lead things over the top. We need a revolutionary party - the fortress of the proletariat!

[Axel1917]

Actually, about 6 of us responded to your petty sectarian critisms, not "the majority". What a bullshit claim.

Most members of this board support individual terrorism, i.e. RAAN's action and the like. My claim is not baseless.


Anarchism is in no way shape or form "anti-worker". You're baseless assertions, and simply regurgitating the same old petty inaccurate crap.

Really? Then why do you, for instance, support reactionary attacks against the workers' state in the early USSR? Why do you deny the role of the state, let alone understand it? Why do you regurgitate bourgeois propaganda against Lenin and socialism? Why do a good deal of you support the Black Blocs, whose individual terrorism strengthens bourgeois reaction? The list goes on.

I think that Red Dali and others have explained vanguard role and the like decently.


However, political parties do take part in the current (Capitalist) elections. I don't agree with this. And I think you've probably heard a million times over why we, as an anarchists, disagree with such a practice.
If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.

Last year's events that happened all over Mexico were largely triggered by the electoral fraud carried out by Calderon. Subcomedian Marcos's "Other campaign" was a flaming heap of sectarianism and it helped him gain that little nickname. There was not even an official stance like this advanced, but I think that 16 million Mexicans said they were ready to partcipate in armed insurrection against the fradulent regime. The lack of leadership is what prevented this revolutionary movment from toppling the Mexican bourgeoisie. Fortunately, the revolutionary aspirations of the Mexican workers and poor are still burning, and something will erupt again.

And if workers can get better conditions, etc. by voting in some kind of traditional workers' organization, it will help make them conscious of their own power. The sectarianism of anarchism is a factor that renders it harmless to borugeois rule. In fact, the bourgeoisie knows that anarchism is not a threat against their rule, and they know that anarchists can be utilized against revolutionaries, as the anarchists dogmatically follow bourgeois propaganda. The fact that anarchism does not threaten the bourgeoisie is proven by the fact that they don't spend countless money, probably billions of dollars, on making lie books for the schools and bookstores to scare people away from anarchism (they do this with communism! I will lay odds that one of the primary purposes of schooling in bourgeois society is to teach anti-Marxism!).

The theoretical mistake of anarchism in the role of vanguards, the state, etc. render it ineffective. As Lenin correctly pointed out, if a mistake is not corrected, you will continue to stumble from one mistake to the next. A mistake in theory, if not corrected, is guaranteed to lead to a mistake in practice! This is shown in perhaps Anarchism's "shining moment;" they could have easily smashed the bourgeois dictatorship and seized power, but they did not, largely due to their shoddy leadership. And you seem to deny the role of leadership, when this critical aspect is what has shattered countless revolutionary situations around the world for many decades!

Virtually all advanced workers in the world have correctly abandoned anarchism. Anarchism largely draws support from the youth because it is easy to learn and seems more revolutionary than Marxism. However, life is not a simple thing. When theoretically analyzed, it becomes crystal clear that anarchism is full of errors and is not capble of eliminating bourgeois dicatorship and empowering the proletariat, proven time and time again by history. If getting rid of the bourgeoisie, understanding the way the proletariat moves, revolutionary theory, etc. were as easy as the anarchists make it out to be, would not have capitalism been eliminated a long time ago?

Leninism has been what led the only successful, large scale, at least relatively healthy workers' state in history. It is essential to study it and learn from it. There is a reason why the Stalinists and the bourgeoisie want you to believe their lies about it - carried to its logical conclusion, anti-Leninism often amounts, in the last analysis, to taking up arms against the revolutionary proletariat and aiding the bourgeoisie or a Stalinist regime trying to crush a workers' movement!

[syndicat]

reddali:

You can not wage a fight against the capitalist class unless you are organized and coordinated by a league, association, political party, or a militant trade-union, which in turn, would pressure, infiltrate, or build alternative political structures, while also working within existing ones in order to build an independent socialist movement with the strength of the discontented masses.

this is confusionist. political parties and unions are very different kinds of organizations. you are sliding over the distinction between an organization formed on the basis of political agreement, versus a mass organization such as a union which is based not on ideological agreement but on being willing to fight the employers, and getting people together in industries or communities on that basis.

the "existing political structures" are the state. the state is a hierarchical body, run by the cadres of the coordinator class. it's function is to protect the dominant class, and the existing oppressive system in general. we can pressure the state from the outside through mass struggles, but the working class can't take over the state and run the state. the idea of a political party taking over the state is an idea that focuses on empowering certain leaders.

[Bilan]

Most members of this board support individual terrorism, i.e. RAAN's action and the like. My claim is not baseless.

Most of RAAN's actions are not what you'd call "terrorism". Unless of course, you call destroying parking metre's terrorism, in which case you're completely insane.
And such actions, like attacking recruitment stations is not "reactionary".


Really?

You betcha!


Then why do you, for instance, support reactionary attacks against the workers' state in the early USSR?

Quote what I said, and I'll explain it. Or is this another baseless attack on anarchists?


Why do you deny the role of the state, let alone understand it?

The word you're looking for is "disagree" with you, and it's because I don't agree with your analysis of the state.


hy do you regurgitate bourgeois propaganda against Lenin and socialism?

What exactly have I 'regurgitated'? The fact that I don't think Russia was a success? Oh my god! I must be bourgeois!



Why do a good deal of you support the Black Blocs, whose individual terrorism strengthens bourgeois reaction?

It doesn't strengthen the 'bourgeois' reaction! That's just bollocks, and you know it.

What's more important, is that none of what you just said makes me "anti worker".
It means I'm critical of the USSR; It means I don't agree with the state; It means I don't agree with Lenin on everything (oh, and for the record - I have two of his books); and it means I think their are more effective means of challenging state power in this day and age then drawing up placards.
Call me crazy if you will, but that doesn't make me anti-worker, or any other anarchist anti worker.


Last year's events that happened all over Mexico were largely triggered by the electoral fraud carried out by Calderon. Subcomedian Marcos's "Other campaign" was a flaming heap of sectarianism and it helped him gain that little nickname. There was not even an official stance like this advanced, but I think that 16 million Mexicans said they were ready to partcipate in armed insurrection against the fradulent regime. The lack of leadership is what prevented this revolutionary movment from toppling the Mexican bourgeoisie. Fortunately, the revolutionary aspirations of the Mexican workers and poor are still burning, and something will erupt again.

I'm well aware of what happened, and it had nothing to do with the fact that there was a "lack of strong leadership" or anything like that.
That's so over simplified.



And if workers can get better conditions, etc. by voting in some kind of traditional workers' organization, it will help make them conscious of their own power. The sectarianism of anarchism is a factor that renders it harmless to borugeois rule. In fact, the bourgeoisie knows that anarchism is not a threat against their rule, and they know that anarchists can be utilized against revolutionaries, as the anarchists dogmatically follow bourgeois propaganda. The fact that anarchism does not threaten the bourgeoisie is proven by the fact that they don't spend countless money, probably billions of dollars, on making lie books for the schools and bookstores to scare people away from anarchism (they do this with communism! I will lay odds that one of the primary purposes of schooling in bourgeois society is to teach anti-Marxism!).

Ha. I love how you called anarchists sectarian in there...
Moving on, how can voting in a "traditional workers party" in a business run society help improve the standards for workers? Have you forgotten the main factor that a huge amount of our (Aust.) economy is on export and imports from TNC's?
Do you honestly believe that a TWP (to lazy to write it) is going to actually get elected without being howled down by the media, which is almost owned by a monopoly?
The "bourgeoisie" don't think anarchism is a threat because it's not an enormous movement. they certainly got a wake up call at G20, which they blamed solely on anarchists (Mutiny, more specifically) [oh and, "international protesters" or some shit].
But do you know what's interesting, axel? The fact that you're constantly suggesting we, as anarchists, side with the bourgeoisie when you more ofthen than not do exactly that, especially when it comes to protest tactics.
A funny irony, no?


The theoretical mistake of anarchism in the role of vanguards, the state, etc. render it ineffective. As Lenin correctly pointed out, if a mistake is not corrected, you will continue to stumble from one mistake to the next.

Another bizarre irony. You're criticising anarchists over not correcting their politics when there's been numerous failures of Marxist-Leninism in the past?



A mistake in theory, if not corrected, is guaranteed to lead to a mistake in practice!

Undoubtably. So why is that you haven't learnt from the mistakes from the past? But instead suggest it's "bourgeois propaganda" that there have been any mistakes in the USSR, China, etc.



This is shown in perhaps Anarchism's "shining moment;" they could have easily smashed the bourgeois dictatorship and seized power, but they did not, largely due to their shoddy leadership. And you seem to deny the role of leadership, when this critical aspect is what has shattered countless revolutionary situations around the world for many decades!

I dont know. They had a pretty shining moment in Ukraine too. Except some good ol' Russian comrades had to rescue them from their "bourgeois ideology", right?


Virtually all advanced workers in the world have correctly abandoned anarchism. Anarchism largely draws support from the youth because it is easy to learn and seems more revolutionary than Marxism.

What a load of bullshit.


When theoretically analyzed, it becomes crystal clear that anarchism is full of errors and is not capble of eliminating bourgeois dicatorship and empowering the proletariat, proven time and time again by history. If getting rid of the bourgeoisie, understanding the way the proletariat moves, revolutionary theory, etc. were as easy as the anarchists make it out to be, would not have capitalism been eliminated a long time ago?

Just what anarchists texts have you theoretically analyzed?


Leninism has been what led the only successful, large scale, at least relatively healthy workers' state in history. It is essential to study it and learn from it. There is a reason why the Stalinists and the bourgeoisie want you to believe their lies about it - carried to its logical conclusion, anti-Leninism often amounts, in the last analysis, to taking up arms against the revolutionary proletariat and aiding the bourgeoisie or a Stalinist regime trying to crush a workers' movement!

What successful revolutions? Leninism lead the Russians into Stalinism. It set them a red brick road :P
I don't agree with Stalinists critiques of Leninism any more than I do "bourgeois" critiques of Leninism(infact, in my history class last year I stuck up for Lenin, despite our clear ideological differences, because they were lying about him), but I don't agree with Leninism in it's self.

The strongest of all movements is a united movement. Anarchist and Marxist unity in a movement would be far more powerful, and more chance of success than Leninist sectarianism.

[La Comédie Noire]

The strongest of all movements is a united movement. Anarchist and Marxist unity in a movement would be far more powerful, and more chance of success than Leninist sectarianism.

Thank you! Someone had to say it damn.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am




Most of RAAN's actions are not what you'd call "terrorism". Unless of course, you call destroying parking metre's terrorism, in which case you're completely insane.
And such actions, like attacking recruitment stations is not "reactionary".

Let us see what the MIA has to say about this:


Terrorism

An aspect of psychological warfare whose aim is to instill fear and intimidation among both civilians and the military/police through the use of limited but concentrated violence. The basis of terrorist actions are a lack of popular support and the need to subjugate the popular will through destructive acts of violence causing widespread fear and terror.

Terrorism has historically been practiced by any class as a weapon in the class struggle. It is typically a reactionary use of force. While terrorism is commonly conducted by individuals or small groups, historical examples of terrorism can also be found in the Spanish Inquisition, and more recently in organizations like the U.S. Ku Klux Klan, and during the latter half of the 19th century terrorism was used by anarchist organizations claiming "propaganda of the deed".

Terrorism is a weapon that has been used by nearly all governments at various times against their opposing classes. Some of the best known examples of this in the 20th-century were Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, the United States during the McCarthy trials, etc. After this, imperialism predominantly exported terrorism to the underdeveloped nation's – U.S. tactics from Guatemala to Iraq, etc.

Terrorism is not necessarily violence against civilians, but if not it is then certainly meant to create psychological terror against civilians through violence against the government, police, military, structures, etc. Some terrorists target the government or the police, just as a guerilla would, but without *local* popular support. As an example, put a Black Panther in a white suburban community who acts exactly as he would in a minority community, and he would be a terrorist (The Black Panthers never did this, and they were not terrorists). The narodiniki were assasins, and believed that attacks on the government would show the masses that the government was bad; they were terrorists because the people loved the czar, and were terrified that something could happen to him. Castro was not a terrorist in his Moncada attack; there was not obvious support for a revolution in that there were no open revolutionary groups nor movements, but his attack expressed the will of the people -- he became an instant hero among Cuba's peasants. The issue of popular local support is thus fundamental to understanding the terrorist. Terrorist ideals may be popular in Afghanistan, for example, but when exported to the US, they are not popular, and when violence is employed, they become terror. A palestinian among his brother and sister civilians who defends herself against an invading Israeli solider is a guerilla, not a terrorist; while those who go into land occupied by Isreali's and carry out attacks against soldiers and/or civilians are terrorists, different only from an invading army as a result of a lack resources; e.g. having a conventional military.

In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the 'propaganda of the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more 'effective' the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.

Leon Trotsky
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism

I think that the tali-RAAN's actions fit the definition.


You betcha!

Subjective idealism is not an argument.


Quote what I said, and I'll explain it. Or is this another baseless attack on anarchists?

I am sure that you support the reactionary Kronstadt uprising and the bourgeois lies about Lenin, for starters.


The word you're looking for is "disagree" with you, and it's because I don't agree with your analysis of the state.

History has proven the Marxist definition of the state. It is not some "evil thing" that must be immediately abolished.


What exactly have I 'regurgitated'? The fact that I don't think Russia was a success? Oh my god! I must be bourgeois!

You believe that Leninism=Stalinism, for starters, proven later in your post.


It doesn't strengthen the 'bourgeois' reaction! That's just bollocks, and you know it.

History has proven my point countless times in this aspect. Just see how much stronger the reaction has gotten after individual terroristic attacks like 9/11, Narodniks, etc.


What's more important, is that none of what you just said makes me "anti worker".
It means I'm critical of the USSR; It means I don't agree with the state; It means I don't agree with Lenin on everything (oh, and for the record - I have two of his books); and it means I think their are more effective means of challenging state power in this day and age then drawing up placards.
Call me crazy if you will, but that doesn't make me anti-worker, or any other anarchist anti worker.

Your support of individual terrorism, the bourgeoisie against Bolsheviks, bourgeoisie against deformed workers' states, etc. proves otherwise.


I'm well aware of what happened, and it had nothing to do with the fact that there was a "lack of strong leadership" or anything like that.
That's so over simplified.

History has proven otherwise, again. Saying that leadership has no role is like saying the skill of a commander has no effect in a battle.


Ha. I love how you called anarchists sectarian in there...

You have an ultra-left stance toward traditional workers' organizations, i.e. the Marxist definition of sectarianism.


Moving on, how can voting in a "traditional workers party" in a business run society help improve the standards for workers? Have you forgotten the main factor that a huge amount of our (Aust.) economy is on export and imports from TNC's?
Do you honestly believe that a TWP (to lazy to write it) is going to actually get elected without being howled down by the media, which is almost owned by a monopoly?

If a traditional workers' party can't even get anywhere against the media, then what makes you think that the workers can overthrow the capitalists?! Every ultra-leftist unconsciously thinks that the overthrow of capitalism is impossible! Such "TWP's" have played a role in concessions in Europe and Canada in the post-war world.


The "bourgeoisie" don't think anarchism is a threat because it's not an enormous movement. they certainly got a wake up call at G20, which they blamed solely on anarchists (Mutiny, more specifically) [oh and, "international protesters" or some shit.

The Communist movement is not huge either. Your logic breaks down.


But do you know what's interesting, axel? The fact that you're constantly suggesting we, as anarchists, side with the bourgeoisie when you more ofthen than not do exactly that, especially when it comes to protest tactics.
A funny irony, no?

And again, history has proven that individual terrorism strengthens bourgeois reaction, so that is anti-worker. You copy the bourgeois lies to scare people away from Lenin. Anti-worker again. Sectarianism. The list goes on.


Another bizarre irony. You're criticising anarchists over not correcting their politics when there's been numerous failures of Marxist-Leninism in the past?

Stalinism is not Leninism. More anti-worker bourgeois propaganda produced by you. If Leninism=Stalinism, then why did Stalin have to wage a ruthless struggle against Trotskyism, had to falsify Lenin, kill off Bolsheviks, etc.?


Undoubtably. So why is that you haven't learnt from the mistakes from the past? But instead suggest it's "bourgeois propaganda" that there have been any mistakes in the USSR, China, etc.

How so? You don't even know what Leninism is, so how can you judge? Trotsky had accurately analyzed the situation in the USSR and predited its collapse decades in advance. The IMT is the only organization on the planet that has correctly understood the Venezuelan revolution from the beginning.


I dont know. They had a pretty shining moment in Ukraine too. Except some good ol' Russian comrades had to rescue them from their "bourgeois ideology", right?

More proof that you are anti-worker; you support Makhno's reactionary military dictatorship that attacked and stole from Soviet convoys.


What a load of bullshit.

If bullshit means truth, then I agree.


Just what anarchists texts have you theoretically analyzed?

Anarchists have deep theory? And an analysis of history and the role of the state further proves my points.


What successful revolutions?

They succesfully stopped bourgeois rule and put forth worker's democracy. Something that anarchism and Stalinism can't do.


Leninism lead the Russians into Stalinism. It set them a red brick road :P

Lie. Irrefutable evidence of my point: http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-c...olution-116.htm (http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-counterrevolution-116.htm)


I don't agree with Stalinists critiques of Leninism any more than I do "bourgeois" critiques of Leninism(infact, in my history class last year I stuck up for Lenin, despite our clear ideological differences, because they were lying about him), but I don't agree with Leninism in it's self.

Actually, you have copied and pasted from the bourgeois one, like that point on Leninism leading to Stalinism.


The strongest of all movements is a united movement. Anarchist and Marxist unity in a movement would be far more powerful, and more chance of success than Leninist sectarianism.

Genuine Leninism is the only non-sectarian ideology of the left.

And since when did popular fronts work?

And since when are anarchists willing to support us? Most of you support the Kronstadt reactionaries, totalitarian Makhno, etc. against us in the past, i.e. you support the bourgeoisie!

Well, it is like how Bloody Capitalist Sham pointed things out when debating with LSD; anarchists, when presented with a fact they don't like, make a "counter-attack" barrage of baseless assertions!

[Bilan]

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


You betcha!


Subjective idealism is not an argument.

I was just being silly. ;)


I am sure that you support the reactionary Kronstadt uprising and the bourgeois lies about Lenin, for starters.
How sure is sure? And what's it based on? Assumptions? :o


History has proven the Marxist definition of the state. It is not some "evil thing" that must be immediately abolished.

It depends how you interpret history. Some would argue that history has shown us that the State is repressive mechanism, and has always been a means of control by the few over the many.
Need I give any examples of this?


You believe that Leninism=Stalinism, for starters, proven later in your post.

No. I said that what Lenin had put in place in Russia had led to Stalinism. Are you going to deny that?



History has proven my point countless times in this aspect. Just see how much stronger the reaction has gotten after individual terroristic attacks like 9/11, Narodniks, etc.

Personally, I don't think 9/11 and a black bloc are really a good comparison.
Call me crazy.


Your support of individual terrorism, the bourgeoisie against Bolsheviks, bourgeoisie against deformed workers' states, etc. proves otherwise.

Bourgeoisie against the Bolsheviks? Bourgeoisie against deformed workers states? Come on, Axel. If you're going to criticize me, at least do it accurately, and back yourself up. Rather than reeling in way off criticisms like that.


History has proven otherwise, again. Saying that leadership has no role is like saying the skill of a commander has no effect in a battle.

I didn't say leadership has "no role", you're making things up...again. I said that blaming a "lack of leadership" on the failure of the Oaxaca uprising is over simplified rubbish.


You have an ultra-left stance toward traditional workers' organizations, i.e. the Marxist definition of sectarianism.
Prove it.


If a traditional workers' party can't even get anywhere against the media, then what makes you think that the workers can overthrow the capitalists?! Every ultra-leftist unconsciously thinks that the overthrow of capitalism is impossible! Such "TWP's" have played a role in concessions in Europe and Canada in the post-war world.

Oh they can. But you're not understanding what I'm saying. Read it again.


The Communist movement is not huge either. Your logic breaks down.

Oh is that right?
I want you to re-think that. Considering that there are still socialist nations in existance (in the eyes of the Capitalists, of course). That the ruling class in all capitalist nations still fear socialism and communism has an enormous, growing threat.



And again, history has proven that individual terrorism strengthens bourgeois reaction, so that is anti-worker. You copy the bourgeois lies to scare people away from Lenin. Anti-worker again. Sectarianism. The list goes on.

haha, I didn't even mention Lenin in what you quoted.



Stalinism is not Leninism. More anti-worker bourgeois propaganda produced by you. If Leninism=Stalinism, then why did Stalin have to wage a ruthless struggle against Trotskyism, had to falsify Lenin, kill off Bolsheviks, etc.?

That's right, Stalinism isn't Leninism. I don't know why you brought that up.



How so? You don't even know what Leninism is, so how can you judge? Trotsky had accurately analyzed the situation in the USSR and predited its collapse decades in advance. The IMT is the only organization on the planet that has correctly understood the Venezuelan revolution from the beginning.

Oh I beg to differ!


More proof that you are anti-worker; you support Makhno's reactionary military dictatorship that attacked and stole from Soviet convoys.

I didn't say I supported him either. Not only that, but even if I did say that, that wouldn't make me "anti-worker". You're throwing around weighted terms.



Anarchists have deep theory? And an analysis of history and the role of the state further proves my points.

I suppose that means you haven't read any, and you're talking out of your arse?


Actually, you have copied and pasted from the bourgeois one, like that point on Leninism leading to Stalinism.

Copied and pasted? Please, enlighten me to what the hell you're talking about.





And since when did popular fronts work?

Not doing to bad in Mexico right now, eh?


And since when are anarchists willing to support us? Most of you support the Kronstadt reactionaries, totalitarian Makhno, etc. against us in the past, i.e. you support the bourgeoisie!

Anarchists aren't this one massive group who all conform to every single thing that every other anarchist says. Come on, don't be stupid.


Well, it is like how Bloody Capitalist Sham pointed things out when debating with LSD; anarchists, when presented with a fact they don't like, make a "counter-attack" barrage of baseless assertions!

That's a bit rich, Axel.

[syndicat]

reddali:
I think we have different concepts of leadership; while I see nothing 'undemocratic' about top-down management if it is democratically accountable through a majority vote and a universal right to recall, I have advocated political structures that could be called 'self-managing' or a form of 'participatory democracy'.

either you see that self-management is essential to liberation or not. in your comment above you're equivocating. top-down hierarchy means that decisions are not controlled by the people who are affected by them. it means that power is concentrated into the hands of the few.

like leninists in general you don't understand the basis of power of the coordinator class, the class to which workers were subordinate in the USSR, and which exploited the working class under the statist "socialist" systems. the basis of the power of the coordinator class is a relative monopolization over decision-making authority and expertise needed in the running of social production. in the USSR this class included the plant managers, elite central planners, political apparatchiks, generals. this evolved out of the administrative layer established in the early days of Bolshevik power through their setting up of a system of central planning and a managerial apparatus in industry, army, etc.


And by the way, I didn't argue that it [democracy] wasn't important, but that we shouldn't make a fetish out of it, because it is an idealistic notion; as I said a few posts ago, we can't imagine a bunch of angered workers full of unrelentless revolutionary zeal to lead things over the top. We need a revolutionary party - the fortress of the proletariat!

the working class can't have power unless they make or directly control the decisions that affect them. and don't talk to me about having elections of leaders in the state every couple years. that doesn't empower people to control their lives.

the social relations of production are part of the material base of society. the power that producers have -- or don't have -- in society, over the running of social production, is thus itself part of the material base of society. working class power must include both power over production and over goverance, but this is the class as a whole, through its mass organizations that needs to have power. empowering a minority, a "vanguard party", isn't empowering the class.

and i've argued many times before that a revolution will not be "spontaneous". "Spontaneous revolution or leadership of the revolution by a vanguard party" is a false choice fallacy. the only way that the working class will be able to liberate itself is by building its own mass movement, and developing in itself the capacity to run such a movement and thus the society, through the development of its self-confidence, unity, knowledge, organizational strength. conscious revolutionaries who are doing organizing and activism can help in this process but their efforts will be couterproductive if they focus on gaining formal power for themselves, for the "vanguard party". that is vanguardism which is the road to a dismal coordinator class regimie.

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:12 pm


What happend?


Their argument was that we (meaning all anarchists I guess) were sectarian because 'left the main rally and went straight to the barricades', and because we participated in 'undemocratic violence'. I didn't realise we had to get their permission to leave.
I would think that's more effective, just fucking bumrushing the barricades, but that's because I'm an Anarchist as well and I don't think like a Socialist. "Undemocratic violence"? So they're suggesting that there should have been a vote or a discussion to actually fucking protest or not?

[Axel1917]

How sure is sure? And what's it based on? Assumptions? :o

Mind giving your view on it then? It is not uncommon for your types to support the reactionary uprising.


It depends how you interpret history. Some would argue that history has shown us that the State is repressive mechanism, and has always been a means of control by the few over the many.
Need I give any examples of this?

But you ignore the fact that a state is an instrument for one class to rule over others. And since classes won't disappear, and that international capital will help the bourgoeisie, the proletarians need their own state to protect themselves from bourgeois reaction. To oppose this necessity of the state is in the last analysis to support the bourgeoisie.


No. I said that what Lenin had put in place in Russia had led to Stalinism. Are you going to deny that?


Personally, I don't think 9/11 and a black bloc are really a good comparison.
Call me crazy.

But they do utilize the same tactics.


Bourgeoisie against the Bolsheviks? Bourgeoisie against deformed workers states? Come on, Axel. If you're going to criticize me, at least do it accurately, and back yourself up. Rather than reeling in way off criticisms like that.

Most of you types to in fact support Kronstadt, oppose the deformed workers' states as "state capitalist," etc. And then we have the copy-and-paste bourgeois propaganda.


I didn't say leadership has "no role", you're making things up...again. I said that blaming a "lack of leadership" on the failure of the Oaxaca uprising is over simplified rubbish.

It was the biggest problem. The APPO almost seemed to be willing to negotiate with the bourgeoisie at a time when they should have been moving forward.


Prove it.

Sure:


Moving on, how can voting in a "traditional workers party" in a business run society help improve the standards for workers? Have you forgotten the main factor that a huge amount of our (Aust.) economy is on export and imports from TNC's?
Do you honestly believe that a TWP (to lazy to write it) is going to actually get elected without being howled down by the media, which is almost owned by a monopoly?


Oh they can. But you're not understanding what I'm saying. Read it again.

You say that the traditional organizations will be barraged by the media and bourgeoisie. That seems to imply that they can't get anywhere. History has proven that the workers move through these traditional organizations first, so you have to enter them no matter how "bourgeoisified" they really are. If the workers can't do something as simple as to transform their own organizations, then there is simply no way in hell they can take down capitalism.


Oh is that right?
I want you to re-think that. Considering that there are still socialist nations in existance (in the eyes of the Capitalists, of course). That the ruling class in all capitalist nations still fear socialism and communism has an enormous, growing threat.

But are not those nations really Stalinist, and on one in the West wants that, now do they? So if no one in the West wants that, then they would not need to slander something that no one supports in the first place.


haha, I didn't even mention Lenin in what you quoted.

I was referring to that "Lenin made the road to Stalinism" claim of yours.


That's right, Stalinism isn't Leninism. I don't know why you brought that up.

It also never led to Stalinism, as Ted Grant's work proves. If it were not for the Bolshevik revolution, Russia would have more than likely went to Fascism.


Oh I beg to differ!

Trotsky has been vindicated by history, I have proven what really happended with Lenin, and the IMT was in fact the only organization on earth supporting and understanding Venezuela from the start. All the rest of the left were denying that a revolution was even happening in Venezuela at the time!


I didn't say I supported him either. Not only that, but even if I did say that, that wouldn't make me "anti-worker". You're throwing around weighted terms.

So one of anarchism's shining moments was in fact a military dictatorship?! How is that abolition of the state, let alone empowering the workers?!


I suppose that means you haven't read any, and you're talking out of your arse?

Engels himself knew that it only takes five minutes to learn what anarchism is all about, hence its popularity with disgruntled youth.


Copied and pasted? Please, enlighten me to what the hell you're talking about.

Countless bourgeois textbooks will also state that Lenin made the "red brick road" for Stalinism.


Not doing to bad in Mexico right now, eh?

What popular front? The Stalinists are not strong enough anymore to whip that crap up, thankfully! There are a lot of people taking the revolutionary road, but I do not know where this "popular front? is.


Anarchists aren't this one massive group who all conform to every single thing that every other anarchist says. Come on, don't be stupid.

True, but the anarchists that are not disgruntled teens are in fact extremely rare.


That's a bit rich, Axel.

Rich in truth. :P

[Bilan]

Mind giving your view on it then? It is not uncommon for your types to support the reactionary uprising.

Why bother? you already think you have me figured, without even bothering to propley discuss such issues with me. So tell me Axel, what the fuck is the point?



But you ignore the fact that a state is an instrument for one class to rule over others. And since classes won't disappear, and that international capital will help the bourgoeisie, the proletarians need their own state to protect themselves from bourgeois reaction. To oppose this necessity of the state is in the last analysis to support the bourgeoisie.

I don't ignore the what it is. I'm well aware of what is, and how it functions. I disagree with the necessity of it, and believe there are better means of achieving emancipation, and sustaining it.
There are other means of defending post-revolutionary societies than hierarchical structures.



But they do utilize the same tactics.

No, they don't. A black bloc - or hooligan tactics, as you've dubbed it - do not compare to full scale terrorism which caused the loss of 3,000 lives. Don't be ridiculous.


Most of you types to in fact support Kronstadt, oppose the deformed workers' states as "state capitalist," etc. And then we have the copy-and-paste bourgeois propaganda.

Why do "we" support Kronstadt? Perhaps its been interpretaded differently by different people? Some of us read Goldman and Berkman's accounts, some of us read Lenin's or Trotsky's.
It's irrelevant. Either way, supporting either sides view doesn't make anyone "reactionary" . Stop throwing around weighted terms.


It was the biggest problem. The APPO almost seemed to be willing to negotiate with the bourgeoisie at a time when they should have been moving forward.

That was clearly not the biggest problem facing the people in Oaxaca during the uprising.



You say that the traditional organizations will be barraged by the media and bourgeoisie. That seems to imply that they can't get anywhere. History has proven that the workers move through these traditional organizations first, so you have to enter them no matter how "bourgeoisified" they really are. If the workers can't do something as simple as to transform their own organizations, then there is simply no way in hell they can take down capitalism.

What I was implying is that they can't do this alone and that a party by its self is not going to be enough to help build a revolutionary movement against capitalism.


But are not those nations really Stalinist, and on one in the West wants that, now do they? So if no one in the West wants that, then they would not need to slander something that no one supports in the first place.

Do you think that really matters? Do you honestly think that Western Capitalists really give a flying fuck what you call yourself? So long as you're associated with the big bad S word, you'll be demonized.
Yes, no one in the West wants to live under those regimes, indeed. But what do Western Capitalists use these systems of examples of, Axel?



I was referring to that "Lenin made the road to Stalinism" claim of yours.

Righto.


It also never led to Stalinism, as Ted Grant's work proves. If it were not for the Bolshevik revolution, Russia would have more than likely went to Fascism.

Would you mind linking me to Ted Grant's article (or is it a series of articles?)?
I don't think anyone has been against the revolution in its self. But rather, the results of the revolution. So whether or not the revolution happened is beside the point.



So one of anarchism's shining moments was in fact a military dictatorship?! How is that abolition of the state, let alone empowering the workers?!

From what I've read, it wasn't a military dictatorship. I can quote the books for you, if you want.


Engels himself knew that it only takes five minutes to learn what anarchism is all about, hence its popularity with disgruntled youth.

I beg to differ. You've displayed your understanding of anarchism, and it's limited at best.
Maybe you should put down LWCAID and pick up something else. IF you're going to criticize something, pull your head out of your ass and try and understand it first. You don't. Don't pretend you do.


Countless bourgeois textbooks will also state that Lenin made the "red brick road" for Stalinism.

Perhaps.



What popular front? The Stalinists are not strong enough anymore to whip that crap up, thankfully! There are a lot of people taking the revolutionary road, but I do not know where this "popular front? is.

Ever bothered to read any of their communiques, or Sub. Marcos' (or anyone elses articles)?
I recommend to you "Our Word is Our Weapon".
You'll find it interesting.


True, but the anarchists that are not disgruntled teens are in fact extremely rare.

I disagree. I'll give you example. The collective bookshop I work in, I am the youngest person there. I am the only person below 25. The oldest is 50+.
My geography teachers dad worked at the same bookshop, and is a militant anarchist. He is 80.
The most recent project i've been involved, I was the youngest, By almost 10 years.

This is a small example, no doubt. But you're not being accurate.


Rich in truth. :P

Lies!

[Mujer Libre]

The funny thing about the "anarchists are just angry kids" thing in this context is that SAlt are the group that recruits little naive first year uni students by the bucketload before they have a chance to give the issues any real thought. They're lured in by the "Hey, we hate Bush and Howard too!" rhetoric... Then they go to "anarchists are evil" camp and they're lost forever. :P

[Axel1917]

Why bother? you already think you have me figured, without even bothering to propley discuss such issues with me. So tell me Axel, what the fuck is the point?

Ironically, you gave your opinion below, it seems. Thank you for proving my point.


I don't ignore the what it is. I'm well aware of what is, and how it functions. I disagree with the necessity of it, and believe there are better means of achieving emancipation, and sustaining it.
There are other means of defending post-revolutionary societies than hierarchical structures.

History has proven otherwise; Lenin correctly observed that the reactionary strivings of the bourgeoisie intensify when they are initially overthrown, and this desire to return to capitalism eventually amounts to attempts to restore capitalism. Since classes still exist, the proletariat will need its own state to smash bourgeois reaction, which will inevitably be greatly assisted by international capital until the revolution spreads to the advanced capitalist nations. History has never shown this "other way" of defense, mainly because there isn't one. Every class society will inevitably have a state, proven fact. By opposing a workers' state, you are (perhaps inadvertantly) supporting capitalist reaction, as you advocate the destruction of a necessasry instrument to protect workers' democracy.


No, they don't. A black bloc - or hooligan tactics, as you've dubbed it - do not compare to full scale terrorism which caused the loss of 3,000 lives. Don't be ridiculous.

Actually, they do - isolated attacks by a few individuals with no social basis of support where they attack. The Black Blocs are far less destructive, but the overall tactical usage is the same.


Why do "we" support Kronstadt? Perhaps its been interpretaded differently by different people? Some of us read Goldman and Berkman's accounts, some of us read Lenin's or Trotsky's.
It's irrelevant. Either way, supporting either sides view doesn't make anyone "reactionary" . Stop throwing around weighted terms.

By this logic, Holocaust deniers are not reactionary, for they are just looking at things with a different interpretation! :rolleyes: Kronstadt was petty-bourgeois reaction against the proletarian state, and Trotsky pointed out that no small number of foreign imperialists would have used this against the USSR if it were not crushed.


That was clearly not the biggest problem facing the people in Oaxaca during the uprising.

History has proven that the role of leadership plays a major role. Without the revolutionary aspirations of the toiling masses and correct leadership, things aren't really going to go anywhere.


What I was implying is that they can't do this alone and that a party by its self is not going to be enough to help build a revolutionary movement against capitalism.

The workers will enter to these places first, though, no matter how "bourgeoisifed" they are. Proven fact. It is necessary to enter these places and win the workers over, and if there are some beneficial reforms, i.e. higher wages, universal healthcare, etc., it is necessary to support these while not giving a single inch of your program.


Do you think that really matters? Do you honestly think that Western Capitalists really give a flying fuck what you call yourself? So long as you're associated with the big bad S word, you'll be demonized.
Yes, no one in the West wants to live under those regimes, indeed. But what do Western Capitalists use these systems of examples of, Axel?

But my point remains - Anarchism does not get the same treatment due to its inability to pose a threat to capitalism. A few busted up shops and burnt out cop cars will not weaken them, but strengthen them, as it will give them an excuse to crack down. And the good stratetgists of capital probably know that there is a difference, but they must restort to the classical moulding of public opinion. Without this moulding of public opinion, captialism would not last for twenty-four hours.


Righto.

The claim of "Lenin making Stalin's road" are baseless.


Would you mind linking me to Ted Grant's article (or is it a series of articles?)?
I don't think anyone has been against the revolution in its self. But rather, the results of the revolution. So whether or not the revolution happened is beside the point.

I thought I did this earlier, but it is at http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-c...olution-116.htm (http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-counterrevolution-116.htm)

Just reading from a few of the first sections demolishes bourgeois myths.


From what I've read, it wasn't a military dictatorship. I can quote the books for you, if you want.

I have dipped into a bit of things, and I think that further analysis will prove my point. And we have the fact that they were against the USSR when they attacked and stole from their convoys.


I beg to differ. You've displayed your understanding of anarchism, and it's limited at best.
Maybe you should put down LWCAID and pick up something else. IF you're going to criticize something, pull your head out of your ass and try and understand it first. You don't. Don't pretend you do.

Engels was a highly skilled theoretician. I think he knew about it better than a lot of people do. And this is hypocritical coming from you, given that you clearly know nothing of the October Revoution and Stalinism, proven by your repeated lies about it. I think that a future addition of anarchist works to my library for reference in the future will also probably reinforce my point.


Perhaps.

And there is something about it - the claim is baseless. Lenin did not create the backwardness and isolation that casued the degeneration of the USSR.


Ever bothered to read any of their communiques, or Sub. Marcos' (or anyone elses articles)?
I recommend to you "Our Word is Our Weapon".
You'll find it interesting.

Supercomdeian Marcos is in fact an armed reformist, and he has proven his sectarian ways by mounting the "Other campaign" when the masses were going through the traditional workers' organizations! I seriously doubt there is any merit to what he says. I have heard that there are even anarchists out there that back away from Supercomedian Marcos. It is easy to see why.


I disagree. I'll give you example. The collective bookshop I work in, I am the youngest person there. I am the only person below 25. The oldest is 50+.
My geography teachers dad worked at the same bookshop, and is a militant anarchist. He is 80.
The most recent project i've been involved, I was the youngest, By almost 10 years.

This is a small example, no doubt. But you're not being accurate.

How is this small example a concrete confirmation of the majority of them being as such? Most anarchists are rather young, and the influence of anarchism amongst advanced workers is next to nil. Where is their inflluence in the turmoil in Latin America, for example? The only reference point some anarchists have there is the sectarian and reformist EZLN.

[Bilan]

Ironically, you gave your opinion below, it seems. Thank you for proving my point.

The "opinion" below was me being in someone else's shoes and asking questions, not giving answers.



History has proven otherwise; Lenin correctly observed that the reactionary strivings of the bourgeoisie intensify when they are initially overthrown, and this desire to return to capitalism eventually amounts to attempts to restore capitalism.

Perhaps, that's really debatable. It depends on a lot more than Lenin's observations 100 years ago.


Since classes still exist, the proletariat will need its own state to smash bourgeois reaction, which will inevitably be greatly assisted by international capital until the revolution spreads to the advanced capitalist nations.

Are you suggesting that this it the only option?


History has never shown this "other way" of defense, mainly because there isn't one.

Are you sure about that?


Every class society will inevitably have a state, proven fact. By opposing a workers' state, you are (perhaps inadvertantly) supporting capitalist reaction, as you advocate the destruction of a necessasry instrument to protect workers' democracy.

No, Axel. See, this is where the issue lies. You seem to think if someone has a slight ideological difference with you - particuraly anarchists - and rejects something you don't, they are therefor "inadvertantly supporting the bourgoisie" or a "reactionary".
Even if you think the state is necessary and I don't, that doesn't make me reactionary, and doesn't mean I support the bourgoisie. It means I am opposed to an instrument of oppression. 'nuff said.



Actually, they do - isolated attacks by a few individuals with no social basis of support where they attack. The Black Blocs are far less destructive, but the overall tactical usage is the same.

That's absurd.



By this logic, Holocaust deniers are not reactionary, for they are just looking at things with a different interpretation! :rolleyes: Kronstadt was petty-bourgeois reaction against the proletarian state, and Trotsky pointed out that no small number of foreign imperialists would have used this against the USSR if it were not crushed.

Clearly, thats bollocks.
Goldman and Berkman were anarchists. I was refering to revolutionary leftists in Russia at the time who, prior to Kronstadt, supported the USSR.


History has proven that the role of leadership plays a major role. Without the revolutionary aspirations of the toiling masses and correct leadership, things aren't really going to go anywhere.

Irrelevent. That doesn't mean that the biggest problem facing Oaxaca was "lack of leadership", or that you're analysis is way over simplified.


The workers will enter to these places first, though, no matter how "bourgeoisifed" they are. Proven fact. It is necessary to enter these places and win the workers over, and if there are some beneficial reforms, i.e. higher wages, universal healthcare, etc., it is necessary to support these while not giving a single inch of your program.

You didn't really reply to what i said...And most political parties aren't going to be able to bring in higher wages unless they have a majority - which, for a socialist party (here) isn't really likely. You'll have more luck with a Revolutionary Union



But my point remains - Anarchism does not get the same treatment due to its inability to pose a threat to capitalism. A few busted up shops and burnt out cop cars will not weaken them, but strengthen them, as it will give them an excuse to crack down. And the good stratetgists of capital probably know that there is a difference, but they must restort to the classical moulding of public opinion. Without this moulding of public opinion, captialism would not last for twenty-four hours.

Anarchists and anarchism are constantly slammed by the media whenever something comes up involving them. Even in text books, anarchists get slammed - just in a different way to communists. Communists are tyrants, anarchists are terrorists.



The claim of "Lenin making Stalin's road" are baseless.

The claim that the structure Lenin put in place led to Stalinism isn't.


I thought I did this earlier, but it is at http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-c...olution-116.htm (http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-counterrevolution-116.htm)


Thanks, I'll have a look.


I have dipped into a bit of things, and I think that further analysis will prove my point. And we have the fact that they were against the USSR when they attacked and stole from their convoys.

That doesn't make it a "military dictatorship".


Engels was a highly skilled theoretician. I think he knew about it better than a lot of people do. And this is hypocritical coming from you, given that you clearly know nothing of the October Revoution and Stalinism, proven by your repeated lies about it. I think that a future addition of anarchist works to my library for reference in the future will also probably reinforce my point.

He might of been, but that doesn't make your understanding of anarchism any better. You're being no more intelligent than those who are scared away from communism because of their school text books.

I haven't lied about anything.

Go on, go read some anarchist texts. I dare you.



And there is something about it - the claim is baseless. Lenin did not create the backwardness and isolation that casued the degeneration of the USSR.

I don't doubt he didn't.


Supercomdeian Marcos is in fact an armed reformist, and he has proven his sectarian ways by mounting the "Other campaign" when the masses were going through the traditional workers' organizations! I seriously doubt there is any merit to what he says. I have heard that there are even anarchists out there that back away from Supercomedian Marcos. It is easy to see why.

Using "supercomedian" just made you sound like a jerk. It didn't prove shit.
And you're analysis of the EZLN and Subcommandante Marcos is pathetic, and shows you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the EZLN.


How is this small example a concrete confirmation of the majority of them being as such? Most anarchists are rather young, and the influence of anarchism amongst advanced workers is next to nil.

It contradicts you're rubbish, thats what it does. You don't have any evidence to back your claim.