Anarchist/Marxist Distinction

[Orange Juche]

I was wondering if someone could give me a real, clear, in depth distinction between council communism/libertarian communism and anarchist communism/anarcho-syndicalism.

I tend to think I fall somewhere in between, and I'm not quite sure really. I believe in immediately recallable workers councils constructed in an egalitarian mode, and the abolition of the state as we know it (no hierarchy). Is that too vague to give an idea of an accurate way to describe myself?

Thanks in advance! :D

[AmbitiousHedonism]

Council Communism is Marxist and while it rejects the state as it currently exists, council communism accepts the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat - centralized, organized violence against the bourgeoisie - whereas anarchists tend to reject such practice. CC still works towards a centralized international communist party, whereas anarchists tend to encourage a variety of autonomous organizations.

There are plenty of other distinctions, but these are the biggest in my mind.

[rouchambeau]

Council Communism is Marxist and while it rejects the state as it currently exists, council communism accepts the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat - centralized, organized violence against the bourgeoisie
This sounds really sketchy to me. Can anyone well versed in Council communism clear this up?

[syndicat]

There really isn't any distinction between "libertarian communism" and "anarchist-communism" tho different people may attribute aspects differently. Anarchosyndicalism is a strategy whereas "council communism" doesn't really have a strategy as far as I can tell. Anarcho-syndicalism is based on building mass union organizations and mass organizations in the community in the course of the struggles against the cominant classes. i wouldn't make a hard and fast distinction against council communism and anarcho-syndicalism. the German KAPD had its own union organization AAUD, which was organized in a similar non-bureaucratic way to the CNT in Spain the '30s. Libertarian communism was the declared aim of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT in Spain in the '30s.

the principles of the IWA (anarcho-syndicalist international) are at:

http://www.iwa-ait.org/statutes.html

This groups some (but not all) anarchosyndicalist groups at present.

[TC]

I was wondering if someone could give me a real, clear, in depth distinction between council communism/libertarian communism and anarchist communism/anarcho-syndicalism.


Practically speaking in terms of who identifies as which, the difference is strictly cultural, or rather sub-cultural.

If you identify as a “council communist” or “libertarian communist” that means that you, like anarchists, don’t want to be associated with those dirty mean soviets and dictatorship and authority and un fun people telling Emma she can’t dance; but unlike anarchists, you still like the sound and ring of the word COMMUNISM, sounds powerful, sounds anti-establishment and like the worthy adversary of capitalism, something that anarchism never came anywhere close to. Except you know that all of those bad things that the establishment says about Communism aren’t true, not because they didn’t happen, which you wont dispute cause you know, they must be true, you’ve heard them so many times that Lenin and Castro leave a bitter yet vague taste in your mouth, but because those weren’t real communists, whereas you for some odd reason are. If you’re a “libertarian communist” that is. Some of these people prefer the term “council communist” because it sounds more intellectual and credible, and they want to identify with Rosa Luxemburg because, even though in reality she was just as “authoritarian” as Lenin if not moreso, these people assume she’s not evil because they never heard any crap about her from bourgeois historians, and plus she was a woman and from the first world so less superficially scary.

For people who identify as an Anarchist though, its principally because their main “beef” is with authority in general on a more abstract level and they want to let people know how “radical” and “out there” they are. The intellectualism of Marxism doesn’t appeal as its perceived as (ironically) elitist so instead of trying to rehabilitate the term “communist” they’d rather go for something that has even less credibility to emphasize their non-conformity: ANARCHY. This is especially appealing because people who label themselves Anarchists overwhelmingly like punk clothing and hairstyles and sometimes (though less often) punk music, and enjoy the squatter lifestyle, the drop out lifestyle, and other unorganized lifestylist activity which fits well with the pop-culture image of Anarchism (squiggly circle As, what a symbol for a punk!) but much less so with Communism (goose stepping soldiers with Mao placards probably don’t know how to sew cute patches into their bags or ‘experiment’ with sexual minority labels). Now, Anarcho-Communism actually has a technical definition by a Russian royal feudal lord named Prince Kroptokin, but don’t worry, most people identifying as Anarcho-Communists have never actually read the political theory, they pick the name they want to call themselves first and then justify it by maybe skimming it a little or asking on a web forum like this, mostly people say they’re anarcho-communists because they want to combine the two coolest sounding political ideologies together to get an ultimate punk rebel political label, (if only you could change the ending “anarcho-communist” to “anarcho-communista” it would be even better). Anarcho-Syndicalist is what you call yourself if you want to sound slightly more serious and a lot tougher than other Anarchists, who (as a syndicalist, damn, is that a tough sounding macho word or what?) you know are mostly just white middle class punk drop outs living in their parents basements anyways, because, as an anarcho-syndicalist you have WORKING CLASS PRIDE, and basically behave about being a “worker” the way fascists behave about being “white” and, unlike Communists, take working class culture and workerist politics as ends in of themselves to the point of cultural/socio-economic chauvinism.

In other words, Libertarian Communists are wussy assholes who are too afraid to stand up for what they believe that they take what bourgeois propagandists say about famous Communist movements at face value while trying to co-opt the cultural cache of Communism, whereas the anarcho-communists are scenester types who want a political ideology to justify conforming to punk psudo-non-conformity figuring that it will seem less anti-social and elitist if they know they’re right. A council communist is like a libertarian communist but wimpier and more intellectual (they’d be unorthodox trotskyists if it didn’t involve liking scary old men) and an anarcho-syndicalist is like an anarcho-communist except more macho and less punk-rawk (think red skin head here).


Seriously and without sarcasm, your question seems to presume that there are coherent ideologies or movements that correspond to those terms; and while there were historical tendencies from which these words come from, there is really no contemporary basis for them anymore, and there hasn’t been for more than half a century. People use the labels because they like the labels because they, like you, wanna know exactly where they fit in and how to define their ‘identity’, kindof like a high school clique.





As to the title, “anarchist vs. Marxist distinction”, there was a point when Anarchism was a semi-coherent political tradition and it split with Marxism (literally, with Marx and Engel’s in the majority and the authoritarian anarchist Prince Bakunin in the minority split the first workers international). However, while Marxism is a coherent ideology with a body of work and powerful movements which adhere to it, Anarchism is less a coherent ideology now as much as it is a definition of the general rejection of the state. To describe what Marxism is too complicated for this thread, and indeed revleft is not a great place to look simply because people talk about it as if they speak with authority when they have not done the depth of reading required to understand Marxism at its core; and I know that its typically obnoxious to tell people that they have to do a lot of reading to get something but Marxism as a theory of scientific socialism is extremely complicated and its not something understood in a sound byte or by skimming over a single article or by reading a few or even a few thousand threads in an internet message board, its something that requires in depth research like most serious academic and scientific subject matters.

However, it should be noted that when we say Anarchism is the general opposition to state power, Anarchists tend to define the state in a very strange way, as being hierarchal and oppressive organized power over a territory (and who likes oppression?) whereas Marxists who are by definition in favour of state power when used for the proletarian, have a much more general definition of the state as any means by which one class forcibly excludes another from its property (the general definition of state used by all other ideologies in political science is closer but not identical to the Marxist definition: a state is an organization with exclusive effective use of organized violence over a territory), so it has to be remembered that when Anarchists claim to be anti-state and Marxists claim to be in favour of a workers state, they are talking about two different concepts of a state; anarchists would typically be in favour of the type that Marxists support although they fail to recognize it in its real world examples because it would undermine their ultimate-rebel skeptic credibility, and Marxists oppose the type of undemocratic states that Anarchists believe all states to be.

One of the big differences though is that Marxists view social structures in terms of the relations of production as capable of explaining, generally, how social relations and power dynamics work as they do (it would take a long time to explain what I mean by this, and its not obvious why its neither dogmatic nor deterministic, but this is the heart of Marxian social theory, the term ‘marxian’ denoting agreement with Marx’s socio-economic-political theory but not his political practice and ideology). Anarchists typically lack this view of society instead seeing class relations as being not relations of production but relations of power and authority and they often reject what they take to be a reductionistic view of social structure and power dynamics by Marxist who see social forces strictly in terms of three traditional classes (now, Marx didn’t actually think this way, nor did Engels nor did Lenin nor did any of the major Marxist theorists other than perhaps Cohen and the analytic “Marxists”, but this is a popular misunderstanding of Marxism, popular among politically immature people who claim to be Marxists on this forum, so you can hardly fault some Anarchists for thinking this way); however because, again, anarchism is not a coherent distinct ideological position but rather a political label, there are some Anarchists who subscribe to Marxian social theory anyways (often labeling themselves, somewhat confusingly as “anarcho-communists” even though the people who used that label originally did not think that way).



I believe in immediately recallable workers councils constructed in an egalitarian mode, and the abolition of the state as we know it (no hierarchy). Is that too vague to give an idea of an accurate way to describe myself?

Sounds like in Cuba where they have recallable workers councils with an economy organized on an egalitarian basis and no social hierarchy...but somehow I don’t think that was the answer you were looking for. Go for “anarcho-communist”, sounds sexy.

[The Feral Underclass]

You are so trite, TC.

The reason Council Communists and Libertarian Communists use the work communists has nothing to do with being sexy, it's to make the distinction between left-communists and authoritarian ones.

Anarchist communists use that name to identify it's social, political and economic ideas.

It's not that confusing really.

[Boriznov]

What i know makes me a council communist is that i want to have a revolution lead by worker councils based on direct democracy and that after the revolution true communism is installed based on the councils

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

MeetingPeopleIsEasy

you have to remember though celebrating working class culture isn't bad like TC makes it out to be, when she tirades against syndicalist's.

Because the working class has no actual opportunity to form an independent culture like the bourgeoisie did prior to the bourgeois revolutions. So what culture that is there, like solidarity, should be calibrated. Proletcult stuff should be opposed though.

plus we cant let the whole of the workers movement get run down with all the damn caviar communists that don't take no self criticism but don't mind dishing it out all the time.

[Tower of Bebel]

adding to wingsomega ....and you do not believe in the possible major role the revolutionary vanguard party could play. Yet there is the possibility to form a worker's party after or during the revolution by conscious workers.

[Boriznov]

My opinion is that the vanguard party get's perverted by how further it gains power so it cannot be trusted so i do not believe in a party of leading the workers if that is what you mean

[Rawthentic]

TC: Girl you make me happy to be a Marxist!


My opinion is that the vanguard party get's perverted by how further it gains power so it cannot be trusted so i do not believe in a party of leading the workers if that is what you mean
Can you explain how so? Is this more of a moral or scientific objection? Seems like the former.

[Boriznov]

It's just what i base on my opinions of all the "succesfull" revolutions that have ocurred on this world. I find that every revolution that was lead by a party has ended badly so that's why i find that party's won't lead the workers to a communist society

[Rawthentic]

It doesnt matter whether they "failed" or not, but what happened right, what happened wrong, and what we should do better next time.

Just because these revolutions did not lead to communism, does not mean that we discard the materialist viewpoint. There is still capitalism, there is still the class struggle, and even though we are an in a new epoch, the communist methodology does not alter. Marxism being a materialist theory is always subject to the ebb and flow of the class struggle as well as material conditions.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Council-Communists believe that a revolutionary organization should propagandize, agitate, and educate. The party isn't to seize political power-- it does not storm the houses of parliament, that is left up to an elected militia unit of the workers councils for such a commission. Yes, Council-Communists believe in centralization of the production and economy-- meaning no sector of the economy is to have its own autonomy in production. The reason for this is because such autonomy denies the symbiotic relationship between all sectors of the economy. However, together the sectors can decide actions and co-ordinate resources and whatnot.

Council-Communists for the most part believe unions are reactionary, because of their bureaucrats and their structures. They cannot be boared into, nor can a revolutionary union be created from another pre-existing union based off a split.
Most of them reject industrial unions, because they can't raise revolutionary consciousness to non-communist members-- who are in in these unions (think IWW) for representation and to setlle immiediate demands. No, they advocate that workers become class-conscious and on their way to becomming Communist-Conscious when they are so fed with their living and working conditions, they go on strike at the dissaproval of their union-leaders-- thus the creation of the strike committee. This committee is voted on by the workers, inside the committee are people voted on to deal with the press, cooridinate events with college students, organize resources, work scheduals, picket-lines, defense. These representatives can be immiediately recalled and replaced. This strike committee is the germ of the workers-council's.
All the council-communists are to do is to formulate ideas based on history and current circumstances, they do not, and cannot subordinate any worker activity to their program.

Most of the syndicalists reject any workers taking power, the goal of the syndicalist militias is to "abolish power". (Though there are modern anarcho-communists, who
believe there needs to be an insurrectionary committee to be elected to storm the houses of parliament). The "old" Anarcho-Syndicalists reject the need to understand the political nature of the economy, and chooses to just organize around the economics structures i.e. the work-place ( I said "old" because some uphold the Friends of Durrutti leasons with the idea that " apolitical anarchism is dead"). In a nutshell, the differences between the Anarcho-Syndicalists and the Council-Communists is the centralization question, anarchists are for "federalization"-- all sectors of the economy are united, by each have their own autonomy a part from eachother. EX:The mashed potato factory, which has more potatos in its surrounding area than say the vodka distillery-- it can mash all the damned potatos it wants at the expense of the vodka distillery, if it has extra potatos it just might give some over to the vodka distillery. And ofcourse, Anarcho-Syndicalists have an unshakeable faith in industrial unions, specifically with an anti-capitalist program, but the rest of its program isn't political. The industrial unions are to cultivate revolutionary fervor in the workers when they struggle for immiediate demands, and by demonstrating their own power by being able to vote in and replace anyone at anyone, instead of voting in one crap-bag bureaucrats who appoints everyone to unaccountable positions. Some Anarcho-Syndicalists see the need for a political organization outside these unions, which serve as education, agitation and propaganda. These organizations do not and cannot subordinate the unions to its program.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Tragic Clown, that was amazing. I applaud your post.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:16 pm
Tragic Clown, that was amazing. I applaud your post.
Me too, i was very entertained! :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by RedDali+August 02, 2007 05:16 am--> (RedDali @ August 02, 2007 05:16 am) Tragic Clown, that was amazing. I applaud your post. [/b]
Even what she says is about 95% wrong?


Tragic Clown
Anarchists tend to define the state...as being hierarchal and oppressive organized power over a territory (and who likes oppression?)

Erm...no they don't... :wacko:

[apathy maybe]

I too was entertained. Though no doubt for different reasons.

TragicClown managed to be extremely biased, though still present most of the facts and figures reasonably coherently.


She obviously knows something of anarchism, but it is questionable whether she was deliberately distorting it in her post, or whether she lacks that extra bit of knowledge. (Saying "authoritarian anarchist Prince Bakunin" is just... one he wasn't authoritarian, and to claim that he was is showing either ignorance or is an attempt to distort what anarchism is about, and the second point is below.)

Yes Kropotkin and Bakunin were princes, but this didn't stop them from being sent to the gulags in Siberia. Lenin's family had an estate and his father was also well off. This didn't stop him being a revolutionary though...

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 02, 2007 02:13 am
It doesnt matter whether they "failed" or not, but what happened right, what happened wrong, and what we should do better next time.

Just because these revolutions did not lead to communism, does not mean that we discard the materialist viewpoint. There is still capitalism, there is still the class struggle, and even though we are an in a new epoch, the communist methodology does not alter. Marxism being a materialist theory is always subject to the ebb and flow of the class struggle as well as material conditions.
I fully realize there is class struggle, capitalism otherwise i wouldn't be a communist. It's that I do not support vanguard party's leading the people, I support the people leading themselves.

[Rawthentic]

This is a common misconception comrade, and if you call yourself a communist, its one that will need to be cleared up.

But anyway, its a fact and its natural that before the revolution and under the dictatorship of the proletariat there will always be leadership of the communist workers, those who know how to organize the best their workplace, or neighborhood, or maybe even militia, those who understand the more profound nature of their new society and the road they need to take. This does not imply that they hold all power, it implies that they take the responsibility as communists to help out their fellow workers into becoming leaders and proletarian intellectuals themselves.

Does that help?

[Boriznov]

I know what you mean but i just don't accept it as truth, for me the only way to win a revolution is through workers, ALL workers to make the decisions through direct democracy in the councils. I just do not agree, i have my opinion on how it should be run and you have yours. We will (hopefully) see who will be right. :)

[Tower of Bebel]

I think you mean that the worker's councils must per sé make and aprove all desicions by themselves. During the revolution there can be no party that makes the rules not even when the new rules must pass the councils first before they can be used.

I'm in favor of direct democracy through worker's councils, yet I think that a centralized and democratic organ - a party - can play a major role. Councils and party are the new "state".

[Boriznov]

The party could only be used for propaganda nationally and internationally but not making decisions. The party could also be used for interaction during the revolution between all councils, each representative of each council could be in the party. They would only discuss and talk in name of the councils already established idea's, not there own.

I hope i'm making some sense here

[Rawthentic]

I know what you mean but i just don't accept it as truth, for me the only way to win a revolution is through workers, ALL workers to make the decisions through direct democracy in the councils. I just do not agree, i have my opinion on how it should be run and you have yours. We will (hopefully) see who will be right.
This does not negate anything I said.

[Orange Juche]

Thanks for all the responses.

I suppose I'll lay out (more in depth than the first post) what I believe, as I'm interested to see what people think.

I believe that workers councils should be democratically organized and immediately recallable at any time, coming from each factory or whatnot. They are autonomous in a sense, I would say they are loosely established amongst eachother (though not in any official sense, but choosing to work together for the better of communities.). Essentially, a federation of workers coopertives - not forced to be participant or cooperate (ex. rather than how the united states functions, 50 states combined to one federal, it would be as if the states are choosing to work together with no concrete or established connection)

With criminal cases, such as a serial killer going aroud because Nazis in UFOs told him to, communities would come together at that time to solve that problem and protect the communities... no established police force or whatnot.

Obviously, no money. No land ownership.

[syndicat]

the basic distinction between council communists and anarcho-syndicalists is that the syndicalists believe we can begin now to develop self-managing, class-struggle-oriented mass organizations in the class struggle, through new industrial unions or rank and file movements that change the older unions. Council communists tend to believe that it is only in a revolutionary period that workers can form such organizations. Syndicalists would argue that this is unrealistic because the working class needs to change, become revolutionary, in the course of the ongoing struggle, and this process takes time. Building more rank-and-file-controlled organizations in the class struggle gives people the confidence in themselves to run things, builds solidarity, and a sense of collective power, which is how class consciousness develops.

TragicClown's idea about syndicalists advocating working class pride is partly right, but it isn't "chauvinist" since it doesn't deny that there are other ways that people are oppressed other than as a worker, such as on the basis of race or gender.

El Kablamo's statement that syndicalists don't believe that workers should take power is an old misconception. The idea that the Friends of Durruti had made some "new" version of anarcho-syndicalism when they advocated taking power isn't quite right. The program of the Friends of Durruti was based on the actual program of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union, CNT, in the summer of 1936. FoD were advocating that they carry it out, since that program did call for the working class (via its unions) to take power and create a working class government. The CNT's program did call for workers to take power but they didn't carry this out consistently.

Anarcho-syndicalists advocate for both worker councils and community councils to control the society, so that there is both a means to worker self-management and to community control. Council communists generally only advocated workers councils.

Comparing anarchism and marxism is a bit like comparing apples and oranges because there isn't a competing social theory developed by anarchism. That's why in fact these various political viewpoints such as anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian communism have borrowed a lot of social theory from Marx. There isn't really a necessary conflict between Marx's social theory and the political views of much of the libertarian Left.

Political Marxism itself is not a unified political movement, as you can see from the severe conflicts between different Marxist groups. There are also a number of serious theoretical difficulties in Marxism, so that it is reasonable to look at it critically, and only adopt ideas from it if these seem solid.

A key historical weakness of Marxism was the tendency to reduce all struggle against oppression to class, and not consider the fight against racial/national oppression or against gender oppression as equally important. Another weakness was its failure to have a theory of the bureaucratic class that ended up as the dominating and exploiting class in all the "Communist" countries (including Cuba).

TC's business about no social hierarchy in Cuba and everything being run by workers councils is a ridiculous fantasy that has no connection with the social reality on the island.

[Rawthentic]

A key historical weakness of Marxism was the tendency to reduce all struggle against oppression to class, and not consider the fight against racial/national oppression or against gender oppression as equally important. Another weakness was its failure to have a theory of the bureaucratic class that ended up as the dominating and exploiting class in all the "Communist" countries (including Cuba).
Racial and national oppression is a symptom of capitalist class society and can only be settled on a class struggle terrain. For example, black liberation is a racial struggle, but this must be tied into the international proletarian struggle, proletarian unity cannot be pushed into the background to "wait" until the national struggles are completed.

And that "bureaucratic class" that you speak of is the petty-bourgeoisie, and I can tell you know jack shit about Marxian theory and how it has evolved since its inception.

[CornetJoyce]

Jack Shit's Marxian theory notwithstanding, bureaucracy is bureaucracy whether it's in a "party" or an insurance company. But to say that gulag socialism was merely "bureaucratic" is to unduly praise it. As Marx might say, it's now the incubus that is haunting the woking class.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:22 pm
the basic distinction between council communists and anarcho-syndicalists is that the syndicalists believe we can begin now to develop self-managing, class-struggle-oriented mass organizations in the class struggle, through new industrial unions or rank and file movements that change the older unions. Council communists tend to believe that it is only in a revolutionary period that workers can form such organizations. Syndicalists would argue that this is unrealistic because the working class needs to change, become revolutionary, in the course of the ongoing struggle, and this process takes time. Building more rank-and-file-controlled organizations in the class struggle gives people the confidence in themselves to run things, builds solidarity, and a sense of collective power, which is how class consciousness develops.
Hello syndicat, well I'm not trying to compete with ideologies here, and whatever my replies are I'm trying to be friendly in tone.

Anyways, Council-Communists would argue that during a revolutionary period the workers can gain the confidence and unshakeable solidarity-- they learn this through their strike committees. During a revolutionary period when they go on wildcats the workers learn that society must change, that society must be challenged, and that they are in the place to change society. They do not go on wildcats, and occupy factories because they want union representation, on the contrary, they do it because they are fed up with their representation, they are representing themselves, and taking control over society. During such a period it is unrealistic to think that everyone will flood into the syndicalist unions. However these unions can help-out the workers with ideas on actions and tactics.


El Kablamo's statement that syndicalists don't believe that workers should take power is an old misconception. The idea that the Friends of Durruti had made some "new" version of anarcho-syndicalism when they advocated taking power isn't quite right. The program of the Friends of Durruti was based on the actual program of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union, CNT, in the summer of 1936. FoD were advocating that they carry it out, since that program did call for the working class (via its unions) to take power and create a working class government. The CNT's program did call for workers to take power but they didn't carry this out consistently.

Oops my bad. I'm sorry but I find syndicalism very confusing, Mr. Rocker rejected politics because at that time it meant playing the parliament game, however these industrial unions must be anti-capitalist, and smash the state. Also, the IWW protested for freedom of speech-- so what are these unions when they are demonstrating politically, and organize against political forms? Also, the IWW says nothing about armed revolution, and that it's the upper-classes who bring the violence. What does this mean? If you are going to defend yourselves, you're for violence, or if you aren't, you're going to get trampled on and the same conditions will persist since you don't challenge the bourgeoisie.



There are also a number of serious theoretical difficulties in Marxism, so that it is reasonable to look at it critically, and only adopt ideas from it if these seem solid.

And theres some serious difficulties in Anarchism, for example Anarchists do not agree fully on what authority is, and when authority is legitimate.
Futher more, federalism can account for lack of co-ordination between sperate units of society, and privledges of one over the other. (I'm expected to be replied with "centralization can account for authoritarian dictatorship", a centralized party that has it's control over society-- yes, this true, but not centralized soviets where all representatives are mouth pieces of their constituents and are revokable and accountable at all times.


Another weakness was its failure to have a theory of the bureaucratic class that ended up as the dominating and exploiting class in all the "Communist" countries (including Cuba).

Everyone was subordinate the soviet leadership, and were to follow this model. The Anarchists have failed to explain how bureaucracy is inherent in all variants of Marxism.

On a friendly note, if I'm proved wrong that a syndicalist union can spearhead the revolution, and isn't an anachronism -- you can count on my support and action. We are ideological counsins and we have worked together in the past, for example the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation worked with the Freedom Group
during the second world war-- against the war and for internationalism, both supported the CNT-FAI and learned from the mistakes of the revolutionaries in Spain. I will be critical if ever see any class colaboration in the name of a "united-front" again! And you damn well should be too! :D

One more question. does the whole general-strike being the end all of capitalism still apply with Anarcho-Syndicalists-- that everyone can just go on a huge general strike and have simultaneously destroyed capitalism?

[syndicat]

voz:
Racial and national oppression is a symptom of capitalist class society and can only be settled on a class struggle terrain. For example, black liberation is a racial struggle, but this must be tied into the international proletarian struggle, proletarian unity cannot be pushed into the background to "wait" until the national struggles are completed.

but that "proletarian unity" will not happen if structural racism is not addressed. traditionally marxist groups would say that women and racial/national oppressed groups were to "wait" til the revolution and in the meantime support a struggle based on demands common to the class as a whole. but this leaves unchallenged the pattern of disadvantage/advantage in society that is structural racism and patriarchy. the fact is, there won't be the trust for unity to be real if these other structural oppressions aren't addressed.


And that "bureaucratic class" that you speak of is the petty-bourgeoisie, and I can tell you know jack shit about Marxian theory and how it has evolved since its inception.

No. the petit bourgeoise is the small business class. what i'm talking about is what is called the "coordinator class", the class of managers and top professionals. this only became a main class with the emergence of the mature corporate form of capitalism at the beginning of the 20th century. these are the bosses that workers mostly deal with day to day.

this class is based on a relative monopolization of the empowering tasks in control of the labor process in the economy, such as design and supervisory and planning work, the work of management of the corporations and the state.

because this class isn't based on ownership, it can still exist even if private ownership of the means of production is done away with, as in the so-called "Communist" countries.

moreover, there are various aspects of traditional Marxist parties' politics, especially Leninism, that tend to empower this class, such as the confusion of socialization of an economy with state ownership ("nationalization"), the idea of those with superior knowledge (a "vanguard") making the decisions and runnning thngs, rather than developing the skills and participation of ordinary people and creating structures of direct demoracy to make the decisions.

thus what's needed is to focus on the development of self-management of mass struggles by the participants, not the gaining of control of a would-be "vanguard". self-management of mass struggles and mass organizations prefigures mass democratic control of society by the mass of the people themselves.

[Rawthentic]

but that "proletarian unity" will not happen if structural racism is not addressed. traditionally marxist groups would say that women and racial/national oppressed groups were to "wait" til the revolution and in the meantime support a struggle based on demands common to the class as a whole.
Of course they have to be addressed, but they must be tied into the wider struggle for our class' liberation.


No. the petit bourgeoise is the small business class. what i'm talking about is what is called the "coordinator class", the class of managers and top professionals. this only became a main class with the emergence of the mature corporate form of capitalism at the beginning of the 20th century. these are the bosses that workers mostly deal with day to day.
No, even Marx and Engels dealt with this, the petty-bourgeoisie are both small capitalists and the professionals, managers, etc. I think he wrote this up in the Manifesto, I'll have to bring the quote up. But remember that class relations are not static, they change in one form or another as time does, and this is what happened to the petty-bourgeoisie. The ideologies of 'Marxism-Leninism', 'Maoism', and others are forms of petty-bourgeois socialist thought, products of state capitalist nations and bureaucracies put back in power, bureaucracy is not an inherent part of Marxism, thats a plain lie and a very weak one.


such as the confusion of socialization of an economy with state ownership ("nationalization"), the idea of those with superior knowledge (a "vanguard") making the decisions and runnning thngs, rather than developing the skills and participation of ordinary people and creating structures of direct demoracy to make the decisions.
You already know what the vanguard is, stop using straw men. What you desire and describe is what communists aspire to as well.


thus what's needed is to focus on the development of self-management of mass struggles by the participants, not the gaining of control of a would-be "vanguard". self-management of mass struggles and mass organizations prefigures mass democratic control of society by the mass of the people themselves.
Thats what all materialists want, and the 'vanguard' does not take control, its the class conscious communist workers.

[Janus]

anarchism and council communism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46953&hl=+council++communism)

I'm not sure why you're so worried about categorizing yourself particularly when there are many other members here who also claim to lie somewhere between the two as well. As far as I can tell, the label council communism does seem to describe your views fairly well though you would probably have to state more of your positions relative if you want to further differentiate yourself from autonomist and libertarian Marxists.