The Defense of the Revolution - Marxism vs. Anarchism

[elijahcraig]

Here is an article from: http://www.worldrevolution.org.uk/pages/id..._anarchism.html (http://www.worldrevolution.org.uk/pages/ideas_pages/marxism_anarchism.html)

Marxism or Anarchism?
What's the difference?

REVOLUTION wants to build a movement that can overthrow this system and create a society based on equality and freedom. But it is not an anarchist website. We are Marxists. This article explains the difference between Marxism and Anarchism on one crucial question: the state.

ANARCHISTS WANT to abolish the state. To many people, this seems unthinkable. After all, runs the "common sense" argument, without state authority to hold things together, society would just fall apart. Without government, we are told, everything would grind to a halt. Without the courts and the police, everyone would be on the make, ripping each other off, robbing and abusing each other. These are the most usual arguments against the anarchists.

We reject these criticisms completely. Our criticism of the anarchists is entirely different.

We agree with the anarchists that States do not exist to hold things together or to protect ordinary people from crime. They exist to defend the property and privileges of the rich. In a society based on real equality, a genuinely communist society in which scarcity, poverty and class divisions had been overcome, it would be possible to administer the economy, and to plan the production and distribution of goods, without the need for any special state apparatus separated from the population. As for crime, most of it is directly caused by poverty anyway. Any genuinely anti-social crime such as rape or violence could be dealt with much more effectively by the community itself than by any police force.

Our difference with the anarchists is not about what might be possible in a future society. It is about how to get a new society in the first place. That is why we do not believe that the state can simply be abolished. Before we can get rid of the state altogether, it will at first be necessary to create a new type of state.

This sounds like a contradiction. But in reality it is the only revolutionary way forward.

Our starting point is to understand everything in terms of class. Under the present system, society is divided into two main classes. The capitalists are a tiny minority - they own factories, banks and land, all the main blocks of shares... in short they control the overwhelming majority of wealth in society. But the wealth is produced by the other main class - the working class. The workers are the overwhelming majority. They have nothing but a few possessions paid for out of hard earned wages. Unlike the capitalists, all they have to sel1 is the ability to work They produce everything - the capitalists own it.

We view the state from this standpoint. The entire state apparatus - the army, police, judges and faceless civil servants - is nothing more than an instrument for the rule of one class by another. Stripped of all the usual flowery phrases about democracy, patriotism and the rule of law which are used to cover up what the state is really about, we want to see it for what it is. At the end of the day, the state is nothing more nor less than armed force in defence of property.

Before we can abolish classes and plan production for need instead of greed, the private property of the minority must become the public property of the majority. This means that the capitalist state will have to be smashed and the capitalists' property will have to be confiscated. The division of society into classes will not disappear immediately - instead the working class will need to use new laws and direct force to stop the capitalists from holding onto their wealth and from trying to get it back

In short, the working class will become the ruling class. We will need our armed force in defence of our property a workers' state.

At this point anarchists will object. Wouldn't this just be as bad as the old state? We say it would not - it would be radically different. Unlike the capitalist state, a workers' state will be an instrument for the rule of the overwhelming majority over a handful of former exploiters. Such a state will need no special apparatus of secret repression, no standing professional army set up against the people, no secret permanent bureaucracy. It will base its power on the armed population and on the broadest democratic control by the working class through democratic workers' councils, able to directly elect its delegates and recall them as soon as the workers want to.

To anarchists who are serious about wanting to change society, we pose a question. How will you deal with the capitalists once they have been driven from power? Will the people be entitled to organise to stop them raising private armies and resisting the will of the majority? If so, then that organisation - whatever you might prefer to call it - would to all intents and purposes be a state. It would be an apparatus designed to enable one class to rule over another. But this time the tables would be turned. The state would be nothing more than the organised power of working people.

But - runs the last-ditch defence of the anarchists - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely! How could we stop that happening?

The Bolsheviks had to tackle that problem when they established a workers' state after the Russian Revolution of 1917. They adopted four principles:

* No privileges. No official could receive more in wages than the average skilled worker.

* Rotation of official duties to stop a fixed layer of bureaucrats emerging.

* All working people were to bear arms so that the revolution could be protected from threatens from both the outside and from within.

* All power was to be in the hands of workers' councils, whose delegates should be elected from the workplaces and working class areas, who would have to report back to mass meetings and who could be replaced by the workers at any time, not just once every five years like in British elections today.

The Russian revolutionary V.I. Lenin summed this all up when he said "when everyone is a bureaucrat, no-one is a bureaucrat". The whole idea was that once all private capitalist property was abolished and once attempts by the capitalists to recapture their property had been defeated, the old capitalist class would gradually die out. Their children and descendants would be forced to work like everyone else The whole need for a special apparatus to rule on behalf of one class over another - even on behalf of the working class - would disappear. The government of persons would become replaced by "the administration of things". The workers' state would gradually wither away altogether.

The Russian revolution went wrong. Stalin and his supporters abolished every shred of working class democracy and control - power passed into the hands of a monstrous regiment of bureaucrats. But the reason for this was not that the mass of the workers were corrupted by having too much power. It was that the workers' councils and mass control were undermined because of Russia having to fight to defend its revolution against the armies of 14 capitalist countries in a devastating war, and because the revolution did not spread. Russia was a backward country and could not build socialism on its own. A whole layer of middlemen and bureaucrats emerged.

The way to avoid this in the future is to build a strong international movement so that the next country in which the workers take power will not be isolated for long, but will soon be joined by other countries. By contrast, the anarchist conclusion is not to build any sort of state in the first place - not even a democratic workers' state. But that way the capitalists will never be stopped when they try to get their property back - something they will definitely try to do.

By opposing the whole idea of the state in case it goes wrong, the anarchists are rejecting something which is essential if the workers are to have a chance of beating the bosses and building a classless socialist society. This is like a football team refusing to kick the ball. That way you are guaranteed against scoring an own goal - but you stand no chance of winning the match.

This is not just an academic argument. During the Spanish revolution of ~93639 the influence of anarchists helped to prevent the working class from winning victory. In the Spanish Republic, the working class responded to a fascist rebellion in 1936 by seizing control of the factories and taking arms into their own hands.

Meanwhile the peasants took control of the land away from the rich landlords. The opportunity was there for the working class to take power and build socialism.

The anarchist movement was very strong in Spain at the time, in the form of the anarchist trade union the CNT. But the government of the Spanish Republic was made up of parties that wanted to stop the working class taking over political power - including Stalin's puppets in the Communist Party. By I937 the government felt strong enough to try to break the control of the workers over the factories and workplaces. In Barcelona - the heart of the revolution - the government sent troops in to drive the workers out of their telephone exchange. But the workers weren't having it. They responded with a general strike.

This was the time to bring the revolution to a head. The workers' own democratic organisations needed to launchh an uprising and take political power, establishing a workers' state. That would have been the only way to secure their control of the factories and land and stop them being handed back to the control of the capitalists. But the anarchist leaders (yes, in reality they do have leaders, just like every movement!) rejected this. Because they were anarchists, they were against the whole idea of a workers' state. But there was no other way forward. So they ordered their supporters to return to work, and some anarchist leaders even joined the capitalist government!

The opportunity was missed to build a democratic workers' state. Exactly as the Trotskyists (Marxists who were opposed to Stalin) warned at the time, this left the capitalists free to regain control. The workers were defeated and the fascist revolt won out in the end. Spain had to suffer over 30 years off fascism, and it remains a capitalist country today.

The lesson is that there can be no lasting victories for the working class and no chance of socialism without the working class fighting for workers' power and a workers' state.

Despite sounding very revolutionary, the problem with anarchism is that it is not revolutionary enough.

If you want a future free from capitalism, inequality, and ultimately free from classes and states, tun to Marxism and join REVOLUTION.

[Som]

Ah, this again.


To anarchists who are serious about wanting to change society, we pose a question. How will you deal with the capitalists once they have been driven from power? Will the people be entitled to organise to stop them raising private armies and resisting the will of the majority? If so, then that organisation - whatever you might prefer to call it - would to all intents and purposes be a state.

No, it wouldn't be a state. a militia with no power is not a state, a leader with no authority isn't authoritarian.

Calling it a state is nothing more than meaningless rhetoric, the same sort of crap engels tried to use. Negating authority isn't authoritarian, and fighting for freedom isn't the negation of freedom.

The rest of it is similiarly abstract. The methods that overturned the state will stand as the organs to defend the revolution, the state is given far too much credit.

a few things from malatesta about it (picked them out of the anarchist faq)
"But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the corps of volunteers (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear." [Anarchy, pp. 40-1]

"Many suppose that . . . anarchists, in the name of their principles, would wish to see that strange liberty respected which violates and destroys the freedom and life of others. They seem almost to believe that after having brought down government and private property we would allow both to be quietly built up again, because of a respect for the freedom of those who might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas!" [Anarchy, p. 41]

and something published by the CNT in 1936:
"We acknowledge the necessity to defend the advances made through the revolution . . . So . . . the necessary steps will be taken to defend the new regime, whether against the perils of a foreign capitalist invasion . . . or against counter-revolution at home. It must be remembered that a standing army constitutes the greatest danger for the revolution, since its influence could lead to dictatorship, which would necessarily kill off the revolution. . .
"The people armed will be the best assurance against any attempt to restore the system destroyed from either within or without. . .

"Let each Commune have its weapons and means of defence . . . the people will mobilise rapidly to stand up to the enemy, returning to their workplaces as soon as they may have accomplished their mission of defence. . . .

"1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of weaponry to the communes which be responsible for ensuring defensive means are effectively organised nationwide.

"2. In the international context, we shall have to mount an intensive propaganda drive among the proletariat of every country so that it may take an energetic protest, calling for sympathetic action against any attempted invasion by its respective government. At the same time, our Iberian Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will render material and moral assistance to all the world's exploited so that these may free themselves forever from the monstrous control of capitalism and the State." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 110]

This is not just an academic argument. During the Spanish revolution of ~93639 the influence of anarchists helped to prevent the working class from winning victory.

Their version of the spanish civil war is a bit warped. A workers state in catalonia at the time, well basically theyre suggesting had the anarchists been trots like them, that a workers state would have done anything but create a civil war and make it even easier for the fascists march in.
While I agree the CNT leadership made huge mistakes that allowed too much state power, and throughout wasn't revolutionary enough (some of the anarchist revolution seemed to come in spite of the CNT instead of because of it) the abstract workers state would have done nothing but further irritate these tensions.

Most of the CNT actions against the revolution came as compromises to fight fascism, which was the most important thing at the time. While they felt the revolution and war were inseperable, ultimately fighting fascism was first.

Then they bring up the russian revolution, trying to pass off all the blame on Stalin, playing the good cop bad cop with their revolutionaries. Nevermind that trotsky was quite an advocate of having the supposed workers state have nothing to do with the workers.


Overall this articles pulls the same meaningless assumptions that somehow that after an anarchist revolution, where the people had to fight off the state and capitalist forces themselves, that for some reason they'd just sit by and let them walk in and go back to giving them orders.

[elijahcraig]

I used to be an Anarchist, so I've read all that.

Abstract? I'd say assuming the workers will rise and fight without authority is abstract. During the Spanish Revolution the workers wouldn't fight after they had their little bit of land, the leading "Anarchists" (some of) made deals with the Fascists. If the Anarchists had been in charge of the Russian Revolution, the revolution would have been done for. Why? Invasions from 11 countries, starvation, people rebelling against the revolution, etc etc etc. The Revolution would have fallen apart. Lenin pushed through all of this and won.

Now, I'm not saying that Communist theory is perfect, it is far from it. I think both theories are flawed. One leads to tyranny, one leads to nothing.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Anarchists are not revolutionary enough...." that is the most rediculas thing I have ever read in my entire life.

Answer me this..If you are so certain that the State as a workers apparatus can work so succesfully, regardless of what happened with Stalin...why is not possible to organnize the workers into federations and militias, regardless of spain?

The Leninists in this message board keep preaching the necessity for a state, giving reasons that it is important to defend the revolution, but give no satisfactory explanation to why you need a state to defend it...and when you talk about workers councils and a workers state, what you actually mean is a vanguard of revolutionaries, working in the "interests" of the working class.

Lenin himself said, that some aspects of bourgeois state would have to be kept, he even went so far as to say that it would have to be more authotarian. This is not simply a contradiction, it is a fundamental schism in the ideals of proletarit movements.

The article talks about how the bourgeois state uses secret police etc. Well so did Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

There still seems to be no logical reason for the preservation of the state, you people will not go further to justify why it is important. You do not criticise to any level of satisfaction why Anarchism would not work, except the failed attempt in Spain, but then I could easily apply the failure of the theory of the state to Russia...I am intrigued and genuinly curious to know why it is, that after the workers have become conscious fought for months and even years, lost hundreds of their comrades to destroy something, which is then put back into place with a diflferent name.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd say assuming the workers will rise and fight without authority is abstract

Please explain to me why it is you think authority is so necessary to make human beings function in a revolutionary manner?

[Som]

Abstract? I'd say assuming the workers will rise and fight without authority is abstract.

Not abstract at all, this type of statement is really quite weak when compared to any practicle look at things. Are you suggesting people need to be forced into freedom? We've seen otherwise.

Poeple have constantly fought for their own freedom without authority to it, if people would never rise and fight without authority, there wouldn't be a volunteer army anywhere, nevermind the completely democratic armies of the CNT and Makhnovists.

During the Spanish Revolution the workers wouldn't fight after they had their little bit of land, the leading "Anarchists" (some of) made deals with the Fascists.

Wrong, the CNT at times even had to try and convince some of the peasants NOT to join the fight, just so there would be someone left on the land to farm it.

Any evidence at all that the anarchists made deals with the fascists? I haven't seen even the worst stalinist look at the spanish civil war make that claim. (usually they say the trots did that).

If the Anarchists had been in charge of the Russian Revolution, the revolution would have been done for. Why? Invasions from 11 countries, starvation, people rebelling against the revolution, etc etc etc. The Revolution would have fallen apart. Lenin pushed through all of this and won.

and the makhnovists, an anarchist movement, in the ukraine faced the same conditions from the same forces, in the same conditions and the same time frame. They did fine, and they even SAVED the bolsheviks at times, fighting off white armies headed for moscow.

It wasn't the capitalists that stopped them, it was trotsky and the red army.

Histories not on your side for this, states don't give people more reason to fight or more resources to fight with.

[elijahcraig]

Makhno was setting up his own little kingdom in Ukraine, he was collecting goods and selling them to the people at high prices in order to make his own little piece. He did help the revolution, but then he started fighting the Red Army. You have to appreciate the situation: Lenin is trying to keep the country together, he has 11 countries invading at once, he has cannibalism because the starvation is so bad, he has anarchists rebelling against the Bolsheviks, etc. He had to put his foot down. It would've all fallen apart without authoritative means. The people did not want to fight.

How is assuming people will fight abstract? The peasents in the Spanish revolution DID NOT want to fight, they were happy with the land they had and didn't want to go on. The problem with anarchism is that it offers no answers to certain questions: What if one community, or several, did not want to go along and fight? What if the peasents did not want to fight? etc etc etc Those sorts of things. And Anarchism has no answers, it says "Well, they will, we know." But the fact is that they might not, and that would prove horrible if a revolution was ever attempted.


I understand what you say about the State. Communism is flawed if we let it slip into the hands of the egomaniacs, anarchism is flawed unless we find a decent way to defend a revolution. I am not attacking anarchism alone, I am attacking both theories, they are both unsuccessful. We need to makes sure that the people's battle for freedom does not end in state capitalism.

Some of the Anarchists did make deals with the Fascists, its a fact. So did the communists, but the people were betrayed and that is the problem.

Militias and federations might work if the surrounding offensive were extremely weak, but in times of mass invasion, it would fall apart for reasons I explained beforehand.

[Som]

Makhno was setting up his own little kingdom in Ukraine, he was collecting goods and selling them to the people at high prices in order to make his own little piece. He did help the revolution, but then he started fighting the Red Army.

Do you have ANY evidence of this at all? Because unless you give some, I'm just going to dismiss this as baseless accusations.

Makhno never fought the red army on his own choice, The red army attacked them, after the civil war was won.

Unless of course you want to hold on to the blatant lies running through pravda at the time, they even went as far as to claim that makhno was collaborating with white armies at the same time he was fighting them.

How is assuming people will fight abstract? The peasents in the Spanish revolution DID NOT want to fight, they were happy with the land they had and didn't want to go on. The problem with anarchism is that it offers no answers to certain questions: What if one community, or several, did not want to go along and fight? What if the peasents did not want to fight? etc etc etc Those sorts of things. And Anarchism has no answers, it says "Well, they will, we know." But the fact is that they might not, and that would prove horrible if a revolution was ever attempted.

Again, Show some evidence, because everything i've read about this says the complete opposite. The peasants in the spanish revolution were the revolution, they joined in huge numbers, and like i said figures like durruti even had to try and convince them NOT to fight so that the land wasn't depopulated.

They NEEDED to fight so they did, if they did not want to, they did not have to, but that'd be rare and they'd be thought of as cowards.

Anarchism offers the answers of cooperation, freedom, and choice, these are answers, despite not being the answers of force that some of them are looking for.

Some of the Anarchists did make deals with the Fascists, its a fact. So did the communists, but the people were betrayed and that is the problem.

That there will be a small amount of traitors in ANY movement? you were trying to play that off as an argument against them before.

Militias and federations might work if the surrounding offensive were extremely weak, but in times of mass invasion, it would fall apart for reasons I explained beforehand.

You haven't explained any reasons at all, and haven't countered the basic idea that governments don't make defense more effective. You just keep running with the assumption that automatically a government will make a stronger defense, because its a government.

[elijahcraig]

You know, I used to be an anarchist, and I know all this which you are saying. I know your view on Makhno, etc. I know the basics of anarchism, I admire anarchism, Bakunin is probably my favorite person to read on politics. I've been e-mailing Noam Chomsky for about a month now. Let's not get all defensive or angry over this. This is a discussion on how to defend the revolution, not a sparring match between communism and anarchism. We both want the same things, its just how to get there which is the problem.

I'm not sure what kind of evidence I could provide, I am just reading opinions. The same as you.

I am against the state, I do not want it to exist. But the fact is that, without Lenin and Trotsky during the defense of the Russian revolution, it would have fallen apart. Anarchism is too positive for me on the assumption that people will fight. Especially if we are talking a revolution in America.

Anarchism and Communism both give: freedom, cooperation, etc. Both have flawed defense systems. Maybe we need anarchist ideals while still keeping the revolution centralized, as far as the ideas and organization of defense. I understand that anarchism is for decentralization, but this is not the way to go when defending a revolution, we need mass armies ready to confront in a centralized force. And for that we need a state to help. If we kept the movement in the hands of the people, and enforced recallable officials, direct democracy, etc. this would be fine.

[Som]

Let's not get all defensive or angry over this. This is a discussion on how to defend the revolution, not a sparring match between communism and anarchism. We both want the same things, its just how to get there which is the problem.

I'm not getting defensive or angry about this at all, well, not meaning to anyway.

Maybe a bit of a huffy mood today for some reason.

I'm not sure what kind of evidence I could provide, I am just reading opinions. The same as you.

Not evidence on opinions, evidence on history.

You claimed that the people in anarchist spain refused to fight, and basically just sat around with their thumbs up their asses, and that nester makhno was selling goods and setting up his own little kingdom in the ukraine, since everything i've read says just the opposite of that, i was asking for some sources to backup that information. I could post some links contradicting that if you'd like.

But the fact is that, without Lenin and Trotsky during the defense of the Russian revolution, it would have fallen apart.

It's no fact, and again, repeating baseless assertians as facts is no basis of a debate.

Again, my points been that the successes of the makhnovists are an arguement against the authoritarian measures being necesary.

[elijahcraig]

Here are some different things on Makhno:

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/trots...ky/makh_mov.htm (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/trotsky/makh_mov.htm)

That is a Trotskyist viewpoint.

http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/makhno.htm

An Anarchist viewpoint.

[elijahcraig]

This is a quote from Berkman's 'ABC of Anarchism" on the Defense of the Revolution:

But you can see how utopian this is:

"The defeated counter-revolutionist, left at liberty instead of being imprisoned, would have to seek means of existence...
The revolution will offer its enemies an opportunity to settle in some part of the country and there establish the form of social life that will suit them best."

The bolsheviks initially tried this policy. What it meant was all the counter-revolutionaries migrated to the south, set up rebel armies, and nearly destroyed the revolutoin in 3 years of civil war - by invasion, war, and rightwing plots, sabotage and uprisings in the major cities. It just wouldn't work - and certainly not in the middle of the civil war, which Berkman was refering to!!

Anarchists have NEVER put forward an arguement about how they will defend a revolution from capitalism. Indeed every time they have tried they have failed. Like in Spain when they fell into bed with the capitalist and Stalinist government and betrayed the working class. The Friends of Durutti (an anarchist group from the Spanish Civil War) saw the failures of anarchism in Spain and clearly stated there needed to be a "single common command" for the military i.e. centralisation. How can we possibly take on the capitalists and their armies without centralisation of production and the military? We need collective strength. If people are just allowed to do what they want, even if it means betraying a revolution or the refusing the democratic will of the majority of the working class then we will always fail.....

Anarchists give no answers to how they will defend a revolution, unless they think that there will be a spontaneous revolution world wide, which obviously won't be the case.

Without centralisation, discipline and collective decisions how will the capitalists possibly be defeated?

How would an army be organised in modern warfare without centralisation? As I said in an earlier post the Friends of Durutti (who were an anarchist group) recognised this in Spain when they called for a "single common command".

How would anarchist federations deal with federations that refused to go along with the decisions of the majority? Would they just let everyone do as they please even if meant the revolution would be crushed?

Anarchism ideals are the end goal of revolutionary socialism and trotskyism. But what anarchism utterly fails to do is say how it is possible to get to that situation. Anarchisms almost seem to think you can bypass international capitalism!

A workers state should have all the democratic safeguards it can, with soviets/workers councils making as many decisions as possible. But in a revolution some decisions will have to be made on the spot and in a centralised manner (how can anarchists deny this?!). However if we have people in positions of responisibility who were elected, trusted and recallable I don't have a problem with that. Indeed I don't see any other option.

Remember in Russia there was civil war, mass starvation to the point of canabilism, the country was totally fucked. Ideally we'd all love to be liberal in all situations, but reality in a revolution will probably mean this can't always happen.

The Bolsheviks had to make other retreats from their own programme.

they defended the peasants redistributoin of the land, though their programme called for the lands' naitonalisation - so everyone not just the farmers would own it and have a say in what happened to its food, minerals etc - and the collectivisation of agriculture. But they needed to win the peasants to the side of the revolution. They did try to split the poor peasants away from the rich peasants, and win them to the side of the workers, but it didn't work. (makno in fact had 2-3 voluntary collectives of peasants, but himself didn't forcibly collectivise them as the Spanish militias did in Spain during the civil war).

They also had to drop their opposition to a "professional" separate army and actually create one, the Red Army. The bolshelvik programme called for the people armed, organised in militias set up by the workers councils and controlled by them - not like spain where the anarchist militias were autonomous and a law unto themselves or the party they were affiliated to. The civil war gave the Bolsheviks no choice but to fight fire with fire, when they at times were fighting as many as 14 armies on 3 fronts. That is one of the reasons they succeeded where the anarchists in spain did not. But this was a retreat from their programme, no doubt, as was the death penalty. And they were clear about this and said so - it was a temporary measure brought on by the civil war.

The kronstadters called for stringing up the Bolsheviks. Nestor Makno executed Bolshevik commissars wherever he found them, before he and the bolsheviks fell out. It wasn't a pretty time, conflicts and starvation bring out the worst in people. The important thing is, the bolsheviks held the line.

, Lenin and the majority of the bolshevik party were opposed the "militarization of labour" that trotsky proposed and trotsky lost the vote. Later with hindsight he admitted he had been wrong, as with with many other things like the treaty of Brest Litovsk.

FACT - SPAIN 1936 - The anarchists led the workers movement in Catalonia breathakingly close to power. WHAT made them stop? They did not want the workers to seize control of the appartus of state, establish a workers state with a revolutionary government that would have been able to mash Franco. Instead they cowered behind the capitalist state eventually retreating and even joining the bourgeious republican governement before being finally smashed first by the bourgeious republicans and stalinists and then by Franco.

The Spanish workers could have won, they could have defeated Franco, the Friends Of Durreti recognised this. To say that they betrayed the revolution is quite frankly insulting.

How could they have won? By firstly recognising where Franco's power lied, it lied with the capitalists and the aristocracy, it lied with sections of the peasantry that were fighting in the conscript army and with his power base in Spain's African colony, Morroco.

The conclusions of this are: 1) The workers must take control of the workplaces 2) The workers must take control of the capitalist state to defend the revolution 3) The workers must form a revolutionary government based on the workers and peasants councils. 4) That government must say clearly "Independence for Morroco" "All land to those that tow it, ALL LAND TO THE PEASANTRY". 5) Form a centralised Revolutionary army to smash Franco once and for all.

why centralised? Because they needed to be disciplined and organised and co ordinate their attackes against the fascists. To say like that "ABC Anarchism article" says that the "worker in the mine" is the defender of the revolution is typically of ancarchism pandering to individualism. WAKE UP PEOPLE - individuals dont change the world - OPPRESSED CLASSES DO!

The anarchists totally failed in offering the leadership that was necessary to achieve a successful revolution and they failed because Anarchist politics are FLAWED. For goodness sake lets not make the same mistakes again...


Because of this I think we need the collective strength of the working class. While power should flow from the worker councils and soviets, there will also be a need for centralisation. Millions will need to make instant decisions during a civil war, and this is what the Friends of Durutti recognised. But leaders should be voted in on their past actions where we have built up trust and they should always be recallable. As revolutionary socialists we never revel in authority, but just recognise, that because of capitalism, the collective working class has to assert it own authority.

[The Feral Underclass]

YOUR NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO ME!!!!

You talk about what would happen if the people did not want to fight an anarchist revolution, but the question is how would you get to that revolutionary situation in the first place. Of course if it was a small gurilla force trying to do things there own way it will not gain popular support. Even if it is a small uprising of anarchists, it will not gain popular support, of course the workers will not want to fight, they have no reason too. Revolution can only come from a mass movment of workers, who are politicised and organized.

When this mass movement begin an insurrection, they of course will want to fight, it is what they have educated and organized themselves for.

He had to put his foot down. It would've all fallen apart without authoritative means. The people did not want to fight.

If, you are saying, that Lenin had to force the people to fight, how could he have been working in their "interests." You can not have a revolution if the mass of people do no want it. Unless of course you use a wip and fun, which proves the point that the dictatorship of the proletariat is just another dictatorship of a ruling class who wish to use the working class for there own purpose.

If we kept the movement in the hands of the people, and enforced recallable officials, direct democracy, etc. this would be fine

Then why is it not possible to have an army which is not centralised. Why would an army command centre know what was needed in Scotland. The counter revolutionaries are not fighting in london, they are fighting in scotland. The militia in scot will know how best to fight them CR, and still keep iother areas up to date so they can plan there own defence, and indeed come and help. There is no need for a State to do this. And if you think there is PLEASE SPECIFY WHY?

[The Feral Underclass]

YOUR NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO ME!!!!

You talk about what would happen if the people did not want to fight an anarchist revolution, but the question is how would you get to that revolutionary situation in the first place. Of course if it was a small gurilla force trying to do things there own way it will not gain popular support. Even if it is a small uprising of anarchists, it will not gain popular support, of course the workers will not want to fight, they have no reason too. Revolution can only come from a mass movment of workers, who are politicised and organized.

When this mass movement begin an insurrection, they of course will want to fight, it is what they have educated and organized themselves for.

He had to put his foot down. It would've all fallen apart without authoritative means. The people did not want to fight.

If, you are saying, that Lenin had to force the people to fight, how could he have been working in their "interests." You can not have a revolution if the mass of people do not want it. Unless of course you use a wip and gun, which proves the point that the dictatorship of the proletariat is just another dictatorship of a ruling class who wish to use the working class for there own purpose.

If we kept the movement in the hands of the people, and enforced recallable officials, direct democracy, etc. this would be fine

For the thousandth time, please specify why you need a state to these things

Then why is it not possible to have an army which is not centralised. Why would an army command centre know what was needed in Scotland. The counter revolutionaries are not fighting in london, they are fighting in scotland. The militia in scot will know how best to fight the CR. They can organize there own defence. They can co ordinate there defence with other militias in the area, while still keeping communication with London, who no doubt will be defending themselves.

[elijahcraig]

The reason we need centralized command is that if we didn't the revolution would fall apart. Certain communities might not want to fight, and this could cause separation of power, which would lead to the downfall of the revolution.

Lenin worked in the interest of the people, he did not force them to fight, he used recruitment, etc. He didn't institute the draft or anything. Lenin did have to put his foot down on counter-revolutionary activity. I've stated that Lenin allowed for people to do what they wanted at first, they all moved south and formed rebel armies which fought for the White Army, or for themselves, for their own piece, not considering the whole picture.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mass movement...this is how you fight a revolution. not through a small group of revolutionaries. Clas consciounsness must come before a revolution, or then of course you are going to have people who do not want to fight, and of course the russian revolution had people going over to the whites, because they where not conscious, their revolutionary spirit was being dictated to them by the party.

If for arguments sake we say that a mass movement had started a revolution. Each area wants to fight, so therefore they can coordinate themselves accordingly...there is no need for this central command. You have said here that the only reason for it is so that the revolution dosnt fall apart. But if a movement was already conscious, and it was a mass movement, it would not fall apart because they would be fighting because they understood their material significance in society and would be wanting to change it. That is why they started the revolution in the first place. They wouldnt suddenly just stop would they, the whole point of the revolution would be to fight the capitalists.

[elijahcraig]

I agree a mass movement must be used, as Bakunin said. The problem is how we get there. The answer is through raising awareness, as Chomsky and Zinn have done through the years. The question is whether that is possible or not.

At the moment I am on the bubble of Anarchism and Marxism. I was an Anarchist for 3 years before I became a Marxist. I can't really decide which to choose. I can argue either way, they are both good theories.

[redstar2000]

At the moment I am on the bubble of Anarchism and Marxism.

Not necessarily the worst place to be, when you consider the alternatives.

The identification of the Leninist state with Marxism is wide-spread and...unfortunate, to say the least.

It occurs to me that this whole "defending the revolution" dispute could very well be based on a false premise...that the new revolutionary country is seriously vulnerable to attack from one or more major imperialist countries.

We make this assumption without thinking because all the revolutions of the 20th century took place in "backward" countries that were vulnerable to imperialist intervention.

But if Marx was right, the real communist revolutions have yet to appear...and when they do appear, they will happen in places like France and Germany, not Nepal or Colombia. For the United States to attempt military intervention against revolutionary France is...rather different from invading Iraq.

As to domestic counter-revolutionaries, it seems to me that popular militias are more than adequate for that purpose; had it not been for assistance from Italy and Germany, I think historians agree that Franco would have been defeated.

It is sometimes argued by more "libertarian" Leninists that Lenin "sacrificed the revolution to save the revolution"--that the measures the Bolsheviks took to defend the revolution ultimately paved the way for Stalin, Khrushchev, and the restoration of capitalism.

But what difference does it make how you lose if you still lose? I don't dispute Lenin's "good intentions" or, for that matter, Stalin's or Khrushchev's. The results were negative.

Finally, I agree that the anarchist conception of the "seizure of power" is too "fuzzy" at this point. If we are not to have a Leninist state, then we should be much clearer about what kinds of public authorities must be established when the bourgeoisie are driven from power. There may be no "state", no centralized entity vested with the power of command--but there most certainly will be public bodies of some sort that will be responsible for maintaining the functioning of a complex social order. It is not satisfactory to say simply that "it will happen"--there need to be conscious and thought-out practical measures to be taken on "day one" after the revolution, be they councilist, syndicalist, or some combination of both.

Otherwise, some gang of bureaucratic bastards will be back in power again before you can say "oh, shit!"

:cool:

[elijahcraig]

We may need to take from both theories, as you said. The defense, if this happened in the US or France or somewhere, would most likely be a civil war, one where the bourgeois are fighting back, along with a majority of the middle class, aided by the Imperialist Nations. I think that is the defense I'm meaning mostly, we made need centralized control for that. I'm not sure.

[Som]

Here are some different things on Makhno:

Ive read about makhno.
Neither link backs up your claim that 'makhno was setting up his own little kingdom' and even profitting off it.
We'll let it go for now.

Anarchists have NEVER put forward an arguement about how they will defend a revolution from capitalism. Indeed every time they have tried they have failed.

What? I quoted a few anarchists putting forward arguments about how they'll defend the revolution. I can find more arguments, i can type out my own. You're just not getting the answer you want to hear, which you won't, and its really quite irritating.

In spain, it was NOT a matter of what the anarchists did that led to the victory of the fascists, It was simply that the fascists had GUNS. The republican forces, and especially the anarchists (and trots) were deprived of the guns and soviet assistance.
Likewise, the fall of the ukraine to the soviets wasn't a matter of anarchist decentralization and disorder, it was just that the red army had more, of everything.

The Friends of Durutti (an anarchist group from the Spanish Civil War) saw the failures of anarchism in Spain and clearly stated there needed to be a "single common command" for the military i.e. centralisation.

No, they never called it a 'command' because the Friends of Durruti were an anarchist group. A national defense COUNCIL, or a revolutionary junta.

The words are important, because they can give no authoritarian orders. They never 'saw the failures of anarchism' instead its just the opposite, they were more revolutionary anarchists and wanted to continue the revolution that was being betrayed in the name of anti-fascist unity.

Organization and cooperation is NOT against anarchism, a revolutionary defense council isn't somehow unanarchist, as its built on the principles of anarchist and non-authoritarian organization. Centrally organized, maybe, but its sure as no state, and its still an anarchist institution.

Without centralisation, discipline and collective decisions how will the capitalists possibly be defeated?

An odd misunderstanding of yours that somehow collective descisions aren't anarchist. Do you expect anarchism to support an unorganized mob?

How would anarchist federations deal with federations that refused to go along with the decisions of the majority? Would they just let everyone do as they please even if meant the revolution would be crushed?

Do you genuinely think this would actually be much of a problem?
People fighting for their freedom will work together and make sacrifices.

People aren't a mindless selfish mob, they won't have a dissident federation just for the hell of it.

But what anarchism utterly fails to do is say how it is possible to get to that situation.

I think you said this 3 times in that post, Its was just as baseless each time.

They also had to drop their opposition to a "professional" separate army and actually create one, the Red Army.

I don't think this actually has anything to do with the merits of a democratic militia, instead i just think trotsky just wanted complete control. He did the same thing with the workers councils, abolished them as soon as he got the chance, with nothing to do with them being effective or not.

Lenin and the majority of the bolshevik party were opposed the "militarization of labour" that trotsky proposed and trotsky lost the vote. Later with hindsight he admitted he had been wrong, as with with many other things like the treaty of Brest Litovsk.

Being sent off to a concentration camp for showing up late to work is never right. "militarization of labor" is crap.

FACT - SPAIN 1936 - The anarchists led the workers movement in Catalonia breathakingly close to power. WHAT made them stop? They did not want the workers to seize control of the appartus of state, establish a workers state with a revolutionary government that would have been able to mash Franco.

WITH WHAT GUNS? They simply were outnumbered, they had no weapons to fight with, the few guns they can manage to produce themselves, and the soviet aid that the anarchists and the POUM didn't get very many of, and would've been deprived completely had they set up this 'workers state' of yours. The POUM, vaguely trots, never set about setting up a workers state either, though they had their sphere of influence, because they knew it would have just furthered the conflict between the anti-fascist forces.


why centralised? Because they needed to be disciplined and organised and co ordinate their attackes against the fascists. To say like that "ABC Anarchism article" says that the "worker in the mine" is the defender of the revolution is typically of ancarchism pandering to individualism. WAKE UP PEOPLE - individuals dont change the world - OPPRESSED CLASSES DO! !

And classes are not states. groups are not states, cooperation, coordination, collective descision making, and overall organization, do not need states.

Spain is not a case against anarchism and the friends of durruti group is not a case for marxism, again just the opposite.

[Severian]

[quote]Quote: from Som on 2:13 am on July 4, 2003
[b]I don't think this actually has anything to do with the merits of a democratic militia, instead i just think trotsky just wanted complete control. /quote]

And he was able to get everyone else to go along with this....why? Could it be because the experience of the Civil War convinced everyone, including those who initially favored a decentralized force, that a centralized Red Army was necessary?

It's a fact that centralized command greatly increases military effectiveness. You might as well argue for fighting with swords and spears as argue for a decentralized military force.

Re Spain, the anarchists didn't even practice what they preached - when the time came to practice it. They joined a capitalist coalition government in Catalonia. Garcia-Oliver was the "Minister of Justice."

The anarchist rank-and-file were, subjectively, revolutionary, as well as groups like the "Friends of Durruti." But when the chips are down, the anarchist theory of "don't take state power" has always led to supporting the capitalists' state power. In the crisis, everyone supports one class having state power or the other - fence-sitting becomes impossible.

[Som]

Next assertive statement because you said so?

I remember it being the minister of finance though, maybe thats in addition to, in a government dominated by a socialist party. Trivial though, a understandable mistake. They seemed to slowly buy the stalinist crap about holding off revolutionary ideals in the name of anti-fascist unity, tough circumstances.

I think i've covered everything else you said in my previous posts. maybe though, we'll go over this, to clear up some confusion.

It's a fact that centralized command greatly increases military effectiveness. You might as well argue for fighting with swords and spears as argue for a decentralized military force.

What exactly do you mean by a centralization? Centrally organized? or commanded by force centrally?

Anarchists aren't against a centrally organized force. Organization and command are a bit different.

But when the chips are down, the anarchist theory of "don't take state power" has always led to supporting the capitalists' state power.

Always? didn't happen in the ukraine, and Spain was a series of things gone wrong which had little to do with anarchism itself, instead the stalinists, republicans and fighting the fascists.

[Severian]

Quote: from Som on 5:25 am on July 5, 2003
What exactly do you mean by a centralization? Centrally organized? or commanded by force centrally?

Anarchists aren't against a centrally organized force. Organization and command are a bit different.


Gee, we can't have command by force in a military organization, can we? :shocked: Command by force! How awful! Next those communists will want the workers' army to use violence!

I'm here to tell you, all military organizations, centralized, decentralized, armies, local workers militia, guerilla bands, you name it, are commanded by force. If you have a problem with command or force, become a pacifist and stay out of military affairs.

[redstar2000]

And he was able to get everyone else to go along with this....why? Could it be because the experience of the Civil War convinced everyone, including those who initially favored a decentralized force, that a centralized Red Army was necessary?

Convinced everyone? I rather doubt that. Convinced some folks in the politburo and the central committee, perhaps...and intimidated everyone else, most likely.

No way to tell, in retrospect, of course.

It strikes me that there are two "levels" of discussion here. The first regards the civil wars and foreign invasions in Russia and Spain; the second is a question of military theory.

Within the first, it is suggested that an "anarchist military response" to the Whites and the foreign troops in Russia "would" have resulted in the victory of the counter-revolution; while the anarchists "were defeated" by Franco and his foreign allies in Spain.

Within the more theoretical discussion, it is suggested that since anarchists are "opposed to authority in principle", they will "invariably" succumb to a centrally commanded military force organized by counter-revolutionaries and their foreign supporters.

If I have summarized these objections fairly, then I think some questions are in order.

1. If (some) communists can learn from and correct the errors of Leninism, why is it not possible for serious anarchists to learn from the errors of Russia and Spain, presuming they can be clearly identified?

2. Are professional, disciplined soldiers inevitably successful against suitably armed but otherwise untrained civilians...even when the armed civilians vastly outnumber the soldiers?

3. How adequate is "traditional military doctrine"--designed for combat between professional armies--in a revolutionary situation or a civil war involving large numbers of civilian combatants?

4. Is a "decentralized military command structure" (officers elected by soldiers; higher officers elected by lower officers; no formal "general staff" with the power of command; etc.) necessarily unsuitable or inferior in a situation of revolutionary warfare?

I don't propose "decisive" answers for these questions; but, as I always do, I suggest suspicion of "received wisdom" from our rulers.

It is clearly in their class interests to make popular resistance look as "unrealistic" as possible...to paint themselves and their mercenaries as "invincible".

It may well turn out that some limited degree of centralization may be inevitable if and when we find ourselves in the real situation.

But it's nothing to boast about...or celebrate---much less criticize those who are against it. They might be right.

:cool:

[CubanFox]

Quote: from Captain Corelli's Mandolin

"Listen, if everybody is employed by the state, it's obvious that everyone gets paid by the state, yes? So all that tax that comes back to the state is money that came from the state in the first place, yes? So the state only ever gets back maybe one third of what it paid out last week. So this week the only way to pay everybody is to print more money, no? So it follows that in a communist state the money very soon becomes imaginary, because the state has nothing for that money to represent." He envisaged [the island's resident communist] risposting him thus: "Ah, [capitalist], the missing money comes from profits." and then, quick as a flash, he would come back with "But look, [communist], the only way the state can get a profit is by selling it abroad and the only way that this can happen is if the foreign states are capitalist and have a surplus from their taxes to buy things with. Or else you've got to sell to capitalist countries. So it's obvious that communism cannot survive without capitalism, and this makes it self-contradictory, because communism is supposed to be the end of capitalism, and moreover it is supposed to be internationalist. It follows from my argument that if the whole world went communist, the entire economy of the globe would grind to a halt within the space of a week. What do you say to that?"

What are your thoughts? I'm not sure how he got the idea that the state only gets 1/3 of the money back. Wouldn't it get 100% back, making the state break even each time?

[Som]

Gee, we can't have command by force in a military organization, can we? Command by force! How awful! Next those communists will want the workers' army to use violence!

I'm here to tell you, all military organizations, centralized, decentralized, armies, local workers militia, guerilla bands, you name it, are commanded by force. If you have a problem with command or force, become a pacifist and stay out of military affairs.

sarcasm, how nice of you.

So, are we to secure freedom from below with a force of command from above?

Sure this command can be a coordinated assault on a fascist barricade, but it can also be shooting striking workers, or in a more historically relevant example, destroying workers councils to replace them with single man management.

In the first case, if theyre in the militia in order to fight facsism, Why wouldn't they follow these orders? Are they going to dissent and stay home just because they can? No, they're there to fight for their freedom, lives and homes, both as individuals and groups, they came to fight the fascists and they will, So here, theres no command by force necesary.

In the second situation, something that actually happened quite a few times, you're command by force gets innocent people shot, and your army no longer becomes a tool to free the people, but just to give them new masters.

Its all rather unacceptable to the anarchists.


Redstars post was quite a good look at it all, the assumptions and uncertainties that come with it.