Anarchists vs Communists debate

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Anarchies and commies PLEASE debate here.

[RedAnarchist]

About what? Also, some anarchists are communists, which side do they take?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:00 pm
About what? Also, some anarchists are communists, which side do they take?
Probably about the transition period.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:00 pm
About what? Also, some anarchists are communists, which side do they take?
Their theoretical and ideological standpoints. It just takes one flick of one domino to make a mile of them fall. Therefore we mustn't turn this into a huge rampant argument.

However, I have the opinion that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology.

[Comrade Rage]

I hold the idea that anarchism is a reactionary ideology. Since what anarchism is about is going back to a time before government, as well as simply eliminating capitalism and market-economy, rather than replacing them with something, is it or is it not a reactionary ideology?

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:15 am
However, I have the opinion that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology.
What's your basis for that, exactly?

If you say Lenin I will eat you.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 11, 2007 09:35 am
I hold the idea that anarchism is a reactionary ideology. Since what anarchism is about is going back to a time before government, as well as simply eliminating capitalism and market-economy, rather than replacing them with something, is it or is it not a reactionary ideology?
What teh fuck?
Going back in time?
Are you sure you don't mean primitivism.
If not, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[rouchambeau]

What should I do if I consider myself both?

[Labor Shall Rule]

There are far too many debates to have another.

I think, once again, that more binds us together than divides us. I think we both have emphasized the necessity of creating a revolutionary organization; a militant union, a club, a league, or a political party that will spread agitational literature and propaganda, that will be based on the correct theoretical and historical perspective in order to lead the entire class in the right direction. I think we both have understood the underlying importance of workers' control, and most of all, workers' self-emancipation.

But then again, you do get a few a crew of anarchists that believes the proletariat is 'marginalized' and that Marxism is 'dead'. They abandon a class perspective completely.

[Bilan]

I think, once again, that more binds us together than divides us. I think we both have emphasized the necessity of creating a revolutionary organization; a militant union, a club, a league, or a political party that will spread agitational literature and propaganda, that will be based on the correct theoretical and historical perspective in order to lead the entire class in the right direction. I think we both have understood the underlying importance of workers' control, and most of all, workers' self-emancipation.

Quoted for truth.


But then again, you do get a few a crew of anarchists that believes the proletariat is 'marginalized' and that Marxism is 'dead'. They abandon a class perspective completely.

Suggesting Marxism is dead doesn't necessarily mean you abandon class analysis. It can mean that. It often just means that there are aspects of Marxist ideology that are no longer relevant. (I don't really agree with that, though).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 11, 2007 12:35 am
I hold the idea that anarchism is a reactionary ideology. Since what anarchism is about is going back to a time before government, as well as simply eliminating capitalism and market-economy, rather than replacing them with something, is it or is it not a reactionary ideology?
Anarchism doesn't mean those things at all.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 10, 2007 11:35 pm
Since what anarchism is about is going back to a time before government,
Although it's semantic, I'd argue that its about going post-government not pre, As is Leninism. Leninism seeks to faze the state out and make it "wither away" ...


as well as simply eliminating capitalism and market-economy, rather than replacing them with something, is it or is it not a reactionary ideology?

Anarchism or (libertarian communism) believes that workers should organise their factories, workplaces and communities into democratic councils or "soviets" like they did in the first moments of the Russian revolutions. In fact "all power to the soviets" was an anarchist slogan, later adopted by the Bolsheviks. These councils can then take over management of the economy, and all other areas of the society.

The end goals of Anarchism are for all intents and purposes exactly the same as any other form of communism; to achieve a stateless, classless society, organised along the lines of "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs" (which I will point out, is a quote from Bakunin)

The most significant difference between Libertarian Communism (including anarchism) and Authoritarian Communism, is the issue of the state. The Authoritarian communists argue that the state can be used temporarily as a tool by the workers. Anarchists argue that holding the state apparatus instantly leads to new class divides, and corruption adding "Even if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power. Within a year he would be as murderous as the tsar" - Of course, Bakunins was wrong, it only took two months.

But to argue that anarchism has no plan beyond getting rid of the state is absurd. Ignorant, and if I am perfectly honest, very annoying. Anarchism has been put into practice on national scales before, and is clearly more sophisticated than the punk image it's achieved today (but is gradually losing).

Sorry If I come across a little strong. If you would like to learn more about what Anarchism is then I'd be more than happy to provide you with some basic explanations. To begin with, here are three pages you should read from Libcom.org (Libertarian communism) before you decide to embarrass yourself again.

Libertarian Communism - introduction (http://libcom.org/thought/libertarian-communism-capitalism-direct-action-introduction)

Spainish Civil war (http://libcom.org/intro/spanish-civil-war)

Anarcho- Syndicalism an introduction (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction)

[Bilan]

Damn fine post, Urban Spirit.

but,


"Even if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power. Within a year he would be as murderous as the tsar" - Of course, Bakunins was wrong, it only took two months.

Well, he did say within a year :P

[Faux Real]

It seems to me the two ideologues really should be building bridges to help unify the revolutionary movement rather than burning them. (directed towards comments like those of Comrade Crum)

Hell, maybe even come up with a new ideology that is a blend of both traditional Marxist communism and anarchism if possible. (small edit--I guess that would be anarcho-communism though if am not mistaken??)

Healthy debate is always fine though, which is what this forum serves a purpose for, besides the nonsensical chit-chat forum, of course.

As for me, I consider myself both like roucheambeau and would support both.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+September 10, 2007 04:46 pm--> (Tierra y Libertad @ September 10, 2007 04:46 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 09:15 am
However, I have the opinion that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology.
What's your basis for that, exactly? [/b]
One quick thing before I go --

If Koretsu is from the US he must mean he sees kids spraypaint :AO: 's around their private elementary schools having no idea what it means. Otherwise, I still wouldn't dare call it petty-borurgeois ideology.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:57 am
It seems to me the two ideologues really should be building bridges to help unify the revolutionary movement rather than burning them. (directed towards comments like those of Comrade Crum)
I think that the ideological and theoretical differences between those ideas that wish to preserve the state and those that wish for immediate workers power are unbridgeable. The theoretical analysis and practical course of action that leads from it are not only very different but in many cases directly opposed. In cases where the Bolsheviks have got power they have massacred the Anarchist movement without mercy, and we cannot let those mistakes go unlearnt.

I do however feel that different tendencies on the authoritarian left can unite, to an extent. As can those on the Libertarian left. Like, Council communism, Syndicalism, Anarcho Communism etc. Infact, these tendencies already work together very well in most cases. The problems arise when they try and formally organise into one body.

So, there's debate over whether having smaller (but theoretically unified) movements, would work better than having them merge into one great big mess. Artificially pulling tendencies together could just lead to longer debates and less action. I don't think we want a merger or formal unification. We should strive for the greatest level of cooperation and coordination, achievable between the different groups. But I stress again, that I do not think this can work between the Authorotarian and Libertarian tendancies, just the various ideologies within them.


Hell, maybe even come up with a new ideology that is a blend of both traditional Marxist communism and anarchism if possible.

Anarchist communism certainly takes a lot of influence from Marxism and also, many anarchist theorists. But is not some "middle ground" alternative. It is certainly on the Libertarian side of the split and in direct opposition to the Authoritarian left.

[Bilan]

If Koretsu is from the US he must mean he sees kids spraypaint :AO: 's around their private elementary schools having no idea what it means.

Even so, that wouldn't make it petty-bourgeois.


Otherwise, I still wouldn't dare call it petty-borurgeois ideology.

:)

[spartan]

that was a great post by you before Urban Spirit! i especially liked the quote from bakunin. i have often had debates with people about why i think authoritarin communism is wrong for the proletariat and the revolution and why libertarian communism or anarchism is much better. where there is authority there is no freedom!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 11, 2007 10:25 am
Even so, that wouldn't make it petty-bourgeois.

The reason people like 'CRUM' come out with a-historical and absurd comments like "anarchism is petit - bourgeoisie" is because they have a puddle-depth understanding of anarchism as a theory, and it's role in history, from the breakaway of the Libertarian communists in the first international to today.

If your understanding of anarchism goes no further than to label it as; 'a social movement that seeks the greatest amount of economic and social liberty for all, and its ultimate goal is to abolish the state' (as people like crum do) then I can see why you might be tempted to label it as petit-bourgeoisie. A lot of middle class people are concerned about the states interference in their everyday lives. And this mindless form of "anarchy" appeals to teenagers who want to rebel.

But, These 'adherents to anarchism' who come from the middle class, or follow it as a means of being rebellious, know about as much of anarchism as Crum does. Anarchism as I have said, is about workers self organisation, the seizing of the means of production, and the creation of a communist society without bosses. And there should be no place for anti-organisational teens, Middle class adventurists or Leninists in our movement.

[RedStaredRevolution]

haha have you realized theres no "communists" in here?

while i agree with most of your guys points and do think some debate on the differences can be fun i think its been done on here so many times is sorta pointless and does create some sense of sectarianism. every single time someone makes one of these threads it becomes an argument between authoritarians and libertarians with the exact same points made.

[Guifes]

haha have you realized theres no "communists" in here?

I guess that's because most anarchists posting on a revolutionary left forum ought to know a thing or two about communism, whereas most commies here don't seem to know shit about anarchism.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:41 pm

haha have you realized theres no "communists" in here?

I guess that's because most anarchists posting on a revolutionary left forum ought to know a thing or two about communism, whereas most commies here don't seem to know shit about anarchism.
idk, most of the communists on this forum tend to know what anarchism actually is (they just dont agree with it) but theres a few who dont have a clue what theyre talking about. :P

also id just like to make clear that when i said "communists" i was just refering to authoritarian communist. just incase someone didnt get that.

[Aurora]

This thread isnt going to go anywhere.Its already filled with loads of incorrect information.

Learn about both,pick whichever you think makes sense.It's not a hard choice.

[Fawkes]

Nearly every thread is already a debate between anarchists and communists. Just learn about both and their history and go whichever way you think is best.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Great posts Urban Spirit.

To label the anarchist movement as petit-bourgeois, is not only to be uneducated on the subject of anarchism, but also on the entire labor movement altogether.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 10, 2007 11:35 pm
I hold the idea that anarchism is a reactionary ideology. Since what anarchism is about is going back to a time before government, as well as simply eliminating capitalism and market-economy, rather than replacing them with something, is it or is it not a reactionary ideology?
yeah, and being anti-war is reactionary because its about going back to a time before war. Being anti-Exploitation is reactoinary because it goes back to a time before exploitation. You can't put ideas in reactionary, conservative, progressive and revolutoinary all the time, because things arn't that clear cut.

If something is harmful (like the state), taking it away is a posetive thing in the eyes of Anarchists, calling it reactionary or whatever does'nt change that.

Anarchists have always had something to replace Capitalism with, and much has been written on the subject.

Calling Anarchism Petty-Bourgeousie is rediculous, most of the time it is put on Anarchists because the respect those who wish to work outside collectives, independantly, in which case I don't see why that would be negative, the petty-bourgeousie label.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 11, 2007 10:06 am--> (rev0lt @ September 11, 2007 10:06 am)
Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 10, 2007 04:46 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 09:15 am
However, I have the opinion that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology.
What's your basis for that, exactly?
One quick thing before I go --

If Koretsu is from the US he must mean he sees kids spraypaint :AO: 's around their private elementary schools having no idea what it means. Otherwise, I still wouldn't dare call it petty-borurgeois ideology. [/b]
:P Yeah. I see that all the time. The morons. Actually, it's not petty-bourgeois. I just said that for an argument to progress. Anarchism believes that the masses should overthrow the government and immediately establish basically the collective classless society right away. However, they don't realise that it would be inevitable to establish another government, according to Lenin, which is specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat, so the people can effectively rule and defend themselves against the imperialists, counterrevolutionaries, and reactionaries.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 10, 2007 11:35 pm
I hold the idea that anarchism is a reactionary ideology. Since what anarchism is about is going back to a time before government, as well as simply eliminating capitalism and market-economy, rather than replacing them with something, is it or is it not a reactionary ideology?
You are referring to Primitivism or Anarcho-Primitivism. Anarchism uses a socialist gift economy that works exactly like Socialism in an economic sense, with poltiical elements of Anarchism; "An absense of a master, a sovereign"- Proudhon. All hierarchy is abolished and people co-operate as complete equals.

I find Anarchism to just be a synonym to anti-statist Socialism, personally.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by Koretsu+September 11, 2007 08:17 pm--> (Koretsu @ September 11, 2007 08:17 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:06 am

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 10, 2007 04:46 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 09:15 am
However, I have the opinion that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology.
What's your basis for that, exactly?
One quick thing before I go --

If Koretsu is from the US he must mean he sees kids spraypaint :AO: 's around their private elementary schools having no idea what it means. Otherwise, I still wouldn't dare call it petty-borurgeois ideology.
:P Yeah. I see that all the time. The morons. Actually, it's not petty-bourgeois. I just said that for an argument to progress. Anarchism believes that the masses should overthrow the government and immediately establish basically the collective classless society right away. However, they don't realise that it would be inevitable to establish another government, according to Lenin, which is specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat, so the people can effectively rule and defend themselves against the imperialists, counterrevolutionaries, and reactionaries. [/b]
cause you know how much respect so many anarchists have for lenin :rolleyes:

[Saint Street Revolution]

What is there to debate, anyway? Since when have Anarchists and Communists had such immense clashes that require one thread to hold all of it?

[Raúl Duke]

However, they don't realise that it would be inevitable to establish another government, according to Lenin, which is specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat...

I don't have a problem with a "dictatorship of the proletariat" nor with the "rule of the people"

It's that the new state seems to be a "dictatorship over the proletariat", barely of the proletariat.

However, the biggest problem of all is that none of these states ever reached communism. If they did I wouldn't care what the previous state looked like.

But than again, the nature of the state and especially of the society usually seems to determine the future of the society.

Like RGacky3 said, we do have ideas what to replace capitalism and the "state" (in commas because of the differing definitions). I believe our ideas are closer to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" than whatever Lenin, no matter his honest good intentions, put in practice; especially after his death.

[Random Precision]

I don't have a problem with a "dictatorship of the proletariat" nor with the "rule of the people"

It's that the new state seems to be a "dictatorship over the proletariat", barely of the proletariat.

However, the biggest problem of all is that none of these states ever reached communism. If they did I wouldn't care what the previous state looked like.

But than again, the nature of the state and especially of the society usually seems to determine the future of the society.

Like RGacky3 said, we do have ideas what to replace capitalism and the "state" (in commas because of the differing definitions). I believe our ideas are closer to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" than whatever Lenin, no matter his honest good intentions, put in practice; especially after his death

So what is your exact problem with the "state"? What do you think should be done about it after the revolution?

I believe that in any sort of revolution against capitalism, you would have to form a "state" to protect the revolutionary gains. Like the Anarcho-Syndicalists in Catalonia. They took over most of the bourgeoisie state's functions after the fascist uprising was crushed.

Much of where I get crosswise with anarchists is, once again, the history. In Russia, the Bolsheviks, for all their mistakes, followed the masses' demand for revolution and were willing to do what it took to defend it. In Spain, however, the anarchists made the conscious decision NOT to defend the revolution. Much of the source for that decision lies, I believe, in anarchist theory. It put the brakes on them taking power to defend the revolution, and they ended up becoming the Stalinists' cheerleaders. Understand here I speak of the leadership, not the rank and file.

[Random Precision]

But allow me to add that I believe these differences are of low importance, especially during the current ebb of the revolutionary tide. While I don't think it would be possible or even advisable for Anarchists and Marxists to join together in the same organizations, this should not prevent us from agitating for revolution together and presenting a united front (did I get that term right?) in such activities.

[Bilan]

Actually, it's not petty-bourgeois. I just said that for an argument to progress.
<_<


However, they don&#39;t realise that it would be inevitable to establish another government, according to Lenin,

Any time people quote Lenin, or any other Bolshevik on this topic, I immediately lose interest in this debate.
If you can&#39;t prove it through your own logical analysis of actual anarchist theory, not Lenin&#39;s theory on anarchist theory, you&#39;re just regurgitating the same old bollocks, and not contributing to any sort of debate.


so the people can effectively rule and defend themselves against the imperialists, counterrevolutionaries, and reactionaries.

This comes down to your definition of the "State".
If you mean the Dictatorship of the proletariat, Anarchists aren&#39;t really against this concept.
If you&#39;re refering to the dictatorship over the proletariat, then they/we are. For pretty obvious reasons. :)


Originally posted by Saint Street Revolution
What is there to debate, anyway? Since when have Anarchists and Communists had such immense clashes that require one thread to hold all of it?

Petty sectarianism is pretty common within the revolutionary left, particularly between Leninists (and the various other groups of that nature) and anarchists.
It doesn&#39;t always occur, but do a little history and you&#39;ll see it come to light.
I suggest "Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder" as a start. :lol:



I believe that in any sort of revolution against capitalism, you would have to form a "state" to protect the revolutionary gains. Like the Anarcho-Syndicalists in Catalonia.

I don&#39;t have a sound history when it comes to the Spanish Civil War, and the Anarcho-Syndicalists in it (although, I do have some) but I think your definition of the state might be somewhat different to what Anarchists are against.


Spain, however, the anarchists made the conscious decision NOT to defend the revolution.

...er? What?



Much of the source for that decision lies, I believe, in anarchist theory.

Do go on&#33; I would love to hear what you base this on. What piece of anarchist theory, that is.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+September 11, 2007 12:10 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ September 11, 2007 12:10 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 06:00 pm
About what? Also, some anarchists are communists, which side do they take?
Probably about the transition period. [/b]
Iam a marxist communist, and I do not believe in a "transitionary stage" in the form of "socialism". There will be a "transitionary period", but it is called "revolution".

[Raúl Duke]

So what is your exact problem with the "state"? What do you think should be done about it after the revolution?

I believe that in any sort of revolution against capitalism, you would have to form a "state" to protect the revolutionary gains.

That&#39;s the thing. The "state" issue is probably just a semantic game.

The anarchists in Spain formed something like a "state", because it replaced its functions.There were militias formed, they did the function of defense; etc.

Whatever they formed could be called a "state" based on other definitions; but, it wouldn&#39;t fit in the anarchist definition of state.

A unity of worker&#39;s councils/collectives could be called a "state", depending on your definition, and could surely be called a dictatorship of the proletariat (at least in comparison to other examples; but I think it could be done better.)

However, I&#39;m not sure of the exact nature of the CNT-FAI. It could have been a centralized union or not...I&#39;m not sure.


however, the anarchists made the conscious decision NOT to defend the revolution. Much of the source for that decision lies, I believe, in anarchist theory. It put the brakes on them taking power to defend the revolution,

Don&#39;t understand the last part...but this part I think I do.

I think you are referring when the "anarchists" of the CNT-FAI (the leadership of the CNT-FAI) decided to join in a United Front with the Republic instead of overthrowing it and forming a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Partly, this happened because of timidity.

They thought the British warships would bombard them or something to that affect. There was something similar in the Paris Commune as well, the communards worried about their public image if they were to steal the bank of Paris, so they didn&#39;t. The money in the bank was than transfered to fund the counter-revolution.

Although Yes, in a way, it could lie on the lack of "specificity" in anarchist theory. There have been "anarchists" who have done things that are questionable yet very little "shouts them out". For example, the CNT-FAI anarchists who were part of the government. The only group of anarchist who seemed to voiced their criticism of this (and other criticisms) during the time was the Friends of Durruti group.

There are also modern examples, I think there were some "anarchists" who supported Kerry as a lesser evil in 2004.

IF they were more specific with their theory n praxis they should considered those "anarchists" as reactionaries instead and eliminated them.


n Russia, the Bolsheviks, for all their mistakes, followed the masses&#39; demand for revolution and were willing to do what it took to defend it.

There were 2 parts in the Russian Revolution.

One was a spontaneous revolution that caught the revolutionary groups "by surprise"

The other was more like a Coup, in "the name of the Soviets"; who were than asked to accept this action after it was done.

Although I agreed they did defend their gains.


There will be a "transitional period", but it is called "revolution".

I agree with this. During the revolution and maybe shortly after it, we would be working towards communism. Communism isn&#39;t going to start at day one, but we are going to work towards Communism from day 1

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Saint Street [email protected] 12, 2007 12:53 am
What is there to debate, anyway? Since when have Anarchists and Communists had such immense clashes that require one thread to hold all of it?
Im sorry but in history thousands have died in conflicts between Libertarian and Authorotarian communists. As already stated our mid term goles are directly opposed to eachother. So there clearly is enough ground on which to debate.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:21 am
But allow me to add that I believe these differences are of low importance, especially during the current ebb of the revolutionary tide. While I don&#39;t think it would be possible or even advisable for Anarchists and Marxists to join together in the same organizations, this should not prevent us from agitating for revolution together and presenting a united front (did I get that term right?) in such activities.
What would be the platform of a &#39;united front&#39;? and how would it work in a practical way?

We already both go to defend the same hospital closures, pickets, and march against this or that together. The point is that our propaganda, our messages, our analysis and our tactics are all different, and contradictory. Workers who are affiliated to neither side will have to choose which one they think works best in their interests. Consequently we are competing. And when things escalate we will, as we have always done, fight.

I can&#39;t see a unification of two contradictory and directly opposing ideas working in any real way. It&#39;s not even a utopian dream, its a bad idea even if it was doable. The Anarchists tried to work with the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, and consequently had 600 members killed and imprisoned, their offices bombed, and their publications and unions banned. The Black guards failed to defend the workplaces from Cheka agitators, and Makhnos military could not defend the free soviets of Ukraine from the Red army invasion. We have to help nurture, and then defend democratic self-organisation.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by RedStaredRevolution+September 12, 2007 12:52 am--> (RedStaredRevolution @ September 12, 2007 12:52 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:17 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:06 am

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 10, 2007 04:46 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 09:15 am
However, I have the opinion that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology.
What&#39;s your basis for that, exactly?
One quick thing before I go --

If Koretsu is from the US he must mean he sees kids spraypaint :AO: &#39;s around their private elementary schools having no idea what it means. Otherwise, I still wouldn&#39;t dare call it petty-borurgeois ideology.
:P Yeah. I see that all the time. The morons. Actually, it&#39;s not petty-bourgeois. I just said that for an argument to progress. Anarchism believes that the masses should overthrow the government and immediately establish basically the collective classless society right away. However, they don&#39;t realise that it would be inevitable to establish another government, according to Lenin, which is specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat, so the people can effectively rule and defend themselves against the imperialists, counterrevolutionaries, and reactionaries.
cause you know how much respect so many anarchists have for lenin :rolleyes: [/b]
Well I have respect for anarchists&#33; T_T They have an actual superhero (V from V for Vendetta). What do we have? Some martyred guy that had a bad haircut, and a bunch of Cold War villians.

But seriously, and obviously, we communists have, unlike anarchists, achieved some things in our ideology: A proletarian state and socialism.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:25 am
But seriously, and obviously, we communists have, unlike anarchists, achieved some things in our ideology: A proletarian state and socialism.
And where would this state be?

[Nusocialist]

But seriously, and obviously, we communists have, unlike anarchists, achieved some things in our ideology: A proletarian state and socialism. Those states are nothing to brag about, in fact they have done far more damage to socialism than anything else even anarchists get the constant references to gulags and millions dead if we mention the term socialist.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Stop with this bullshit:


But seriously, and obviously, we communists have, unlike anarchists, achieved some things in our ideology: A proletarian state and socialism.

Unless you are a Stalinist and you think the past Socialist states have done anything for Communism other than damage it&#39;s reputation and make it into this stereotyped ideology that "is opposed to freedom"? Whilst the only threat Anarchism has faced over the years to losing their real meaning is high school kids scribbling :A:&#39;s on a wall.

True Communism has never existed, or came close. Ever.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:25 am
But seriously, and obviously, we communists have, unlike anarchists, achieved some things in our ideology: A proletarian state and socialism.
Arguable.

This "proletarian" state you talk about (before the outbreak of the civil war) banned non-bolshevik unions and workers organisations. The Checka broke picket lines and smashed up union meetings. They bombed Libertarian Communist offices, and took decision making power away from the workers councils and gave them to a committee of foreign capitalist advisers. Meanwhile Anarchists managed to liberate Ukraine from the Austro-Hungarian army, and run a system of democratic workers and peasants soviets until the Red army invaded and defeated the Anarchist army.

"while workers tended to imagine that &#39;workers&#39; control&#39; meant they would run things, the Bolsheviks&#39; conception was rather different. Lenin spoke at the conference, and had this to say: "(...) a majority of workers should enter all responsible institutions and (...) the administration should render an account of its actions to all the most authoritative workers&#39; organisations." [9] " (source at the end of my post)

Now while the Anarchist Successes in Ukraine, Spain, Mexico and Korea were not long lived. They have one common trait, that they were all destroyed from the outside, not internal faults. And in many cases these external aggressors were leninists.

Anarchism has not been put into practice on the same scale as Leninism, but where it has been implemented, it worked. Unlike Leninism, Libertarian Communism does not have a 100% failure rate, over an 80 year period...

Some links I reccomend you read;

Factory Committees in the Russian revolution (http://libcom.org/library/factory-committees-russian-revolution-rod-jones)

Worker unrest Bolsheviks response (http://libcom.org/library/worker-unrest-bolsheviks-response-vladimir-brovkin)

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+September 12, 2007 10:29 am--> (Red_Anarchist @ September 12, 2007 10:29 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 11:25 am
But seriously, and obviously, we communists have, unlike anarchists, achieved some things in our ideology: A proletarian state and socialism.
And where would this state be? [/b]
The CRZ (compact revolutionary zone) liberated by the Maoists in India, areas in the Phillipines liberated by the New People&#39;s Army, and various regions in Asia, and Latin America.

[Random Precision]

TyL and Johnny Darko:

The specific decision I was referring to was the decision of the CNT leadership not to take over governance of Catalonia after Companys offered it to them*. The great majority of the CNT&#39;s leadership voted against doing that on the basis that it would be imposing an "anarchist dictatorship". There was only one prominent leader (I believe it was Oliver, but I could be mistaken) who advocated taking power. I believe that by leaving the bourgeois state apparatus intact, the anarcho-syndicalists left in place the seeds of their eventual destruction, along with the revolution. This is why I say that they refused to defend the revolutionary gains. Later, they would show this even more during the May Days, but by then it would have been too late to turn back the clock in any case.

Perhaps I am mistaken when I said that anarchist theory was to blame for this. I do remember reading an interview with one of the leaders who said that taking power would have been to go against all their convictions as anarchists. I&#39;ll try to track that down.

As for the Friends of Durruti, I have perhaps more respect for them than any other group involved in the Spanish revolution. Unfortunately, they were quite marginal and were unable to effect any change within the CNT to turn it back toward a revolutionary position. Furthermore, I understand the CNT disavowed them at least in part due to their "Marxist-sounding rhetoric".

* His offer was not really a necessary condition for them to take power, although it was a plus.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by Koretsu+September 12, 2007 06:25 am--> (Koretsu @ September 12, 2007 06:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:52 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:17 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:06 am

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 10, 2007 04:46 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 09:15 am
However, I have the opinion that anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology.
What&#39;s your basis for that, exactly?
One quick thing before I go --

If Koretsu is from the US he must mean he sees kids spraypaint :AO: &#39;s around their private elementary schools having no idea what it means. Otherwise, I still wouldn&#39;t dare call it petty-borurgeois ideology.
:P Yeah. I see that all the time. The morons. Actually, it&#39;s not petty-bourgeois. I just said that for an argument to progress. Anarchism believes that the masses should overthrow the government and immediately establish basically the collective classless society right away. However, they don&#39;t realise that it would be inevitable to establish another government, according to Lenin, which is specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat, so the people can effectively rule and defend themselves against the imperialists, counterrevolutionaries, and reactionaries.
cause you know how much respect so many anarchists have for lenin :rolleyes:
Well I have respect for anarchists&#33; T_T They have an actual superhero (V from V for Vendetta). What do we have? Some martyred guy that had a bad haircut, and a bunch of Cold War villians.

But seriously, and obviously, we communists have, unlike anarchists, achieved some things in our ideology: A proletarian state and socialism. [/b]
I really meant respect for his theories and what he put in to practice. i have no beef with leninists or even maoists in general. what i was talking about was the ideology of lenin.

as to your second state i believe others have addressed that.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:02 pm

The CRZ (compact revolutionary zone) liberated by the Maoists in India, areas in the Phillipines liberated by the New People&#39;s Army, and various regions in Asia, and Latin America.
If you call the war torn specks of land that these loony Maoists have "liberated" a state then I we can slap that moniker on just about anything.

In any case, if any of these regions were to place "Socialism" in practise, I&#39;m sure their own politicians would make short work of it before long.

History proves it.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 12, 2007 08:22 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 12, 2007 08:22 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 01:02 pm

The CRZ (compact revolutionary zone) liberated by the Maoists in India, areas in the Phillipines liberated by the New People&#39;s Army, and various regions in Asia, and Latin America.
If you call the war torn specks of land that these loony Maoists have "liberated" a state then I we can slap that moniker on just about anything.

In any case, if any of these regions were to place "Socialism" in practise, I&#39;m sure their own politicians would make short work of it before long.

History proves it. [/b]
Fine, there are no formal nation-states, but there were, and will be. The Maoists are winning their fight little by little in India, and will eventually win in Nepal.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 12, 2007 09:18 am
What would be the platform of a &#39;united front&#39;? and how would it work in a practical way?

We already both go to defend the same hospital closures, pickets, and march against this or that together. The point is that our propaganda, our messages, our analysis and our tactics are all different, and contradictory. Workers who are affiliated to neither side will have to choose which one they think works best in their interests. Consequently we are competing. And when things escalate we will, as we have always done, fight.

I can&#39;t see a unification of two contradictory and directly opposing ideas working in any real way. It&#39;s not even a utopian dream, its a bad idea even if it was doable. The Anarchists tried to work with the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, and consequently had 600 members killed and imprisoned, their offices bombed, and their publications and unions banned. The Black guards failed to defend the workplaces from Cheka agitators, and Makhnos military could not defend the free soviets of Ukraine from the Red army invasion. We have to help nurture, and then defend democratic self-organisation.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I agree with you, save for some of the historical issues, the debating of which I am kind of tired. Although it&#39;s unfortunate that things have to be this way.

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:06 pm
TyL and Johnny Darko:

The specific decision I was referring to was the decision of the CNT leadership not to take over governance of Catalonia after Companys offered it to them*. The great majority of the CNT&#39;s leadership voted against doing that on the basis that it would be imposing an "anarchist dictatorship". There was only one prominent leader (I believe it was Oliver, but I could be mistaken) who advocated taking power. I believe that by leaving the bourgeois state apparatus intact, the anarcho-syndicalists left in place the seeds of their eventual destruction, along with the revolution. This is why I say that they refused to defend the revolutionary gains. Later, they would show this even more during the May Days, but by then it would have been too late to turn back the clock in any case.

Perhaps I am mistaken when I said that anarchist theory was to blame for this. I do remember reading an interview with one of the leaders who said that taking power would have been to go against all their convictions as anarchists. I&#39;ll try to track that down.

As for the Friends of Durruti, I have perhaps more respect for them than any other group involved in the Spanish revolution. Unfortunately, they were quite marginal and were unable to effect any change within the CNT to turn it back toward a revolutionary position. Furthermore, I understand the CNT disavowed them at least in part due to their "Marxist-sounding rhetoric".

* His offer was not really a necessary condition for them to take power, although it was a plus.
I really ain&#39;t that knowledgable on the Spanish Revolution (syndicat on the other hand...)

I think most class-struggle anarchists (at least those in this board) know (or should) of that timid mistake and are usually more align to the position of the Friends of Durruti.

I think one of the major issues we might have (i.e. I mean the problems in each camp, not the problems between them) is that we have to learn from past experience. I, and I think most of the anarchists here, have noticed from the experience of the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune is that we should not be timid about taking power or doing any revolutionary action (like sacking the Bank of Paris). However, one reason why there is so much spite now between Leninists and Anarchists is what they learned from the Russian Revolution (an example would be in Urban Spirit&#39;s posts; which discussed what the "socialist state" did to Libertarian Communist movement.)

I don&#39;t think this debate is going anywhere constructive because it&#39;s really "open" to many topics....

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:47 pm
I think one of the major issues we might have (i.e. I mean the problems in each camp, not the problems between them) is that we have to learn from past experience. I, and I think most of the anarchists here, have noticed from the experience of the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune is that we should not be timid about taking power or doing any revolutionary action (like sacking the Bank of Paris). However, one reason why there is so much spite now between Leninists and Anarchists is what they learned from the Russian Revolution (an example would be in Urban Spirit&#39;s posts; which discussed what the "socialist state" did to Libertarian Communist movement.)
I won&#39;t try to speak for what the Bolsheviks did to the various anarchist groups, as I don&#39;t know enough about the circumstances surrounding them.

But for the record, I do believe that they made a number of mistakes before Stalin took over. War communism was one. Banning the other parties who sided with the workers, such as the Anarchists, Left Mensheviks, and Left Socialist Revolutionaries was another, although I believe that they had reasonable justification at the time for banning at least the last two. Banning factions within the party was also a huge mistake, one which caused their demise.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Urban Spirit, how (theoretically speaking) does the "idea" of Leninism necessarily lead to the destruction of workers&#39; self-organization?

Lenin&#39;s theories are not laws chizzled in stone. They are tactical, to be understood within their own specific circumstances. He was operating in a backwards, illiterate backwater where there was hardly any industrial superstructure, and where small, homescale production was rampant, which was not even able to provide a decent standard of living for the entire population. He never saw central planning as an immediate end to itself, but rather, as a means to develop the material and cultural level of the proletariat altogether, which was tied to the historical objectives of the country.

However, I think that it came to a point in which it was justified to through off the yog of their regime. But I don&#39;t think it was the theory of Bolshevism that demoralized the workers, but rather, the capitalist infiltration of the entire party; the facilitation of middle-levels of the organization by bureaucratic cadres, who gained their position out of fortune, rather than out of their own theoretical and practical talent. It was not the theory, but the material and historical context that dragged the entire party down. Even Lenin acknowledged that "if we take Moscow with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and if we take the huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can be truthfully said that the Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth, they are not directing, they are being directed." In other words, the entire party was hijacked. It was out of their subjective desires whether they wished to maintain proletarian totality, due to the weakness of the class as a whole.

[RGacky3]

Lenin&#39;s theories are not laws chizzled in stone. They are tactical, to be understood within their own specific circumstances. He was operating in a backwards, illiterate backwater where there was hardly any industrial superstructure, and where small, homescale production was rampant, which was not even able to provide a decent standard of living for the entire population. He never saw central planning as an immediate end to itself, but rather, as a means to develop the material and cultural level of the proletariat altogether, which was tied to the historical objectives of the country.


The thing is, that all the revolutoins after the Russians, that were inspired by Lenin and claimed to follow Lenins thoughts, ended up breaking up workers self-organization, centralizing power and commiting political repression. With that in mind its hard to say that what happend in Russia was just because of the circumstances, because circumstances were different in all those revolutions, but they had one thing in common, they followed Lenins ideas. But as was said before, Lenins actions speak volumes more than his words, as do Maos.


but rather, the capitalist infiltration of the entire party; the facilitation of middle-levels of the organization by bureaucratic cadres, who gained their position out of fortune, rather than out of their own theoretical and practical talent.

I have yet to be shown how that happend at all, how Capitalists (i.e. landowners, business owners, and the such), were able to infiltrate the party, when many of those were being killed and dispossesed, and many fled the country out of fear, and how they could really have a major influence when almost total power and the last say was in the politburos hands.


War communism was one. Banning the other parties who sided with the workers, such as the Anarchists, Left Mensheviks, and Left Socialist Revolutionaries was another, although I believe that they had reasonable justification at the time for banning at least the last two. Banning factions within the party was also a huge mistake, one which caused their demise.

As I&#39;ve said before, those were not mistakes, they were planned moves by the Bolshevik higher ups to consolidate power.


The specific decision I was referring to was the decision of the CNT leadership not to take over governance of Catalonia after Companys offered it to them*. The great majority of the CNT&#39;s leadership voted against doing that on the basis that it would be imposing an "anarchist dictatorship". There was only one prominent leader (I believe it was Oliver, but I could be mistaken) who advocated taking power. I believe that by leaving the bourgeois state apparatus intact, the anarcho-syndicalists left in place the seeds of their eventual destruction, along with the revolution. This is why I say that they refused to defend the revolutionary gains. Later, they would show this even more during the May Days, but by then it would have been too late to turn back the clock in any case.

That was definately an ideological move, but it did&#39;nt have anything to do with defending the revolutoin, the CNT were one of the main proponants of arming the workers, the Spanish Communists were for the most part against this, in favor or a formal army. The Spanish Communists were also against Social Revolutoin by orders from the Comintern because Stalin was afraid of &#39;annoying western powers. In the CNT controlled areas, the formal government had very little if any authority, and so the CNT refusing formal leadership was&#39;nt a big issue tactically.


Heres one quesion I want to post to Leninists, if there is a Social revolution in your country, and Anarchists don&#39;t want to be under your wing, and areas with a lot of Anarchist support want to run things themselves, are you guys ok with that? Or you gonna kill us?

[Random Precision]

The thing is, that all the revolutoins after the Russians, that were inspired by Lenin and claimed to follow Lenins thoughts, ended up breaking up workers self-organization, centralizing power and commiting political repression. With that in mind its hard to say that what happend in Russia was just because of the circumstances, because circumstances were different in all those revolutions, but they had one thing in common, they followed Lenins ideas. But as was said before, Lenins actions speak volumes more than his words, as do Maos.

What all those revolutions had in common was that there was minimal involvement of and no control by the workers. This was true of the Russian Revolution only AFTER the Civil War killed off the most of them who were involved directly in the struggle. THAT is the universal requirement for a successful socialist revolution, control by the workers. A revolution without workers&#39; control will fail regardless of what the circumstances are surrounding it or the theory behind it. Lenin cannot deserve the blame for this, nor for most of the crazy things some of his "followers" did in the interest of "revolution".

And might I add that during the reign of the Stalintern, it was rare indeed that any socialist revolution beat the odds and end up victorious after being sabotaged in every way possible by its "comrades".


That was definately an ideological move, but it did&#39;nt have anything to do with defending the revolutoin,

This is precisely the point. They refused to take power because of their ideological convictions. Their theory sabotaged the revolution.


the CNT were one of the main proponants of arming the workers,

At first they were, yes.


the Spanish Communists were for the most part against this, in favor or a formal army. The Spanish Communists were also against Social Revolutoin by orders from the Comintern because Stalin was afraid of &#39;annoying western powers.

Well, that&#39;s because the Stalinists had no interest in revolution, only in what was the best in terms of foreign policy for the imperialist USSR.

You don&#39;t have to tell me about the crimes of the Stalinists in Spain...


In the CNT controlled areas, the formal government had very little if any authority, and so the CNT refusing formal leadership was&#39;nt a big issue tactically.

For about two months, yes. Then began the "legalizing" of revolutionary gains, their whittling away by the government and Communists, and after the May Days their complete repression, along with those who sought to defend them. All this occurred under the aegis of the bourgeois state the CNT had refused to destroy. After the May Days, the CNT became some of the Stalinists&#39; most enthusiastic cheerleaders, and adopted their position wholeheartedly, though they were less intellectually honest about it.


Heres one quesion I want to post to Leninists, if there is a Social revolution in your country, and Anarchists don&#39;t want to be under your wing, and areas with a lot of Anarchist support want to run things themselves, are you guys ok with that? Or you gonna kill us?

Yes, I&#39;m okay with that.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:48 am

Heres one quesion I want to post to Leninists, if there is a Social revolution in your country, and Anarchists don&#39;t want to be under your wing, and areas with a lot of Anarchist support want to run things themselves, are you guys ok with that? Or you gonna kill us?

Yes, I&#39;m okay with that.
Yeah, I am cool with that too.

If it was truly a worker&#39;s state - a form of governance based on control through assemblies formed from within neighborhoods and workplaces, linked together to the center and based on the mass participation of the working class, then there is no reason for the anarchists to not politically associate with us.

What reason would we have to &#39;kill you&#39;? I hate the same state that you do. This legal and political system that sustains and perpetuates private ownership of the means of production through it&#39;s police officers, it&#39;s federal agents, and it&#39;s tanks and soldiers is something that I want to wipe off the face of this earth. Don&#39;t you want that too?

You might not be theoretically right from our own perspective at the end, but the anarchists always put up a hell of a fight. Even though they use prettier and more romantic terms from the trashcan of enlightenment moralism to describe the adversary that they are facing, most of them that I have came in contact with know which side of the picket line they are on, and what needs to be done in order to achieve a society in which labor rules.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:50 am
Anarchies and commies PLEASE debate here.
Please define your terms.

Such a post is showing a clear lack of understanding of what anarchism and communism is.

Besides, what is there to debate that isn&#39;t already being debated or has already been debated many many times?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:43 am
Urban Spirit, how (theoretically speaking) does the "idea" of Leninism necessarily lead to the destruction of workers&#39; self-organization?

Because of its centralisation of decision making. I know that Leninism does not intend for democratic centrism to conflict with workers self-organisation, and on paper it doesn&#39;t. But in 100% of applied circumstances, it does. And so I base my analysis on the material results of leninism.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that a state, and democratic self-organisation are in complete opposition to one another. Because one seeks to remove the privilege of the other. I believe that a state voluntarily "withering away" is contradictory to the very nature of a state. No state ever has, or ever will abolish itself.

Lastly, the historical circumstanes are no excuse. The state is not necessary for industrialisation or national economic/social progression. Some of the greatest improvements to the Catalonian tram and rail networks were made by the Anarchist unions. The same with the roads in Zapatista territory, Chiapas...

[Sickle of Justice]

anarchism and communism are not opposed. in a purist sort of way you can&#39;t have one without the other: authoritarian communism someone with more power would use it to gather increased wealth, and in free market anarchy someone would use a greater degree of wealth to gather power.

[RGacky3]

What all those revolutions had in common was that there was minimal involvement of and no control by the workers. This was true of the Russian Revolution only AFTER the Civil War killed off the most of them who were involved directly in the struggle. THAT is the universal requirement for a successful socialist revolution, control by the workers. A revolution without workers&#39; control will fail regardless of what the circumstances are surrounding it or the theory behind it. Lenin cannot deserve the blame for this, nor for most of the crazy things some of his "followers" did in the interest of "revolution".

Lenin was the one who took away worker control, he was the one that was for a centralized system, why can&#39;t he be blaimed for it? If not him who is to blame? The whites? The reason power was centralized and taken away from the workers was because of the very nature of Leninism, the Centralization and concentration of power.