Anarchism and internationalism

[Tower of Bebel]

As the State must be abolished overnight, is it possible to spread a revolution to other countries/regions? In theory there is no centralized organ, which means no organisation to plan interventions abroad to encourage neighbouring workers to go on strike and revolt against their oppressors (this does not mean a military intervention)?

Or is it possible for local soviets, councils, unions to spread the revolution abroad?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:55 am
As the State must be abolished overnight, is it possible to spread a revolution to other countries/regions?
Yes.


In theory there is no centralized organ, which means no organisation to plan interventions abroad

Well, it's up to the people of a certain region to liberate themselves. And I think using the word "Intervention" is a bit contentious, I mean, Stalins invasion of Europe was an example of a centralised body planning 'interventions abroad' so you need to be clear what you mean.

The Anarchists, from the very beginning have had international bodies that draw together libertarian workers struggles globally, and attempt to co-ordinate those struggles. A lot like the CWI which you are in. The CNT for example was part of the International Workers Asociation. The FAI (Anarchist Federation of Iberia) is now part of the IAF-IFA. Revolutions can be spread through these forms of organisation, but I stress again it is up to the people to liberate themselves, and for the revolutionary anarchist unions and federations to facilitate this liberation, locally.


Or is it possible for local soviets, councils, unions to spread the revolution abroad?

Not on their own they need to be part of a national and international federation.

Here are some links of use...
International Workers Association (http://www.iwa-ait.org/)
IAF - IFA (http://www.iaf-ifa.org/)

[Tower of Bebel]

Intervention is having direct influence on the development of class consciousness amongst the workers of neighbouring countries, in order to help them in destroying the existing capitalist or semi-feudalist State/society.

The occupation/liberation of Eastern Europe by the Red Army is not a good example of this.

Isn't it a task for us revolutionaries to help workers in their struggle against the bourgeoisie? How would anarchists do it with their newly formed classles region as a starting point?

[Raúl Duke]

We could smuggle supplies/resources to other movements outside the classless region. We could also provide safe haven to those who would have to go in exile. Also, through international organizations such as the IAF we can provide support; like Urban Spirit mentioned.

These are a few examples I could think of right now.

[manic expression]

What's the sound of one hand clapping?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:05 pm
Isn't it a task for us revolutionaries to help workers in their struggle against the bourgeoisie?
Well, I think humans are pretty self centred. I mean, I am only a 'revolutionary' because I can see how capitalism fucks my myself, my community, my family/friends etc. The duty of a revolutionary is to liberate him/herself and the entire working class, but for the individual this starts locally, it has to for practical reasons.


How would anarchists do it with their newly formed classles region as a starting point?

The cop-out answer, is that it would be up to the councils of those newly formed regions to decide, and I can't tell you what will be said and/or decided But using history as a guideline, international brigades / columns can be sent to assist in revolutionary struggles. The exchange of ideas and supplies can assist in this. There may be formal commitments or military intervention, this is not an impossibility...

For example, the Makhnovist Anarchist army sent divisions into Russia to help defend Petrograd from the white army, this could be seen as intervention to assist a foreign section of the working class, from the bourgeoisie and I see no reason why this cannot be repeated.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 14, 2007 10:38 pm
Well, I think humans are pretty self centred. I mean, I am only a 'revolutionary' because I can see how capitalism fucks my myself, my community, my family/friends etc. The duty of a revolutionary is to liberate him/herself and the entire working class, but for the individual this starts locally, it has to for practical reasons.
Being determines consciousness. Fighting for the liberation of one's family and friends and self is not self centered persay, it is simply in his/her interest. Following your interests is different from being self centered in my opinion.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 14, 2007 10:41 pm
Being determines consciousness. Fighting for the liberation of one's family and friends and self is not self centered persay, it is simply in his/her interest. Following your interests is different from being self centered in my opinion.
Ok well then I act in my own interest, which includes the well being and liberation of not only my friends and family, but my entire class!! :lol:

[Red Scare]

we need to spread the revolution by truth and not lies, and only then will the comrades listen and the world will be liberated of capitalism

[Labor Shall Rule]

How will a bunch of self-sufficient decentralized autonomous communes even out the vast economic imbalances across the world? How will you do this while combating armies of fascists, theocrats, and other reactionary forces that will be highly-discpilined, trained, and armed who will surround you at all sides? If you do not address first and foremost the basic physical, material needs of the entire population, regardless of their occupational status, then you do not have the preconditions for even sustaining such structures. If you also do not have a military that is capable of even fighting the enemy, then you also will not be able to hold your position.

This is why a worker's republic is necessary - until it is materially and physically possible to abolish itself as a class, the workers will need to rely on a political safeguard in order to raise the material and cultural level of the masses, as well as a powerful force that is capable of defeating the enemy. To reject centralization and planning of any kind is to reject socialism altogether, no matter how radical or 'pro-worker' you might sound.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:38 pm
How will a bunch of self-sufficient decentralized autonomous communes even out the vast economic imbalances across the world? How will you do this while combating armies of fascists, theocrats, and other reactionary forces that will be highly-discpilined, trained, and armed who will surround you at all sides? If you do not address first and foremost the basic physical, material needs of the entire population, regardless of their occupational status, then you do not have the preconditions for even sustaining such structures. If you also do not have a military that is capable of even fighting the enemy, then you also will not be able to hold your position.

This is why a worker's republic is necessary - until it is materially and physically possible to abolish itself as a class, the workers will need to rely on a political safeguard in order to raise the material and cultural level of the masses, as well as a powerful force that is capable of defeating the enemy. To reject centralization and planning of any kind is to reject socialism altogether, no matter how radical or 'pro-worker' you might sound.
It's all about "what if...". What if there were an anarchist society withing the capitalist world (let's for example say the Ukraine), would it be possible for this decentralized society to spread the revolution?

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:38 pm
How will a bunch of self-sufficient decentralized autonomous communes even out the vast economic imbalances across the world? How will you do this while combating armies of fascists, theocrats, and other reactionary forces that will be highly-discpilined, trained, and armed who will surround you at all sides? If you do not address first and foremost the basic physical, material needs of the entire population, regardless of their occupational status, then you do not have the preconditions for even sustaining such structures. If you also do not have a military that is capable of even fighting the enemy, then you also will not be able to hold your position.

This is why a worker's republic is necessary - until it is materially and physically possible to abolish itself as a class, the workers will need to rely on a political safeguard in order to raise the material and cultural level of the masses, as well as a powerful force that is capable of defeating the enemy. To reject centralization and planning of any kind is to reject socialism altogether, no matter how radical or 'pro-worker' you might sound.
What good are these "republics" in the long run if historically most of them drifted into capitalism?

I don't mind rejecting socialism (although not everyone agrees with you on what that means); because what I'm down for is communism.

[Rawthentic]

because what I'm down for is communism.
So are all of us; except some of us do understand the need for what RedDali speaks of, namely the necessary structures to protect proletarian democracy in the face of fierce counter-revolutionaries, and its not like the world revolution is going to happen all at once.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't think the world revolution is going to happen all at once but...

I think a confederation of communes could organize and provide a defense.

Because there is no "state" doesn't mean that there won't be any structures to protect proletarian democracy.

The communes and their councils are not just going to "sit down and wait for their impending doom"; they are going to discuss and present ideas on how to defend the revolution and implement the necessary policies.

EDIT: This is not just a "problem" in anarchism but also in left-communism.

[dawn star]

The State cannot be abolished overnight. While the violence usd by the exploiting class countries must be eliminated immediately after the Civil War. The function of woerker states is to promote the world revolution, improve the living standard of the masses, repress the reactionary anti-revolutionists.

[Labor Shall Rule]

There is definite material and historical reasons why they drifted back to capitalism. It is not the "idea" that lead to the degeneration, but the class forces that were competing with each other through guns, tanks, bombers, and cannons during that period of revolutionary spasms. The working class, in it's weakened position, lost control.

I never said that you didn't believe in protecting those communes, but I am saying that a disciplined, armed, and highly-trained military that is capable of fighting the enemy requires authority, and authority requires centralization. I do not believe in radical absolutes - only in what we can do to win. They will be "sitting down for their impending doom" if they get lost in revolutionary idealism, hiding under a cloak of their anarchist literature on how scary 'hierarchy' is, and how it must be avoided at every step. Though I agree that a bureaucracy is a disgusting thing, and certainly a cancerous growth, it inevitably will branch out of the material and political position of the proletariat as a precondition to socialism.

[Raúl Duke]

There is definite material and historical reasons why they drifted back to capitalism.

That is true, Russia & etc were not ready for socialism/communism but for capitalism.

Although, I sometimes wonder if the environment inside a socialist state creates the conditions that lead to its over-bureaucratization and to "revisionism"/whatever. (hence, why in the past I made a thread about "revisionism" {later noting that there are many different views on what happen; some which don't use the term revisionism} Here's the thread: link (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69778))

-

However, we are both following assumptions: One being that an army is needed to defend the revolution and the other being that militias aren't able for defense/offense.

Why can't an organized united federated militias do as well as an army? In the Spanish Civil War the militias probably performed just as well or even better than their Republican Army and the other factions. (Although, since the republic lost it's easy to blame it all on the syndicalists...ignoring the other left factions and the republic itself).

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:22 pm

There is definite material and historical reasons why they drifted back to capitalism.

That is true, Russia & etc were not ready for socialism/communism but for capitalism.





So which countries according to you were ready for Socialism/Communism ?

You know if you wait for "perfect material conditions" for the transition then you have to wait. That is it.



Although, I sometimes wonder if the environment inside a socialist state creates the conditions that lead to its over-bureaucratization and to "revisionism"/whatever. (hence, why in the past I made a thread about "revisionism" {later noting that there are many different views on what happen; some which don't use the term revisionism} Here's the thread: link (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69778))


Well your premise of the question itself is confusing in that thread IMO. For one Stalinists never acknowledge a basic fact that Khrushvhev have done nothing new from Stalin. The bureaucracy still remained.

And Soviet Union was not a Socialist state.

If you really want to understand the reason for the Degeneration of the Soviet Union I would suggest you to read Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)
.


However, we are both following assumptions: One being that an army is needed to defend the revolution and the other being that militias aren't able for defense/offense.

They are not assumptions they are facts.

The Russian Civil war was won by the Red Army because it is professionally organised. When it had been Red Guards it cannopt stand up to the German Onslaught before the Brest-Litovsk treaty.



Why can't an organized united federated militias do as well as an army?

Well they can. But only when the scope of the war is limited. The militias and guerillas ca win battles but cannot win wars.


In the Spanish Civil War the militias probably performed just as well or even better than their Republican Army and the other factions.

Really ? Then why it had been not able to win the war ?


(Although, since the republic lost it's easy to blame it all on the syndicalists...ignoring the other left factions and the republic itself).

Who is blaming Syndicalists alone ? Every one is a contributor to the defeat in Spain - including syndicalists.

[Raúl Duke]

So which countries according to you were ready for Socialism/Communism ?

The advanced capitalist countries that Marx wrote about.
Although the list is bigger now than in Marx's time.


Well your premise of the question itself is confusing in that thread IMO. For one Stalinists never acknowledge a basic fact that Khrushvhev have done nothing new from Stalin. The bureaucracy still remained.

And Soviet Union was not a Socialist state.

If you really want to understand the reason for the Degeneration of the Soviet Union I would suggest you to read Trotsky

That thread was brought up so to highlight in this thread the 2 weaknesses that seem to be in each movement: The tendency to degenerate (or whatever; since everyone has a different name for what happen and a different view.) in Leninist Revolutions and the seemingly indefensibility of an anarchist revolution.


They are not assumptions they are facts.

The Russian Civil war was won by the Red Army because it is professionally organised. When it had been Red Guards it cannopt stand up to the German Onslaught before the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

The only way these can be concrete facts is if we can compare statistics of "battle performances" of a militia, army, etc.

There could have been many other conditions/things that determined the victory for the Red Guard just as there were many other determinants for the defeats of other revolutions. Nothing in the real world is "All other things being equal"; there are always a bunch of determinants.


Really ? Then why it had been not able to win the war ?

All because they might have preformed better or the same as the Republican Army and the other factions doesn't mean that the war is automatically won/lost based on this; there are always other determinants. One example being that the fascists had more support from Germany and Italy than the Republic (and the factions). Another example could have been the demoralizing effects on those fighting for and supporting the Republic once the CNT was betrayed in Barcelona.

A war is rarely determined by just one factor.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:52 am
That is true, Russia & etc were not ready for socialism/communism but for capitalism.
Russia asn't ready to become capitalist. It needed a military dictatorship to keep the masses in the factories. I do not think Russia would have had a bourgeois democracy like Western Europa had.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:38 pm
If you do not address first and foremost the basic physical, material needs of the entire population, regardless of their occupational status, then you do not have the preconditions for even sustaining such structures.
Couldn't agree more.


If you also do not have a military that is capable of even fighting the enemy, then you also will not be able to hold your position.

Absolutely!


This is why a worker's republic is necessary

No.
This is why a millitary, and working economic system are neccisary - not a republic. This reality does not suddenly mean I need to grant anyone power over me. I strongly believe that the working class is capable of running the economy itself, and does not need a foreman to be able to do so.

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:38 pm
self-sufficient decentralized autonomous communes


This is a strawman - not all anarchists talk about autonomous communes or complete self-sufficiency. Generally both anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists have said decisions should be made at the appropriate level - which gives plenty of room for international level decision making.



If you do not address first and foremost the basic physical, material needs of the entire population, regardless of their occupational status, then you do not have the preconditions for even sustaining such structures.
Then I think you'd do well to read Kropotkin's Fields Factories and Workshops and the Conquest of Bread which deals with that in depth - obviously at nearly 100 years old it's outdated, but he spent a lot of time considering the immediate material needs of the revolutionary population and ways these could be addressed. He also rejected autonomous communes.



If you also do not have a military that is capable of even fighting the enemy, then you also will not be able to hold your position.
In both the Ukraine and Spain anarchists had very effective militias - yes they lost in the end but in terms of effectiveness for their numbers they did extremely well. On the other hand the Red Army often required troops from the other side of Russia to quell uprisings since local troops wouldn't do it, and the International Brigades were used as cannon fodder by the Stalinist leadership in spectacular suicide missions which had no military purpose at all.



To reject centralization and planning of any kind is to reject socialism altogether, no matter how radical or 'pro-worker' you might sound.
Again- not all anarchists reject centralisation per se - just centralisation from above. Nor do all reject planning. There's plenty of weaknesses with anarchism but these straw men don't do you any favours.