A Critique of Neo-Anarchism

[which doctor]

A critique of neo-anarchism

A strategic analysis of the problem

Anarchism -- real anarchism, revolutionary anarchism -- was destroyed by the "Communists" (first the Leninists, then the Stalinists) in the 1920s and 1930s: from the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921 to the defeat of the Spanish Revolution in 1937, anarchists were "shot by both sides." Whatever remnants of anarchism that still subsisted after the 1930s were unable to deal with the theoretical and practical problems posed by modern fascism, the bureaucratization of the world and later (in the 1940s and early 1950s) the birth of prosperous, consumption-based capitalism. By 1955, revolutionary anarchism was completely dead. One might argue that it has remained dead since then, but it might be more charitable to say that it was partially revived by the various post-Marxist revolutionary movements of the 1950s/1960s (Socialisme ou Barbarie, the Situationist International, the Japanese Zengakuren and a few others).

For all too many contemporary anarchists (one might more accurately call them neo-anarchists), "anarchism" suddenly reappeared -- after an absence of almost 60 years! -- in Chiapas in 1994 and/or Seattle in 1999. But real anarchism had been dead for so long that no one would recognize it if they saw it, and neither of these two events were really anarchist, that is to say, neither of them were true proletarian movements. The former was a kind of watered-down Maoism, while the second was a concentrated or "ultra" Leftism. Nevertheless, because these events were significant and (more importantly) could be portrayed as "revolutionary" by the bourgeois press, the last 13 years have seen "anarchism" sprout everywhere. So many books are written about it, so many talks and speeches and conferences are given about it -- one might think that the State is actually tottering and about to fall! But of course, the State isn't tottering (at least not for these reasons) and anarchism, rather than being everywhere, is actually nowhere. What remains is watered-down Maoism and concentrated Leftism. Have doubts? Just look at A.N.S.W.E.R., the International Action Center, and all the other "Communist" front groups, which completely dominate this country's pathetic anti-war movement, as well as many of the pro-immigration and anti-police brutality groups, the release-Mumia groups, et al.

Note well that many neo-anarchists are completely fixated on the anarchists and anarchist movements of the early twentieth century -- endless and empty recollections of Sacco and Vanzetti, the glory days of the Spanish Civil War, etc etc -- and know absolutely nothing about any of the revolutionary events of the mid- and late-Twentieth Century. Note well the complete stupefaction when someone mentions the events that took place in East Berlin (1953), Budapest (1956), Belgium (1962), Paris (1968), Lisbon (1974), Bologna (1977), Gdansk (1980) etc. All the neo-anarchists know about is Spain and Seattle, Seattle and Spain. (Sometimes they also know about Argentina and Venezuuela, but their interest is either Zapatista chic or barely disguised admiration for Leninism.)

Over the course of the intervening period, the Left was never truly de-Stalinized (much like the old East Germany); it never really dealt with its roots in and continuing attachment to Social Democracy and "Communism." And so the neo-anarchists of today are actually Leftists who have simply learned that it is "not cool" to be Marxists and so describe themselves as "anti-authoritarians" instead. But the leopard dies with its spots and the neo-anarchists' underlying Leftism shines through in their unshakeable preoccupation with commodities, corporations and globalization, and their marginalization of the State and its much more significant crimes: concentration camps, secret prison-systems, extraordinary renditions and the systematic use of torture, et al. (Unlike the revolutionary anarchists of Spain, the neo-anarchists and other Leftists of today are also completely blind to the role that religion plays in the State's domination of this planet.)

If neo-anarchists are against the war in Iraq, they shout "No blood for oil!" as if oil -- the commodity, the oil companies, etc -- account for all of Bush/Cheney's motivations for going to war. The idea that the war was fought to strengthen the American presidency to the point of totalitarianism completely escapes them. Note as well the neo-anarchists' complete lack of interest in finding out the truth about all the various events that are cynically lumped together under the rubric of "September 11th." Like all Leftists, they are content to dismiss the 911 Truth Movement as "conspiracy theorists" and "wingnuts." Why? It speaks directly of the State and its secret/security services, which are beyond the narrow focus of commodity-obsessed "former"-Marxists.

This is why we are so relentlessly hostile to people who are stupid enough to lump "Situationism" (and its slogans) in with Leftism and/or with the art world, whether it is with institutional art or street art. The Situationist International was one of the very few groups in the world that was anti-capitalist and anti-"Communist." Despite what the contributors, editors and/or publishers involved in, say, Realizing the Impossible: Art against Authority (AK Press 2007), the situationist movement was not an "art movement." The situationists were -- especially after 1962, and even more so during and after 1968 -- a revolutionary organization that hated "artists" and Leftists as much as they hated capitalists and Stalinists.

Some practical observations

As we pushed and defended our right to critique the pseudo-Situationists, neo-anarchists and Leftists who either contributed to the Realizing the Impossible book, published it or agreed to be part of a panel that would discuss it -- we confined our comments to a single "thread" on the website of the New York City "Independent Media Center" -- something striking happened. Though all of the comments claimed 1) that the Situationist International was a marginal group, no longer worthy of attention, 2) that the events that are remembered and praised by situationists are also marginal and not worth any attention, and 3) that we personally are marginal and not worthy of any attention, these people did not ignore this thread and move on to something else, as one would fully expect from the dismissive attitudes (and ridiculously ignorant opinions) that they expressed. Quite the contrary, they kept returning to it and posting what they claimed were "comments."

It is very significant that literally none of these "comments" -- and there were several dozen of them in total -- responded to or even acknowledged the existence of our "strategic critique" of neo-anarchism. Instead, there was a stream of increasingly virulent personal attacks on us. As if to prove Guy Debord right when he wrote the following in 1978 --

Passions that are forced to remain faraway are generally malevolent. The contemporary spectator appears to perpetually watch for the fleeting occasion to make his opinion known on a great variety of things he knows nothing about, but in every case he only expresses his dominant emotions: omniform envy, ambition without means and pretension without illusion. Because these are the traits that massively express a system of production that cannot dream of making consumers more successfully than it makes merchandise. This desperate mediocrity regularly hastens to say anything at all with authority, so as to resemble the authorities, who also say anything at all. This mediocrity systematically forgets the obvious, dogmatizes from the rumors that it has itself invented and blindly talks nonsense about its own falsifications.

-- the maliciousness, bad faith and self-righteousness of these anonymous comments (which broke all the rules established by the "IMC," if not the laws against libel, as well) were far beyond any scorn we might have shown for the ignorant neo-anarchists and Leftists to whom we objected in general, not as individual people (we certainly did not mention any individual's name). Such is the "mindset" of the neo-anarchists and Leftists: push them too hard on the intellectual or theoretical levels, and they become truly vicious on the personal level. Their resemblance to Communists is striking.

It is the way that they throw mud that is truly significant: though they claim to be courageous and "moral" -- and they are certainly very moralizing -- they will not identify themselves, they will not speak in their own names, they will act like a gang of thugs. They believe they have "safety in numbers" and act as if their numbers are safe. We are convinced that any specific individual who dares to speak out against them will be attacked in this same fashion, though the content and tone of the calumnies might be different from, perhaps less gruesome than, the ones that have been hurled against us: "you are not constructive, you are negative, you undermine our solidarity, you give comfort to our enemies," etc. etc. Raoul Vaneigem was right: it is the individual as such that is shameful to the neo-anarchists, Leftists and other "collectivists," even those who speak of "the rights of individuals"; and when an individual "attacks" them, they try to shame that individual any way they can, so that the individual in question will feel humiliated and "go away." And so attack them, we say, but do not underestimate their intellectual dishonesty or their taste for blood.
--NOT BORED!
11-15 April 2007
23 April 2007

This of course leads us into the question of what to do with this resurgence of anarchism in the late twentieth and early twenty century. I believe many people on this board are of the "neo-anarchist" variety, I even was at a point in time not too long ago.

Any comments/criticisms on this article?

[Bilan]

Where did that come from?
------

I didn't see that as much of a constructive critique at all. It just seemed like ill-directed slander toward anyone, and bitterness because not everyone thinks hugely of the situationist's.

[Organic Revolution]

It seems (is) a post leftist critique against a movement who has left there crimthincist politics in the dirt. The author of this essay seems to be sitting quite high on a pedestal, speaking as though he is better than the younger 'newbie' anarchists that havent read as much as him, and saying that anyone who thinks that 9-11 isnt a conspiracy (utter bullshit) is wrong. Fuck this essay and its elitist point of view, I suppose that when the revolution comes, the author will be sitting under a tree writing a polemic against revolutionary anarchism.

[Axel1917]

It does not matter what X-anarchism you call it, anarchism is dead, period. It exposed itself as a reactionary tendency once and for all during the Spanish Civil War and its influence among the working class is almost non-existent. It has become the ideology of disgruntled hooligan teenagers for the most part, and it is petty-bourgeois to the core (even some of the more dedicated ones, such as the IWW, are still rabidly petty-bourgeois, as I have clearly seen from a pamphlet from some IWW guy I got last week.). By repeating the borugeois nonsense about Kronstadt, Makhno, etc., anarchism, as Trotsky has pointed out, has become forever dead for revolution. Given its combination of bourgeois propaganda and petty-bourgeois ideology, anarchism in the final analysis is really a form of thinly veiled reformism. When carried to its logical conclusion, anarchism today amounts to defense of captialist reaction. Proven fact by history.

Stalinism/Maoism has made many unforgivable crimes, but it is at least far better than anarchism because it has overthrown capitalism and it significantly raised living standards for a time. Anarchism on the other hand has always played into the hands of the bourgeoisie. There were some sincere revolutionary types in its earlier times (I have read that some anarchists even helped the Bolsheviks crush the reactionary Kronstadt uprising. They were probably a minority and are now essentially nonexistent.). Today they are mostly reformists and/or disgruntled hooligan teenagers with spraypaint and masks, ready, in words, to take on the bourgeois armed bodies of men with their cardboard swords and nonsensical slogans.

The article seems to criticize the punkie-hippie types in anarchism, but it does not work out a scientific alternative to neo-anarchism (or anarchism in general.).

Although I do have to agree that the consistent, non-teenage anarchism of the past is definitely dead among those that call themselves anarchists, and that a lot of anarchists today are the "neo-anarchist" types.

[Raúl Duke]

The article seems to criticize the punkie-hippie types in anarchism, but it does not work out a scientific alternative to neo-anarchism (or anarchism in general.).

That's because it is written by situationists; they want you to accept their ideology/theory instead.


Today they are mostly reformists

:lol: hypocrite!

Many M-L parties of many stripes also turned reformist and continue to be reformist, or even worse: in the US the CPUSA is the "radical" cheerleader for reactionary Democrats.

[apathy maybe]

Axel1917: You once again show an amazing ignorance of anarchism and anarchist theory. Continuing to repeat the same tired irrelevancies doesn't do your cause any good, and ridicules it in the eyes of those who actually do have knowledge of anarchism.

You use the term "petty-bourgeois" (petit-bourgeois, "small capitalist") incorrectly and put forward the strange idea that anarchism is "reformist" (of all things!).

You claim to have the backing of history, and yet you seem to have a strange view of such. I am amazed that you have been on this site for more then two years and have over 800 posts, and yet don't know anything about anarchism. I direct you to learning.


Now, onto the actual article.

Anarchism does have critiques of fascism, bureaucracy and prosperous, consumption-based capitalism. Perhaps it didn't, but it certainly does now (many of these critiques are just a rewording of the same attacks against the state (of all forms) and capitalism that anarchism always has). Fascism is an irrational, illogical, nationalistic, pro-centralised state "ideology". Anarchism had and still has many attacks on nationalism and states. Bureaucracy creates alienation and hierarchy, there are anarchist attacks on these. And capitalism, well it creates hierarchy, even if the rich (the "west") are rich (the poor are still poor). So.


There is a lot of crap in there that isn't worth addressing. Then we get onto "no blood for oil". It isn't anarchist groups that I hear chanting this ignorant chant, but front groups for Leninists. It isn't anarchist groups that are simplifying the war in Iraq or the "war on terrorism" to a couple of buzz words or chants. Indeed, as far as I can tell, anarchists tend to have more of a wider critique of the reasons for war then the general population or other parts of the "left". Ideas about the strategic necessity for the "west" to have more allies in the "Middle East", domestic issues (the US economy was and is in a shit situation) and so on have been discussed in anarchist circles since 2003.
Then we have a bit of conspiracy theory stuff. Well.


Finally a bit of irrelevant stuff about Situationism.


Indeed, I don't really know what this article is attacking really. Do these "neo-anarchists" really exist? Do they have a coherent set of ideas?

Or are they just anyone who isn't the author(s)?

Anyway, all in all, this article is as much a waste of time as Axe1917's reply. Very much so...

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Confused Leninist Twat
its influence among the working class is almost non-existent

Tell me, oh wise one, where did you manage to pick up these super-amazing telepathic abilities, where you may read the minds of the global-working class, and know the politics of everyone on the planet?

Get off your soap box, Axel. You're not fooling anyone.

[RedAnarchist]

Axel, if Anarchism is so reactionary, why is there so many members of RevLeft? Why does Anarchism have the same deisred result as Communism?

Sectarianism does nothing but weaken the Left.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't understand his point? He's not actually making any kind of argument other than Situationism good, people who don't like Situationism bad.

He also makes absolutely no reference to modern day class struggle anarchist movements which make up a significant part of the words active anarchists. I suppose when left-anarchists are arguing among themselves about puerile things such as threads on an indymedia site, it is easy to ignore the continued work of anarchists who actually do something.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:10 am
The article seems to criticize the punkie-hippie types in anarchism, but it does not work out a scientific alternative to neo-anarchism (or anarchism in general.).
Are you claiming that Marx's Historical Materialism and critique of capitalism are not "scientific"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 12:40 pm
Anarchism does have critiques of fascism
Antifa. The biggest and most effective Anti-fascist network in the world.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:23 pm
Axel, if Anarchism is so reactionary, why is there so many members of RevLeft?
Don't you know? Everyone on revleft who isn't a Marxist-Leninist-Assholist is a reactionary hooligan.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:10 am
It does not matter what X-anarchism you call it, anarchism is dead, period. It exposed itself as a reactionary tendency once and for all during the Spanish Civil War and its influence among the working class is almost non-existent. It has become the ideology of disgruntled hooligan teenagers for the most part, and it is petty-bourgeois to the core (even some of the more dedicated ones, such as the IWW, are still rabidly petty-bourgeois, as I have clearly seen from a pamphlet from some IWW guy I got last week.). By repeating the borugeois nonsense about Kronstadt, Makhno, etc., anarchism, as Trotsky has pointed out, has become forever dead for revolution. Given its combination of bourgeois propaganda and petty-bourgeois ideology, anarchism in the final analysis is really a form of thinly veiled reformism. When carried to its logical conclusion, anarchism today amounts to defense of captialist reaction. Proven fact by history.

Stalinism/Maoism has made many unforgivable crimes, but it is at least far better than anarchism because it has overthrown capitalism and it significantly raised living standards for a time. Anarchism on the other hand has always played into the hands of the bourgeoisie. There were some sincere revolutionary types in its earlier times (I have read that some anarchists even helped the Bolsheviks crush the reactionary Kronstadt uprising. They were probably a minority and are now essentially nonexistent.). Today they are mostly reformists and/or disgruntled hooligan teenagers with spraypaint and masks, ready, in words, to take on the bourgeois armed bodies of men with their cardboard swords and nonsensical slogans.

The article seems to criticize the punkie-hippie types in anarchism, but it does not work out a scientific alternative to neo-anarchism (or anarchism in general.).

Although I do have to agree that the consistent, non-teenage anarchism of the past is definitely dead among those that call themselves anarchists, and that a lot of anarchists today are the "neo-anarchist" types.
this post is ironic.

A trotskyist saying anarchism is dead! :lol:

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:10 am
It does not matter what X-anarchism you call it, anarchism is dead, period. It exposed itself as a reactionary tendency once and for all during the Spanish Civil War and its influence among the working class is almost non-existent. It has become the ideology of disgruntled hooligan teenagers for the most part, and it is petty-bourgeois to the core (even some of the more dedicated ones, such as the IWW, are still rabidly petty-bourgeois, as I have clearly seen from a pamphlet from some IWW guy I got last week.). By repeating the borugeois nonsense about Kronstadt, Makhno, etc., anarchism, as Trotsky has pointed out, has become forever dead for revolution. Given its combination of bourgeois propaganda and petty-bourgeois ideology, anarchism in the final analysis is really a form of thinly veiled reformism. When carried to its logical conclusion, anarchism today amounts to defense of captialist reaction. Proven fact by history.

Stalinism/Maoism has made many unforgivable crimes, but it is at least far better than anarchism because it has overthrown capitalism and it significantly raised living standards for a time. Anarchism on the other hand has always played into the hands of the bourgeoisie. There were some sincere revolutionary types in its earlier times (I have read that some anarchists even helped the Bolsheviks crush the reactionary Kronstadt uprising. They were probably a minority and are now essentially nonexistent.). Today they are mostly reformists and/or disgruntled hooligan teenagers with spraypaint and masks, ready, in words, to take on the bourgeois armed bodies of men with their cardboard swords and nonsensical slogans.

The article seems to criticize the punkie-hippie types in anarchism, but it does not work out a scientific alternative to neo-anarchism (or anarchism in general.).

Although I do have to agree that the consistent, non-teenage anarchism of the past is definitely dead among those that call themselves anarchists, and that a lot of anarchists today are the "neo-anarchist" types.
Jesus, have you read every paper and call written against the Makhnovists? Do you understand the concept of class? what does petit-bourgeois mean to you? obviously nothing because you feel the need to throw it around as much as you throw around "everyone who isn't a Leninist is a reactionary!" Well fucking hell, have you read what Lenin has done? How he willingly imposed state capitalism, how he murdered anarchists and other supposed reactionaries?

Please get off of your high horse before you start talking shit, because someone will take you down, you aren't as intelligent as you believe, and reading every polemic against anarchists whilst not taking the time to actually learn your ideology. Piss off vanguardist ****.

And before you call Makhno a small time capitalist, read up on him, ands read how the communists treated him, and the insurgents.

[IronColumn]

The article is an excellent attack on the watering down of anarchism, which is directly related to such idiotic ideologies as primitivism, animal liberation, environmental terrorism etc. I would not regard it as a critique outside of the anarchist movement but rather one within it and from the left. Many people simply looking to be trendy have slapped on some black clothes and pretended that they can vote for Kerry and still be Anarchists. Or work for the AFL-CIO, or other non-anarchist ideas that belong to social democracy. This is quite a pertinent critique as many Anarchists say that our ideas are spreading, in fact our ideas are by and large not spreading, the word anarchism is simply being appropriated by liberals. Thus, some can pretend that something so pitiful as the Black Bloc at a protest is Anarchist when it is really, quite clearly, both reformist and vanguardist.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:37 am
The article is an excellent attack on the watering down of anarchism, which is directly related to such idiotic ideologies as primitivism, animal liberation, environmental terrorism etc. I would not regard it as a critique outside of the anarchist movement but rather one within it and from the left. Many people simply looking to be trendy have slapped on some black clothes and pretended that they can vote for Kerry and still be Anarchists. Or work for the AFL-CIO, or other non-anarchist ideas that belong to social democracy. This is quite a pertinent critique as many Anarchists say that our ideas are spreading, in fact our ideas are by and large not spreading, the word anarchism is simply being appropriated by liberals. Thus, some can pretend that something so pitiful as the Black Bloc at a protest is Anarchist when it is really, quite clearly, both reformist and vanguardist.
How is the black bloc vaguardist and reformist? The black bloc is merely a tactic for property destruction, and for direct violent confrontation with state forces.

[Axel1917]

hypocrite!

Many M-L parties of many stripes also turned reformist and continue to be reformist, or even worse: in the US the CPUSA is the "radical" cheerleader for reactionary Democrats.

I know that there are reformists lurking around as "Leninists." That is old news, and I am not one of them.


Tell me, oh wise one, where did you manage to pick up these super-amazing telepathic abilities, where you may read the minds of the global-working class, and know the politics of everyone on the planet?

Get off your soap box, Axel. You're not fooling anyone.

Most people have yet to really observe any. Most of them are the teenage hooligan ones I descried. With the exception of the small IWW, I seriously don't know of any that have any connections with the working class, for obvious reasons.


Jesus, have you read every paper and call written against the Makhnovists? Do you understand the concept of class? what does petit-bourgeois mean to you? obviously nothing because you feel the need to throw it around as much as you throw around "everyone who isn't a Leninist is a reactionary!" Well fucking hell, have you read what Lenin has done? How he willingly imposed state capitalism, how he murdered anarchists and other supposed reactionaries?

Please get off of your high horse before you start talking shit, because someone will take you down, you aren't as intelligent as you believe, and reading every polemic against anarchists whilst not taking the time to actually learn your ideology. Piss off vanguardist ****.

And before you call Makhno a small time capitalist, read up on him, ands read how the communists treated him, and the insurgents.

Thanks for proving my point about anarchism being for disgruntled teenagers. Nothing but immature profanity, no knowledge of history, and not knowing about petty-bourgeois ideology (you don't necessarily have to be petty-bourgeois in class to have petty-bourgeois ideology.), etc.

What is with this "Take you down" thing anyway? Are you threatening me with physical violence? If you and your cappie goons are, I would advise against trying to assault me - I have a Kalashnikov and I get very violent when physically provoked. I have something that packs a lot more punch than those sticks and stones of yours. So, I will use an AK in self-defense if I have to.

If you are talking about taking me down in an argument, that will never happen, not from an anarchist at least.


Are you claiming that Marx's Historical Materialism and critique of capitalism are not "scientific"?

Anarchism is not Marxism.


Don't you know? Everyone on revleft who isn't a Marxist-Leninist-Assholist is a reactionary hooligan.

Thanks for proving my point that anarchism is for teenage hooligans, for the most part.


Axel, if Anarchism is so reactionary, why is there so many members of RevLeft? Why does Anarchism have the same deisred result as Communism?

Sectarianism does nothing but weaken the Left.

Revleft is full of all kinds of parrots of capitalist propaganda.

Sectarianism is putting an organization's interests above those of the working class, not criticizing another group or ideology. If it was the latter, every leftist would be a sectarian.

Anarchism strengthens the bourgeois state with individual terrorism and it parrots capitalist propaganda against Bolshevism - the only branch of leftism proven effective by history.

If you guys are just going to cuss and threaten me with physical violence (unless I am mistaken here), make baseless assertions, etc., perhaps you are not worth my time.

[catch]

I don't have that much time for the situs, but the article starts off well enough - I think bringing up the AK press book just makes it look a bit petty though.

Your post war list is decent and I agree those events need a lot more attention than they get from just about anyone. I'll admit to knowing nothing about Belgium 1962 - you got a link?

[IronColumn]

The Black Bloc as an idea is a tactic which directly came out of the Leninist groups in the 1960's who were so pitiful that they decided to serve as a spectacular opposition at protests. Weather Underground and the like, maoists all over Europe, etc. As for "direct confrontation with the state", take a deep breath and relax; this fake-militancy is another carry over from Leninist hackery. The state will only be toppled by the working class which has acheived class consciousness. Running around getting in tense standoffs at protests with cops, while thrilling for the first few times, has nothing to do with the mass strike and the formation of worker's councils, it has no connection to the workers' struggles, and it in no way encourages the formation of revolutionary class consciousness.

The logic behind it is essentially leninist, putschist, vanguardist, etc. An elite radical minority will show the plebes how to confront state power and the masses will be so inspired they will "pick up the gun" at some unspecified point down the road. And if they don't immediately join the spectacular opposition (and I say this because the black bloc shows no program to the average joe, not the creation of a new world but mindless hooliganism) then workers are to be denounced as sell outs, etc.

The Black bloc is a joke, and it's no coincidence that it finds itself comprised of provocateurs, primitivists, Leninists, and neo anarchist scrubs.

[YSR]

Axel, shush. No one is talking to you. This article was written by an anarchist for an anarchist audience. If has nothing to do with your lame, oft-repeated and never proven criticisms.

At the article and topic in question: this article is lame. It's basically the worst of Situationist sectarianism popping up from Debord's grave.

Situationist critique is like George Sorel: I like where it starts, but I hate where it finishes. For Sorel it was fascism, for Situationists it is bickering and uselessness.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:11 pm

Are you claiming that Marx's Historical Materialism and critique of capitalism are not "scientific"?

Anarchism is not Marxism.
Nice evasion. Anyone with half a political brain could tell you that. My question was are claiming that Historical Materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism is not scientific?

It's a simple question, really?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+September 20, 2007 09:19 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ September 20, 2007 09:19 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 07:11 pm

Are you claiming that Marx's Historical Materialism and critique of capitalism are not "scientific"?

Anarchism is not Marxism.
Nice evasion. Anyone with half a political brain could tell you that. My question was are claiming that Historical Materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism is not scientific?

It's a simple question, really? [/b]
Marxism is scientific, but the anarchist tactical approach is what renders anarchism itself ineffective. It makes a fatal mistake regarding the theory of the state, if you ask me. I know that Kropotkin's The Great French Revolution is very good and worth reading (I have a really nice two volume copy from the 1920's in excellent condition, even with original dustjackets.), but I would not be surprised if the bulk of anarchist works would wind up in my "reference" section of my books, alongside with Stalin and Mao when I end up picking some of them up.

It would be nice if anarchism, although I disagree with it, would at least be more serious and not so juvenile. I mean, what, the small handful serious group is picked out here and there out of the small IWW? The rest is mostly teenage angst.

At least the original article, as much as I disagree with it in an overall manner, comes from a serious-minded anarchist.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Axel 1917
Most people have yet to really observe any. Most of them are the teenage hooligan ones I descried. With the exception of the small IWW, I seriously don't know of any that have any connections with the working class, for obvious reasons.

Most people is clearly bollocks.
I suggest you take a look at whats happening in Mexico right fucking now. For example, one of the biggest, most powerful groups in Oaxaca (presently) is an anarchist group.
And I didn't get that from some sectarian, Marxist-Leninist website, I got that, directly, from someone who was, and is from there.

What about Zabalaza?
Mutiny? :wub:
Anarchist Federation?
NEFAC?
etc, etc.

Are they made up of young "hooligans"?
I think not.

You can't just lump the entire anarchist movement into a neat little basket like that. It just doesn't work like that.



Thanks for proving my point that anarchism is for teenage hooligans, for the most part.

Only a response to your own pig-headed attitude.
And hooligans? That was just irrelevant.



Anarchism strengthens the bourgeois state with individual terrorism and it parrots capitalist propaganda against Bolshevism - the only branch of leftism proven effective by history.

For fucks sake, Axel. The world aint that black and white.
You made a paralell between the Black Bloc - a tactic not all anarchists even agree with - and 9/11. Seriously, I don't think you quite know whats up when it comes to Individual Terrorism.
As for the "parroting of capitalist propaganda against Bolshevism", personally, I don't think the capitalists analysis of why it failed - i.e. why it collapsed - which they claim was "due to communism not being compatible with human nature was at all correct, and I don't think you'll find an anarchist anywhere who thinks that (unless, of course they're an anarcho-cappie).

You can't say it was proven "effective" by history. That's total bullshit, and you know it as well as I do.
It was effective in the sense that, it managed to abolish the Tsarist system from Russia, yes. But it was ineffective in the sense that it deteriorated into a oppressive police state, and eventually collapsed.
The reasons for this can be traced to many things, no doubt, and leftists of all flavors place particular emphasis on certain reasons - when the reality is, it was due to a number of different ones - but none would assume that the Capitalist analysis is at all correct.
Ya dig?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 21, 2007 04:23 am

Most people have yet to really observe any. Most of them are the teenage hooligan ones I descried. With the exception of the small IWW, I seriously don't know of any that have any connections with the working class, for obvious reasons.

Most people is clearly bollocks.
I suggest you take a look at whats happening in Mexico right fucking now. For example, one of the biggest, most powerful groups in Oaxaca (presently) is an anarchist group.
And I didn't get that from some sectarian, Marxist-Leninist website, I got that, directly, from someone who was, and is from there.

What about Zabalaza?
Mutiny? :wub:
Anarchist Federation?
NEFAC?

etc, etc.

Right?
Right.



Thanks for proving my point that anarchism is for teenage hooligans, for the most part.

Only a response to your own pig-headed attitude.
And hooligans? That was just irrelevant.
I don't see the Mexican state being terrified of anarchists or Supercomedian Marcos, the kingpin reformist. They are in fact afraid of the Mexican IMT comrades, though. Jailing them, slandering them, placing pictures of them in public and identifying them with "urban guerrillas" in an attempt to turn public opinion against them, etc. I don't know how big this anarchist group you speak of is, but numbers aren't going to mean anything without correct theory, programme, etc. (look where the CPSU, in spite of its power, funding, and numbers got.).

And do these other groups really have any working class support? I doubt it. The only one I have ever heard of, or seen at strikes and the like, are a small group from the IWW.

[Bilan]

I don't see the Mexican state being terrified of anarchists or Supercomedian Marcos, the kingpin reformist.

Not all groups resisting the Mexican state, or neoliberalism is Mexico are part of the EZLN - and some even make the (shitty) criticisms you make of the EZLN, too, so fear not, you're not quite wrong (for once).
And you're sight must be a bit blurred, because the amount of repression of revolutionaries in Oaxaca is intense. It's the same all over Mexico. Just do a bit of research into it, you'll see for yourself.
As for "Supercomedian" Marcos, calling him a reformist is absolutley absurd, and you should know that. It shows you actually don't really know what the situation is like in Mexico - though pretend too - and why talks with the government actually took place - and it's worth noting that they feel apart.



They are in fact afraid of the Mexican IMT comrades, though. Jailing them, slandering them, placing pictures of them in public and identifying them with "urban guerrillas" in an attempt to turn public opinion against them, etc.

This is the same for all revolutionaries or peoples willing to challenge state power in Mexico at the time.


I don't know how big this anarchist group you speak of is, but numbers aren't going to mean anything without correct theory, programme, etc. (look where the CPSU, in spite of its power, funding, and numbers got.).

And they do, so there's no need to worry about that. :D :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This article seems to be some kind of "no true Scotsman" fallacy of some kind. As much as as I despise certain anarchist tendencies (primitivism, lifestylism and other postmodernist-inspired cack) there are decent anarchists around.

And a big LOL to Axel for painting the entire anarchist movement with the reactionary tar brush. Hasty generalisation anyone?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Axel1917+September 21, 2007 05:15 am--> (Axel1917 @ September 21, 2007 05:15 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 09:19 pm

[email protected] 20, 2007 07:11 pm

Are you claiming that Marx's Historical Materialism and critique of capitalism are not "scientific"?

Anarchism is not Marxism.
Nice evasion. Anyone with half a political brain could tell you that. My question was are claiming that Historical Materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism is not scientific?

It's a simple question, really?
Marxism is scientific, but the anarchist tactical approach is what renders anarchism itself ineffective. It makes a fatal mistake regarding the theory of the state, if you ask me. I know that Kropotkin's The Great French Revolution is very good and worth reading (I have a really nice two volume copy from the 1920's in excellent condition, even with original dustjackets.), but I would not be surprised if the bulk of anarchist works would wind up in my "reference" section of my books, alongside with Stalin and Mao when I end up picking some of them up. [/b]
That's the second time you have evaded my question: Are you claiming that Historical Materialism and Marx's critique of Capitalism is not scientific. It's a yes or no answer.


It would be nice if anarchism, although I disagree with it, would at least be more serious and not so juvenile. I mean, what, the small handful serious group is picked out here and there out of the small IWW? The rest is mostly teenage angst.

But the median age of the AF is about 35?

[YSR]

Originally posted by Axel
I mean, what, the small handful serious group is picked out here and there out of the small IWW?

Call me serious again and I'll internet kick your ass. Being serious is so boring!

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 09:51 am





That's the second time you have evaded my question: Are you claiming that Historical Materialism and Marx's critique of Capitalism is not scientific. It's a yes or no answer.

I think it would be self evident that the answer would be yes coming from a Marxist like myself. Why you asked it is beyond me, as anarchism is clearly not based on it, as it has not the foggiest idea of the role of the state or the fact that as long as there is a class society, even after the bourgeoisie have been overthrown, a state will inevitably exist. A theoretical mistake leads to a mistake in practice if not corrected, and this is where I feel anarchism fails and ends up (perhaps unintentionally) supporting reaction, and I feel the article fails to point this out or make a scientific alternative. If anything, it just criticizes anarchists for not being serious enough while attacking primitivist, lifestylist, and other such nonsense. It really does not differ too much from anarchism in genearl

The individual terrorism, not linking up with the workers consistently, appeal to "mom and pop" shops as some kind of revolutionary alternative, and other things also make anarchism a petty-bourgeois ideology.


But the median age of the AF is about 35?

I seriously doubt that the AF is the majority of anarchists.


Not all groups resisting the Mexican state, or neoliberalism is Mexico are part of the EZLN - and some even make the (shitty) criticisms you make of the EZLN, too, so fear not, you're not quite wrong (for once).
And you're sight must be a bit blurred, because the amount of repression of revolutionaries in Oaxaca is intense. It's the same all over Mexico. Just do a bit of research into it, you'll see for yourself.
As for "Supercomedian" Marcos, calling him a reformist is absolutley absurd, and you should know that. It shows you actually don't really know what the situation is like in Mexico - though pretend too - and why talks with the government actually took place - and it's worth noting that they feel apart.

This is the same for all revolutionaries or peoples willing to challenge state power in Mexico at the time.

But we were the ones being singled out in the bourgeois press. And Marcos is indeed an armed reformist that has no intention of spreading struggle, linking with the workers, or eliminating captialism. I think CdL once posted a lot of stuff somewhere about the EZLN being armed reformists. Can't remember where it is, though.


Call me serious again and I'll internet kick your ass. Being serious is so boring!

Theory and organizational work aren't always fun, but they are always necessary. Socialism will win because I will bore the capitalists to death. ;)

And I really don't see why people support Makhno with his bandit regime and Kulak support (he temporarily allied with Soviet power when he was forced to, as the peasants became divided along class lines and many supported Soviet power.), and Makhno opposed workers' democracy, but that is probably a different topic anyway.

[Pawn Power]

What is with this "Take you down" thing anyway? Are you threatening me with physical violence? If you and your cappie goons are, I would advise against trying to assault me - I have a Kalashnikov and I get very violent when physically provoked. I have something that packs a lot more punch than those sticks and stones of yours. So, I will use an AK in self-defense if I have to.

Get your fucking hand out of your pants!


It does not matter what X-anarchism you call it, anarchism is dead, period.
How very anti-materialist you are.

What is even worse is that you wish it so.


And, in general, youth is revolutionary. It has shown to be so. Youth movements, youth denial of social norms, youth refusal to obey...has contributed to change, even if it is sometimes in an "unorganized" manner. You can see that anarchism seeks to focus and organize these radical tendencies, not always successfuly but it does not descriminante those that are "unexperienced." Indeed, with experience many stop struggling for the "impossibe."

[Labor Shall Rule]

As history shows, students on their own are incapable of being a revolutionary force. The real trouble begins when organized workers take to the streets with the students and put economic demands on the table. If you, however, do not have leadership that can truly offer it's vision to the working-class during a revolutionary time, then you will have pacifist intellectuals and college drop-outs having control over the process, and would be unable to do anything to overthrow the existing social order, let alone exert change.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Axel1917+September 22, 2007 12:39 pm--> (Axel1917 @ September 22, 2007 12:39 pm)
[/b]


Axel1917
But we were the ones being singled out in the bourgeois press. And Marcos is indeed an armed reformist that has no intention of spreading struggle, linking with the workers, or eliminating captialism. I think CdL once posted a lot of stuff somewhere about the EZLN being armed reformists. Can't remember where it is, though.

Revolutionaries are always attacked by the bourgeois press. That's life.
Marcos aint no armed reformist, I can tell you that for free.
I just finished "Our Word Is Our Weapon" which is collection of his writings and Zapatista communques, and I can tell you, he aint no reformist.

Sub. Marcos is for the elimination of capitalism, but what he is not for is forcing the entire working class to abolish capitalism, in the sense that, he believes that the future of the working class belongs in the hands of them. Ya dig?

The EZLN are anything but reformists.



Theory and organizational work aren't always fun, but they are always necessary. Socialism will win because I will bore the capitalists to death. wink.gif

Careful, you might put the revolution to sleep while you're at it. :P

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:11 pm
As history shows, students on their own are incapable of being a revolutionary force. The real trouble begins when organized workers take to the streets with the students and put economic demands on the table. If you, however, do not have leadership that can truly offer it's vision to the working-class during a revolutionary time, then you will have pacifist intellectuals and college drop-outs having control over the process, and would be unable to do anything to overthrow the existing social order, let alone exert change.
What's your take on Paris '68?

[Labor Shall Rule]

It would of been a minor disturbance restricted to Sorbonne and Nanterre if the strikes, both spontaneous and organized, never occured.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:29 pm
It would of been a minor disturbance restricted to Sorbonne and Nanterre if the strikes, both spontaneous and organized, never occured.
Undoubtably, but not what I was getting at.
I was more getting at this:


The real trouble begins when organized workers take to the streets with the students and put economic demands on the table.

If we look at Paris 68, this is clearly bullshit.

As is this:


f you, however, do not have leadership that can truly offer it's vision to the working-class during a revolutionary time, then you will have pacifist intellectuals and college drop-outs having control over the process, and would be unable to do anything to overthrow the existing social order, let alone exert change.

---------
of course,there are examples where your point proves true. But I'm more getting at that its an absurd generalization, which is historically ignorant.

[lombas]

Excellent article.

[which doctor]

Where did that come from?
The latest issue of the anarchist zine Not Bored.


I didn't see that as much of a constructive critique at all. It just seemed like ill-directed slander toward anyone, and bitterness because not everyone thinks hugely of the situationist's.
Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of the piece myself. It lacks much content in my opinion, instead focusing on a few obscure examples to make a point. I like the first half of the article better than the second half. I don't think it's about people not thinking hugely of the situationists either. Many 'anarchists' people do think hugely of them (or more accurately their slogans), but they misrepresent them and do see them as a leftist movement, when in fact they are anything but leftist. It's this misrepresentation they are fighting against.

I'm not even going to respond to Axel1917's comments because he's an idiot. I give the rest of you the same advice, don't feed the trolls.


Then we get onto "no blood for oil". It isn't anarchist groups that I hear chanting this ignorant chant, but front groups for Leninists. It isn't anarchist groups that are simplifying the war in Iraq or the "war on terrorism" to a couple of buzz words or chants.
These liberal/leninist front groups often have many members who identify as anarchists.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:13 pm
Excellent article.
Is that a joke?
If not, do explain. :)

[lombas]

Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+September 22, 2007 03:28 pm--> (Tierra y Libertad @ September 22, 2007 03:28 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 07:13 pm
Excellent article.
Is that a joke?
If not, do explain. :)[/b]
It is excellent in the sense that it grabs the point of questioning all these supposed anarchist policies of G8-summit-bashing and welfare-defending while forgetting the true nature and practice of anarchy itself.

The Holy Experiment is often called anarchistic in nature, and I believe it was. There is a BIG difference between Quaker (proto-)anarchists of the 1600s and the freaks showing up at the average summit.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I define 'real trouble' as a significant threat to the social position of the ruling class, not a few students throwing rocks at the police. Besides, the events on the university grounds didn't get violent until the teachers, students, and other school employees decided to stage a walk-out, and from there, the rest Parisian working class joined in solidarity with the school wage earners. In other words, it didn't become 'real trouble' until the workers of the school joined it, and when the strikes erupted later on.

My 'absurd generalization' is correct. In France, for example, if there was a revolutionary party (or militant trade-union) that could of exerted the influence of the working class into formal demands as well as establish a level of independence away from the Stalinist unions, they would of been able to seize control of the political power when they were capable of doing so. Once again, I would argue that it is not the 'idea' that has killed worker's movements, it is the bureaucratic stratum, composed of small capitalists and the middle-level strata, that derailed the entire revolutionary effort with their party to protect their position of social privilege.

[Socialist Dave]

The article tried a bit hard I thought, I agreed what it said about anarchism, it (in parts) summed up my view point, but I agree it didn't really give any decent arguments to back it's point up.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:11 am
As history shows, students on their own are incapable of being a revolutionary force. The real trouble begins when organized workers take to the streets with the students and put economic demands on the table. If you, however, do not have leadership that can truly offer it's vision to the working-class during a revolutionary time, then you will have pacifist intellectuals and college drop-outs having control over the process, and would be unable to do anything to overthrow the existing social order, let alone exert change.
I never said students. I was talking about youth.

[Ultra-Violence]

And a big LOL to Axel for painting the entire anarchist movement with the reactionary tar brush. Hasty generalisation anyone?


yes its like what the fuck man not all anarchist a a bunch of fucking rich spioled white kids running aruond and shit. Do you know what it is like to be harassed by the police daily cuase you dont like them terrorizing your neihborhood?do you know what its feels like to be fucking hungry and have not to eat in the Fridge?Do you know what its like going to school and getting a shit education having dogs sniff away ur motherfucking rights! while the Well off kids get everything they want and more?Do you know what it feels like growing up in the foster care system! growing up in group homes? not having enough money to pay the bills?FUCK YOU! you dont know me and you dont know every anarchist so get off your high horse mister all powerfull i know everything! people like you piss me off.
:angry:

[Bilan]

RedDali,


I define 'real trouble' as a significant threat to the social position of the ruling class, not a few students throwing rocks at the police. Besides, the events on the university grounds didn't get violent until the teachers, students, and other school employees decided to stage a walk-out, and from there, the rest Parisian working class joined in solidarity with the school wage earners. In other words, it didn't become 'real trouble' until the workers of the school joined it, and when the strikes erupted later on.

Hey man, you know Paris 68 was more intense than a few kids throwing rocks at the pigs.
Don't down play it like that. :(
The events were violent, almost immediatley, really. I agree that it didn't become 'real trouble' into the struggle spread, but what i was saying was, regardless, it was the students who sparked the revolt - you can't deny this.

Great image:

http://libcom.org/files/paris68aCars.jpg


My 'absurd generalization' is correct. In France, for example, if there was a revolutionary party (or militant trade-union) that could of exerted the influence of the working class into formal demands as well as establish a level of independence away from the Stalinist unions, they would of been able to seize control of the political power when they were capable of doing so.

These organizations did exist. Those which had hierarchical structures were, however, rejected because of their bureaucratic nature - the Communist party, for example.
While groups like the Situationists flourished, because of their anti-bureaucratic and revolutionary nature.
Having a party may well have allowed for the movement to succeed, but I some how doubt it would've been the most effective means for success - success being, not only the over throwal of the capitalist system, but the implementation of a Libertarian Marxist system in France.


Once again, I would argue that it is not the 'idea' that has killed worker's movements, it is the bureaucratic stratum, composed of small capitalists and the middle-level strata, that derailed the entire revolutionary effort with their party to protect their position of social privilege.

I would totally agree.

====
On Paris 68, if you're interested, there's a really good book by Daniel Cohn-Bendit called "Obsolete Communism", about the Paris 68 revolt - about it's success's and failures, and what must be done for the future revolts to succeed (from a Libertarian Marxist perspective)

[Sentinel]

Axel, you really should search for info on anarcho-syndicalist union movements worldwide, before dismissing all anarchists as 'angsty teen lifestylists'. The IWW isn't the only one in existence; the SAC in (9 million population) Sweden, for instance, is an extremely well-organised and combative 8000 members fighting union, with libertarian, federative socialism as it's ultimate goal. It's anarchist to the core, and it doesn't have anything to do with 'punkie-hippe teenagers'.

Now I don't know if you are one of those who dismiss all union action as 'reformist', but it's really the superior tactic above all others to get actual workers -- as opposed to 'angsty teenage' students and kids -- engaged and organised as a class, against the class enemy. Not that there's anything wrong with the youth though, as it has traditionally been the most radical group in society. It all boils down to class basically.

I would lively agree with NoXion's post in this thread concerning lifestylists and primitivists -- the former may have hope of one day becoming actual revolutionaries, much depending on their class background naturally, while the latter are anti-communist lunatics.

See, one problem with anarchism is that it sometimes seems like virtually anyone can call themself one and immediately be embraced as one by large parts of the movement. But seriously, dude, if anarchism has it's problems so does Leninism in 2007.

[DrFreeman09]

As for "Supercomedian" Marcos, calling him a reformist is absolutley absurd [...]

No, it's not. I remember reading an article on these forums that was a response to Sub. Marco's statement that he will now fight for indigenous rights in the Mexican government and that he's not interested in a revolution or spreading the Zapatista movement any farther than where it currently is.

It also stated that most of the action has been going on in "The Other Campaign" independently of Marcos, but that Marcos was taking credit for it.

All in all, this sounds pretty reformist to me. Revolutionaries simply don't attempt to influence bourgeois politicians because these politicians are part of the economic system of capitalism which people like the EZLN supposedly opposes. Social change doesn't come from reformism, which is what Marcos has turned to.

And as for anarchists in general: Anarchists want to see the same ends that communists do (i.e. stateless, classless society), but where anarchism is flawed is in the following.

As long as classes exist, the state will exist. The state is not the source of the oppression; the oppression is the source of the state. Oppression causes crime and unrest, which necessitates a state. When oppression is eliminated, the state will also "wither away."

But anarchists seem to believe one of two things:

1. That with the removal of the state comes the removal of oppression and that things like property and money, which are the social causes of oppression, are simply eliminated overnight

2. The social causes of oppression can be eliminated over time by reforming capitalism.

The majority of anarchists fall into the first category, but neither is very sound. It completely disregards a) how economies work, and b) history.

Personally, I totally agree with Axel1917 that the focus in the left should be more toward a break from anarchism and petty-bourgeois ideology as a whole.

However, anarchists are valuable to the cause in some ways because they do not want to see a world where they have to shut up. Recognizing the necessity of democratic rights of free speech under workers rule is made easier by some anarchists.

But generally, I believe that anarchists are deeply confused about many things.

[YSR]

It also stated that most of the action has been going on in "The Other Campaign" independently of Marcos, but that Marcos was taking credit for it.

No one around here seems to have any idea of what la Otra Compana is, but whatever, no need to stop trashing it.

either way, it's just a couple of days ago been canceled: http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/comision-sexta/813/

[Devrim]

Just to slag off some of the anarchist gods for a moment;


Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+--> (Tierra y Libertad)While groups like the Situationists flourished, because of their anti-bureaucratic and revolutionary nature. [/b]
What on Earth do you mean by flourished here? The French section of the S.I had a total of fifteen members in its fifteen year history, and I think eight in 1968. Hardly a flourishing organisation.

Wiki has this to say:


Originally posted by Wiki+--> (Wiki)The SI's part in the revolt of 1968 has often been overemphasised. They were a very small group, but were expert self-propagandists, and their slogans appeared daubed on walls throughout Paris at this time. SI member René Viénet's 1968 book Enragés and Situationists in the Occupations Movement, France, May '68 gives an account of the involvement of the SI with the student group of Enragés and the occupation of the Sorbonne.[/b]


Originally posted by Sentinel
Axel, you really should search for info on anarcho-syndicalist union movements worldwide, before dismissing all anarchists as 'angsty teen lifestylists'. The IWW isn't the only one in existence; the SAC in (9 million population) Sweden, for instance, is an extremely well-organised and combative 8000 members fighting union, with libertarian, federative socialism as it's ultimate goal. It's anarchist to the core, and it doesn't have anything to do with 'punkie-hippe teenagers'.

Unlike the SI, the SAC does have a base in the working class. Leaving aside any discussion about the nature of the unions today, it suffices to say that SAC is condemed by the rest of the world anarchosyndicalist movement as reformist, and was actually expelled from the IWA for being so.


Tierra y [email protected]
Marcos aint no armed reformist, I can tell you that for free.
I just finished "Our Word Is Our Weapon" which is collection of his writings and Zapatista communques, and I can tell you, he aint no reformist.

He is a nationalist, and the ELZN is a nationalist movement:


EKS
Lets for example take the sixth communiqué issued in the run up to the 1996 elections, which calls for “...a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty, through intransigent opposition to the privatisation of electrical energy, oil, water and natural resources.”, or when they continue to say that “And they also say they are going to privatise, or rather sell to foreigners, the businesses that the State once used to help the people's welfare.” Maybe you failed to notice the ‘defence of national sovereignty’, or the fact that their objection to ‘selling to foreigners’ seems to be the main point of disagreement. Of course if all the owners were ‘good Mexican capitalists’ they would obviously continue to ‘use these businesses to help the peoples welfare’. Of course maybe we are wrong, but when we hear them promoting the "defense of national sovereignty" and talking about the "fatherland", it leads us to believe that our original conclusions were right. And just maybe, there was actually a bit of a clue to this in their name. Of course the fact that they regularly sing the Mexican national anthem at their meetings should give us a clue too.

Devrim

[awayish]

regardless of the psychological character of young anarchists, that they are saying something cannot simply be glossed over. unless they are shallow and simple, their ideas should be taken seriously. unless you mean to discredit the old anarchist movement and its aims.

[Bilan]

First off, being such a critic of anarchism, why do you have an a-s avatar?

Anyway, on to the discussion.



No, it's not. I remember reading an article on these forums that was a response to Sub. Marco's statement that he will now fight for indigenous rights in the Mexican government and that he's not interested in a revolution or spreading the Zapatista movement any farther than where it currently is.

Not saying that you're lying, but I would like to see this, as it is news to me. And even so, Marcos does not represent the interests of the EZLN as a whole, and the talks which took place between the Mexican government and the EZLN have, as far as I am aware, broken down.



It also stated that most of the action has been going on in "The Other Campaign" independently of Marcos, but that Marcos was taking credit for it.

I don't see how that makes him a reformist, more just up himself. And I don't see how that makes the EZLN reformist either.


Revolutionaries simply don't attempt to influence bourgeois politicians because these politicians are part of the economic system of capitalism which people like the EZLN supposedly opposes.

I'd say at the time when the talks took place, Marcos (and various members of the EZLN) had fallen into the trap of trying to influence the politicians in the Mexican state, so that the conditions of the Indigenous people, and all people, could be improved peacefully.
But since the breaking down of that, alot has changed.


1. That with the removal of the state comes the removal of oppression and that things like property and money, which are the social causes of oppression, are simply eliminated overnight


I find that insulting - it's just patronising, and paints our politics (as anarchists) as simplistic, when in reality, that's total bullshit.
Anarchists seek the both the removal of capitalism and the state, in favour of free communism, or anarchist communism (or various other ideologies, as such).
The only ones who believe it as simplistically as you just put it out are Anarcho-Capitalists, who see the state as the source of oppression, and capitalism as a natural, "free" economic system.



2. The social causes of oppression can be eliminated over time by reforming capitalism.

That's just dumb.
Of all political ideologies, Anarchism and reformism do not go together.



Personally, I totally agree with Axel1917 that the focus in the left should be more toward a break from anarchism and petty-bourgeois ideology as a whole.

You have fun with that. Anarchism isn't "petty-bourgeois", as it is.



However, anarchists are valuable to the cause in some ways because they do not want to see a world where they have to shut up. Recognizing the necessity of democratic rights of free speech under workers rule is made easier by some anarchists.

ergh.



But generally, I believe that anarchists are deeply confused about many things.

I believe Marxists waste to much time criticizing things they don't completely understand, and, though agreeing that anarchists and communists have the same ends, and often similar means, that anarchists are just crazy, and utopian, which they would realize is rubbish if they bothered to read any anarchist theory.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Devrim
Just to slag off some of the anarchist gods for a moment;

:wub: wuv you too.


What on Earth do you mean by flourished here? The French section of the S.I had a total of fifteen members in its fifteen year history, and I think eight in 1968. Hardly a flourishing organisation.

I actually said groups like the SI, but that's splitting hairs.
As for you quote, that's a complete contradiction of what I read on them.



He is a nationalist, and the ELZN is a nationalist movement:

Yeah, it's certainly becoming apparent that he is so.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+September 27, 2007 06:03 am--> (Tierra y Libertad @ September 27, 2007 06:03 am) I actually said groups like the SI, but that's splitting hairs.
As for you quote, that's a complete contradiction of what I read on them.
[/b]
Yes, I think that maybe because a lot of hero worshipping nonsense is written about them. Read their own account, 'Enragés and Situationists in the Occupations Movement, France, May '68' (which I can't find online).

As for what they have to offer, they had an interesting take on some cultural issues, and not much else.


Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+--> (Tierra y Libertad)
[email protected]

He is a nationalist, and the ELZN is a nationalist movement:

Yeah, it's certainly becoming apparent that he is so.[/b]

I think it has been clear for quite a long time. It is about understanding what class struggle is, and what isn't class struggle.


Tierra y Libertad
I believe Marxists waste to much time criticizing things they don't completely understand, and, though agreeing that anarchists and communists have the same ends, and often similar means, that anarchists are just crazy, and utopian, which they would realize is rubbish if they bothered to read any anarchist theory.

Yes, most of them really have no idea what they are talking about. A good example is this thread:http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70421&hl=
It doesn't mean that anarchists aren't often confused, and don't have theoretical weaknesses though.

Devrim

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Devrim
Yes, I think that maybe because a lot of hero worshipping nonsense is written about them. Read their own account, 'Enragés and Situationists in the Occupations Movement, France, May '68' (which I can't find online).

Yeah, probably.
I'll give those a browse.
I read one really good one called "Obselete Communism".
That was ...the best.
It mentioned them a bit, not heaps. But alot of *their* quotes - e.g. Beneath the paving stones, the beach, etc.


I think it has been clear for quite a long time. It is about understanding what class struggle is, and what isn't class struggle.

I meant more apparent to me :P
Even so, I don't think he necessarily represents all the interests, or the EZLN as a whole.
But yes, I agree.


Yes, most of them really have no idea what they are talking about. A good example is this thread:http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70421&hl=
It doesn't mean that anarchists aren't often confused, and don't have theoretical weaknesses though.

Myes, indeed.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Devrim
Leaving aside any discussion about the nature of the unions today, it suffices to say that SAC is condemed by the rest of the world anarchosyndicalist movement as reformist, and was actually expelled from the IWA for being so.

A federation is what it's members are, and despite grantedly somewhat reformist official rhetoric on certain issues, the bulk of actual SAC activists I've met personally consists of revolutionaries. Ie, people who don't believe a peaceful solution is ever possible to the class conflict, and who are ready to take to other means when that becomes actual.

I'm a fairly new member myself, but my experience so far has been very positive -- this is an union that doesn't hesitate to take up the fight on injustices, or start conflicts with the enemy; the SAC explicitly states that we do not desire peace or understanding between the classes before socialism.

Could you link me to some good documents about the SAC/IWA split, as it's very interesting and I've yet to form a completely coherent opinion on it's causes?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Sentinel+September 27, 2007 11:32 am--> (Sentinel @ September 27, 2007 11:32 am) A federation is what it's members are, and despite grantedly somewhat reformist official rhetoric on certain issues, the bulk of actual SAC activists I've met personally consists of revolutionaries. Ie, people who don't believe a peaceful solution is ever possible to the class conflict, and who are ready to take to other means when that becomes actual.
[/b]
There is a problem with revolutionary, or anarchosyndicalism. Basically, in times of low levels of class struggle the mass of workers aren't revolutionary, and mass organisations of workers can not be revolutionary either. They tend to become integrated into the state. It is a big question though, and not really on topic here.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Could you link me to some good documents about the SAC/IWA split, as it's very interesting and I've yet to form a completely coherent opinion on it's causes?

Wiki says this:
Wiki
It was also a founding member of the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers Association, but came into conflict with the IWA in the 1950s when SAC entered into a state-supported unemployment fund, which the IWA regarded as state collaboration and reformist. In 1956, the SAC withdrew from the IWA.

It is before my time. I was a member of an IWA group about twenty years ago, and there seemed to be a lot of bitterness (mostly connected to events in Spain).

If you want to hear different opinions on the SAC, I would recommend starting a thread on Libcom about it:
http://libcom.org/forums

Devrim

[IronColumn]

Devrim: What do you think about the EZLN telling people not to vote in 2006? What is your view of the communes in Chiapas? I'm curious, because it seems like the EZLN has gotten a bit more radical (i.e. 6th declaration of the Lacandon jungle I believe is where they start talking about capitalism not just neoliberal globalization?).

As for the SI, they said somewhere that it didn't matter how many people they had, it was far more important where they were going. Also, just as a historical note, in May 68 the SI provisionally teamed up with a few hundred assorted 'enrages' who were not members but still supported their slogans, so their group was not really so marginal as it may seem.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by IronColumn+September 27, 2007 04:53 pm--> (IronColumn @ September 27, 2007 04:53 pm) Devrim: What do you think about the EZLN telling people not to vote in 2006? What is your view of the communes in Chiapas? I'm curious, because it seems like the EZLN has gotten a bit more radical (i.e. 6th declaration of the Lacandon jungle I believe is where they start talking about capitalism not just neoliberal globalization?).
[/b]
Actually, I don't know that much about them, so I am not going to pretend to be well informed at all. The piece I quoted was from something that we wrote a few years ago, and I did a little research on it then. Leftists do get more, or less radical as events happen though. I think that we have to look more at the trajectory of the whole movement.


IronColumn
As for the SI, they said somewhere that it didn't matter how many people they had, it was far more important where they were going. Also, just as a historical note, in May 68 the SI provisionally teamed up with a few hundred assorted 'enrages' who were not members but still supported their slogans, so their group was not really so marginal as it may seem.

My point wasn't really about their numbers as much as about the mythos that has emerged around them. I think that there wasn't that much substance to them beyond their slogans though. Some interesting work on the commodity, a bit of 'art', and reheated versions of Castoriadis' politics.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Axel1917+September 22, 2007 03:39 am--> (Axel1917 @ September 22, 2007 03:39 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 09:51 am

That's the second time you have evaded my question: Are you claiming that Historical Materialism and Marx's critique of Capitalism is not scientific. It's a yes or no answer.

I think it would be self evident that the answer would be yes coming from a Marxist like myself. [/b]
Then you are unable to call anarchism "unscientific" as it is well documented by class-struggle anarchist theorists that anarchism accepts historical materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism.


Why you asked it is beyond me, as anarchism is clearly not based on it, as it has not the foggiest idea of the role of the state or the fact that as long as there is a class society, even after the bourgeoisie have been overthrown, a state will inevitably exist.

There is no anarchist that has ever made the assertion that the state would not exist after the bourgeoisie is overthrown. Of course it will, that's the issue.


A theoretical mistake leads to a mistake in practice if not corrected

Yes, I totally agree. This is painfully evident with the application of Leninism.


The individual terrorism, not linking up with the workers consistently, appeal to "mom and pop" shops as some kind of revolutionary alternative, and other things also make anarchism a petty-bourgeois ideology.

Unless you accuse me of lying, then you are unable to make such an assertion. Class-struggle anarchists are not involved in "individual terrorism" and we constantly make efforts to "link up" with workers.

In Sheffield for example, we have recently been involved in the Postal workers strike and are actively promoting IWW and Starbucks workers, not to mention the anti-Tesco campaigns and our community work.

You're simply, plainly and absolutely, unequivocally wrong!



But the median age of the AF is about 35?

I seriously doubt that the AF is the majority of anarchists.

Actually the AF is the biggest anarchist organisation in the country and to judge this question we need to look at active anarchists, rather than self-proclaimed anarchists that don't do anything because what would the point in that be?

I mean, you can't judge a movement by analysing those people who aren't actually apart of it, can you?

[Ultra-Violence]

I mean, you can't judge a movement by analysing those people who aren't actually apart of it, can you?

^^^^^
THIS! yeah the movement has its problems and shit so does the Communist/Socailist. You just cant assume all anarchist are the same and they all do the same shit anarchist are a gruop of very diverse people :)

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27, 2007 06:31 pm




Then you are unable to call anarchism "unscientific" as it is well documented by class-struggle anarchist theorists that anarchism accepts historical materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism.

Wrong. Anarchism unscientifically rejects all authority, does not understand anything about the state, and it has always sided with reaction. It is not based on Marxism in any way, shape, or form; anarchists just take the bits of Marx they like and throw out the rest, just like how the American SWP does with Trotsky.

And how is spraypainting things and smashing windows scientific? Those are counterproductive hooligan tactics?



There is no anarchist that has ever made the assertion that the state would not exist after the bourgeoisie is overthrown. Of course it will, that's the issue

And thus by opposing the state here you admit that you support capitalist reaction, for you oppose workers' democracy.




Yes, I totally agree. This is painfully evident with the application of Leninism.

Then why are you an anarchist? Nothing on the left has been so reactionary and so refuted by history as anarchism. It has less success than all of the "Trotskyist" sects combined.



Unless you accuse me of lying, then you are unable to make such an assertion. Class-struggle anarchists are not involved in "individual terrorism" and we constantly make efforts to "link up" with workers.


Then these "class anarchists" must be an endangered species or something, as anarchists today are infamous for being agents of police brutality due to their hooligan tactics. Most of them are probably under the age of 18. Anarchism today is largely a movement deranged teenagers with masks and spraypaint.



In Sheffield for example, we have recently been involved in the Postal workers strike and are actively promoting IWW and Starbucks workers, not to mention the anti-Tesco campaigns and our community work.

Oh, wow. How many anarchists here, doing this? Two? Three?


You're simply, plainly and absolutely, unequivocally wrong!

Anything is true for an anarchist that says something because anarchism today is based on subjective idealism.





Actually the AF is the biggest anarchist organisation in the country and to judge this question we need to look at active anarchists, rather than self-proclaimed anarchists that don't do anything because what would the point in that be?

Yet most anarchists that are actually out there are deranged teenagers. Any observer can tell you that. 99+% of anarchists out there are these "self-proclaimed" ones.



I mean, you can't judge a movement by analysing those people who aren't actually apart of it, can you?

This has got to be the most hypocritical statement in the history of revleft! And it also says we can't criticize capitalism because we are not bourgeois!


THIS! yeah the movement has its problems and shit so does the Communist/Socailist. You just cant assume all anarchist are the same and they all do the same shit anarchist are a gruop of very diverse people

But the ideology as a whole is what has been refuted, regardless of what this or that anarchist is like. Anarchism is almost exclusively a hooligan ideology, and it has an elitist attitude toward workers (some daring individuals need to go out and confront the state to "show the workers the way forward.). They also whine about problems of the trade unions, but they don't take the time to go out to the workers in these unions and win them over.

The EZLN is especially proven to be reformist in the fact that the capitalists do not see it as a major threat. In fact, if it were so revolutionary like some of you say, then the EZLN would have suffered the same fate as the Oaxaca commune.

The ultra-rare serious and consistent anarchists also seem to have been largely watered down. Such people saw the reactionary nature of the Kronstadt uprising and helped the Bolsheviks crush it. I have yet to even see such an anarchist. Extinct, perhaps.

Although the ideology has been refuted by history, anarchism is looking more and more like total clowning, with mass drifting into primitivism, lifestlyism, etc. History has clearly taken its revenge on a disproven ideology! :P

Anarchism tends to have an odd contradiction, as it states that there is a need to organize against weaker capitalist tendencies, such as fascists (probably largely used as police auxiliaries against oppressed minorities), but if we carry out the organization of a coercive apparatus on a large scale to keep the entire bourgeoisie down in a revolutionary situation, then on such a scale, this force of organized coercion inevitably manifests itself as a state.

[Devrim]

Axel 1917, I don't know who you are writing this unending polemic for, but it is quite clear that you have no idea of the subject that you are talking about. You are not going to convince any anarchists of your position if you start from not having any idea at all what theirs is.

Your argument is the equivalent of somebody arguing against Bolshevism because it wants to nationalise women.

As for your comments on all anarchists being 18 year old idiots. I would suggest that this is primarily due to your own age, and the people you meet. When I travel to London the anarchists I meet tend to be in their 40s, or older, which is a function of my age (i.e. many of them are the same people I knew when I worked there). Actually I have met anarchists in the UK complaining about the fact that they are not attracting younger people. Surely a more reliable pointer than your 'any observer can tell you'.

Also the idea that you can converge all things that have ever labelled themselves anarchist in your arguments is truly pathetic. Without even extending it to Marxism, I could find more than a few weird, and wonderful ideas in Trotskiysm to accuse you of. Does the name Posadas ring any bells to you?

It is also true that North America has particularly weak class movements, and the level of capitalist decomposition is higher than in Europe. This explains the absurdness of much of what passes for anarchism in the US. It would expain a lot of the American leftists, and other bourgeois tendencies to though.

I would advise you to go away, find something out about your subject, and stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

Devrim

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:44 am
Axel 1917, I don't know who you are writing this unending polemic for, but it is quite clear that you have no idea of the subject that you are talking about. You are not going to convince any anarchists of your position if you start from not having any idea at all what theirs is.

Your argument is the equivalent of somebody arguing against Bolshevism because it wants to nationalise women.

As for your comments on all anarchists being 18 year old idiots. I would suggest that this is primarily due to your own age, and the people you meet. When I travel to London the anarchists I meet tend to be in their 40s, or older, which is a function of my age (i.e. many of them are the same people I knew when I worked there). Actually I have met anarchists in the UK complaining about the fact that they are not attracting younger people. Surely a more reliable pointer than your 'any observer can tell you'.

Also the idea that you can converge all things that have ever labelled themselves anarchist in your arguments is truly pathetic. Without even extending it to Marxism, I could find more than a few weird, and wonderful ideas in Trotskiysm to accuse you of. Does the name Posadas ring any bells to you?

It is also true that North America has particularly weak class movements, and the level of capitalist decomposition is higher than in Europe. This explains the absurdness of much of what passes for anarchism in the US. It would expain a lot of the American leftists, and other bourgeois tendencies to though.

I would advise you to go away, find something out about your subject, and stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

Devrim
Really? History has proven my case many times in the past. And do you really think that I am going to consider the ICC a reliable source (ultra-leftism is just as much of a failure as anarchism!)? :lol: Just a few 40+ year olds is not going to make all of them like that. Others around here have confirmed my observations. In fact, one went as far to say that you rarely see middle aged anarchists these days, for obvious reasons.

And even if you were right about about anarchists mostly being older, we would still have the fact that the ideology has been refuted by history and has virtually no influence with the working class. That and history is taking its revenge by anarchism continuing to degenerate into primitivism, lifestylism, etc.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:44 pm
Just a few 40+ year olds is not going to make all of them like that. Others around here have confirmed my observations. In fact, one went as far to say that you rarely see middle aged anarchists these days, for obvious reasons.


My point about that is that you tend to meet those sort of people because of your age. I tend to meet those sort of people because of mine. From my observations of anarchism in the UK, Solfed (the anarchosyndicalists) have an older profile, and I have heard their members worrying about attracting younger people. I was under the impression that the AF had a younger profile, but the guy earlier said that their average age is 35. I have no reason to disbelieve him.

The point is that you meet these 18 year-olds because they are in your social circles. You are making these comments based on your own observations, which are by their very nature subjective. Basically not everyone is as young as you.


...we would still have the fact that the ideology has been refuted by history and has virtually no influence with the working class.

Trotskyism has virtually no influence in the working class. No 'socialists' anywhere have significant influence in the working class. In fact the only time that the Trotskyists did (in Sri Lanka), they joined a bourgeois government, just like the anarchists did in fact.

Also, the faction of Trotskyism that you link to the IMT, thought that it could bring about socialism through sending redundancy notices to thousands of workers, and support the British bourgeois (however critically) in its imperialist wars.

The problem though with your arguments against anarchism is that you address your idea of what anarchism is. The problem with this being that you don't have a clue. I would be surprised if you even knew what the main anarchist organisation is in your own country. I would be really shocked if you had actually read one of their publications, and absolutely flabbergasted if you knew anything at all about anarchism today in other countries.


And do you really think that I am going to consider the ICC a reliable source (ultra-leftism is just as much of a failure as anarchism!)?

By the way, I am not a member of the ICC, nor have I ever been, or claimed to be. But, please don't let such little things as facts obscure your argument.

Devrim

[manic expression]

devrimankara, just to throw my experiences out there: most of the anarchists that I've met have been youths. I've met older anarchists in the IWW, but they are far less in number. It's hard to make a real conclusion based solely on our collective anecdotes, perhaps we could come up with a better method.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 28, 2007 08:29 pm
devrimankara, just to throw my experiences out there: most of the anarchists that I've met have been youths. I've met older anarchists in the IWW, but they are far less in number. It's hard to make a real conclusion based solely on our collective anecdotes, perhaps we could come up with a better method.
I don't think that we need a better method. The English AF said their average age is 35. I take them at their word.

My point about age was that he probably meets young anarchists because he himself is young, and I don't think he knows anything about organised anarchism today.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:38 pm
I don't think that we need a better method. The English AF said their average age is 35. I take them at their word.

My point about age was that he probably meets young anarchists because he himself is young, and I don't think he knows anything about organised anarchism today.
Which is one group of how many? The claim did concede that some anarchist groups have older members, citing the IWW. Perhaps the poster is from the US (especially considering the citation of the US SWP) and unfamiliar with the English AF. At any rate, are you saying that anarchism isn't predominately a youth movement?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 28, 2007 08:45 pm
Which is one group of how many? The claim did concede that some anarchist groups have older members, citing the IWW. Perhaps the poster is from the US (especially considering the citation of the US SWP) and unfamiliar with the English AF. At any rate, are you saying that anarchism isn't predominately a youth movement?
Yes, I think that he is.

As for anarchism being a youth movement, I don't think that it is. If you look at the anarchist organisations, not individuals who call themselves anarchists, but have no idea what it means. I don't think they are a 'youth movement'. Also to look at the US, where even by anarchist standards there is a lot of rubbish that calls itself anarchist, obscures the fact that in Western (and particularly South Western) Europe, you do meet many anarchist workers.

The demographics of anarchism isn't my point though. My point is that Axel 1917 knows nothing about the subject he is discussing.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:52 pm
The demographics of anarchism isn't my point though. My point is that Axel 1917 knows nothing about the subject he is discussing.
If that's the case, then I'll let you two sort it out.

By the way, I'm enjoying this thread quite a bit.

[The Feral Underclass]

This whole argument that Axel is propagating is based on a false premise. These alleged anarchists he knows and has had so much experience with aren't actually anarchists, so his whole opinion about what anarchism is or does is totally fallacious.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 08:56 pm
This whole argument that Axel is propagating is based on a false premise. These alleged anarchists he knows and has had so much experience with aren't actually anarchists, so his whole opinion about what anarchism is or does is totally fallacious.
Yes, I know. I was wondering whether I was right to point it out, or nor. After all, it gives them a hobby.
Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

The problem is that activism has become cliqueish: Theres the right wing group of activists-- from Fascists to Conservative-Republicans, and there the left wing group of activists-- Anarchists to Liberal-Democrats.

Front groups cause this confusion of what is bourgeois and what is Communist mentallity, hence why you have Anarchists shouting "no blood for oil", and then this activism, these parades are ineffective-- it's all symbolic and no one cares, except the counter demonstration and the police with batons.

This author did put themself on a pedestal.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 08:56 pm
This whole argument that Axel is propagating is based on a false premise. These alleged anarchists he knows and has had so much experience with aren't actually anarchists, so his whole opinion about what anarchism is or does is totally fallacious.
What makes you disqualify them as anarchists? Seriously, did they flunk a test or something?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by manic expression+September 28, 2007 10:59 pm--> (manic expression @ September 28, 2007 10:59 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 08:56 pm
This whole argument that Axel is propagating is based on a false premise. These alleged anarchists he knows and has had so much experience with aren't actually anarchists, so his whole opinion about what anarchism is or does is totally fallacious.
What makes you disqualify them as anarchists? Seriously, did they flunk a test or something? [/b]
It's quite simple: The people Axel describes as anarchists are not, from that description, anarchists.

[DrFreeman09]

find that insulting - it's just patronising, and paints our politics (as anarchists) as simplistic, when in reality, that's total bullshit.
Anarchists seek the both the removal of capitalism and the state, in favour of free communism, or anarchist communism (or various other ideologies, as such).
The only ones who believe it as simplistically as you just put it out are Anarcho-Capitalists, who see the state as the source of oppression, and capitalism as a natural, "free" economic system.

As a matter of fact, I have read much of anarchist theory as I used to be an anarchist.

Tierra y Libertad seems to realize that the state is not the source of the oppression, but there are MANY anarchists who believe that it is (like Emma Goldman). And how do anarchists propose that the social cause of oppression be eliminated? Such things are not eliminated with the elimination of the state and a stateless society would easliy collapse back into capitalism if the social causes of excess and oppression were not eliminated first.

But if you realize this, then why exactly are you anarchists? How are the causes of oppression to be eliminated without a state machine that exists for a period of time? You claim that you do not advocate that oppression is eliminated "overnight" with the overthrow of the state, but what exactly do you advocate if not this? If you advocate that the state must exist for a period to abolish private property, money etc., then you are in fact a communist.

One thing I've heard a lot of people say is that a system of directly democratic workers' councils is not a "state." I hate to break it to you, but it is. It is a workers' state, where the workers as a class control the government and eliminate the social causes of excess. This is what communists advocate.

But the bottom line is that if you claim you don't have these reactionary prejudices like the ones I mentioned, that what exactly do you advocate? Because for years, anarchists HAVE been advocating those reactionary prejudices.

The main thing that anarchists advocate that I find troubling is that they want "everyone" to rule. But the nature of the state and of a classed society is that one class suppresses another. The bourgeoisie now suppress the working class, and in a workers' state, the workers must suppress the bourgeoisie. If "everyone" rules during a workers' state, the bourgeoisie will eventually take power once again. This is why anarchism is often labeled a petty-bourgeois ideology.

The trick is to find how to suppress the bourgeoisie without suppressing the workers themselves (as was seen in the USSR and every other "communist" country). There are plenty of theories on this out there.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by manic expression+September 28, 2007 09:59 pm--> (manic expression @ September 28, 2007 09:59 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 08:56 pm
This whole argument that Axel is propagating is based on a false premise. These alleged anarchists he knows and has had so much experience with aren't actually anarchists, so his whole opinion about what anarchism is or does is totally fallacious.
What makes you disqualify them as anarchists? Seriously, did they flunk a test or something? [/b]
What is anarchism? I would say that anarchism implies organised militant activity, membership of a political organisation. Therefore, I have no problem with letting members of the anarchist organisations define what they think is anarchism, or not.

Devrim

[Devrim]

There is a difference between a theoretical misunderstanding such as in my opinion the anarchists have on the state, and a 'reactionary prejudice'.

The Trotskyists also have deep problems on the issue of the state, probably deeper ones than anarchism.


Originally posted by DrFreeman09
As a matter of fact, I have read much of anarchist theory as I used to be an anarchist.

By the way, which anarchist organisation did you belong to?

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:05 am

I mean, you can't judge a movement by analysing those people who aren't actually apart of it, can you?

This has got to be the most hypocritical statement in the history of revleft! And it also says we can't criticize capitalism because we are not bourgeois!
I'm not going to deal with the other rubbish in your post because it's futile. You have presented so many inaccuracies that it's barely worth even noting.

In any case, this particular quote is evidence that you have totally misunderstood me. I was not claiming that you cannot criticise anarchism if you're not an anarchist. I was claiming that you cannot criticise anarchism by analysing people who are not apart of the anarchist movement, which you consistently do.

[Bilan]

Tierra y Libertad seems to realize that the state is not the source of the oppression, but there are MANY anarchists who believe that it is (like Emma Goldman).

Emma Goldman, as far as I know, recognized it as an instrument of oppression.



And how do anarchists propose that the social cause of oppression be eliminated? Such things are not eliminated with the elimination of the state and a stateless society would easliy collapse back into capitalism if the social causes of excess and oppression were not eliminated first

...Just which anarchist theory did you read?



But if you realize this, then why exactly are you anarchists?

Because we recognize that both capitalism and the state must be abolished. We recognize that the state need only exist when trying to maintain a social order in the interests of a ruling class - to maintain business as usual.
The existence of a State in a post-capitalist, socialist society is unnecessary, and counter-productive.



How are the causes of oppression to be eliminated without a state machine that exists for a period of time?

By other means.



You claim that you do not advocate that oppression is eliminated "overnight" with the overthrow of the state, but what exactly do you advocate if not this?

Through implementing a socialist economic system, organized through democratic workers councils.


If you advocate that the state must exist for a period to abolish private property, money etc., then you are in fact a communist.

'tis a shame, cuz I don't, and I'm not.



One thing I've heard a lot of people say is that a system of directly democratic workers' councils is not a "state." I hate to break it to you, but it is. It is a workers' state, where the workers as a class control the government and eliminate the social causes of excess. This is what communists advocate.

I wouldn't call that a State. That would only fit into a really broad definition of the state.


But the bottom line is that if you claim you don't have these reactionary prejudices like the ones I mentioned, that what exactly do you advocate? Because for years, anarchists HAVE been advocating those reactionary prejudices.

They're not reactionary at all. That's just garbage.


The main thing that anarchists advocate that I find troubling is that they want "everyone" to rule.


This is why anarchism is often labeled a petty-bourgeois ideology.

Then you guys are just gooses.


The trick is to find how to suppress the bourgeoisie without suppressing the workers themselves (as was seen in the USSR and every other "communist" country). There are plenty of theories on this out there.

And Anarchist-Communism is one of those theories (best one, fo sho!)

[catch]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 28, 2007 08:29 pm
devrimankara, just to throw my experiences out there: most of the anarchists that I've met have been youths. I've met older anarchists in the IWW, but they are far less in number. It's hard to make a real conclusion based solely on our collective anecdotes, perhaps we could come up with a better method.
When I was briefly an active member of the AF, the London meetings were primarily people in their 30s-50s apart from a couple of us in our 20s, other AF members I've met have also been evenly spread across the age range, so 35 sounds about right. Anecdotally, Solfed has an older profile.

[catch]

Originally posted by devrimankara+September 29, 2007 05:43 am--> (devrimankara @ September 29, 2007 05:43 am)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 28, 2007 09:59 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 08:56 pm
This whole argument that Axel is propagating is based on a false premise. These alleged anarchists he knows and has had so much experience with aren't actually anarchists, so his whole opinion about what anarchism is or does is totally fallacious.
What makes you disqualify them as anarchists? Seriously, did they flunk a test or something?
What is anarchism? I would say that anarchism implies organised militant activity, membership of a political organisation. Therefore, I have no problem with letting members of the anarchist organisations define what they think is anarchism, or not.

Devrim [/b]
Devrim,

I don't think you can restrict representatives of various ideologies to membership of formal organisations - as you've done both here and on libcom. Cleary teenagers who like An4rky!!!111! can be excluded from any serious discussion on the merits and failures of anarchism (as can the bulk of teenagers wearing Che T-shirts from a discussion of Tankies and Trots). But the membership or not of a particular organisation at a particular time doesn't hold much sway, especially in the past 30+ years where the actually existing organisations have left so much to be desired.

Obviously there has to be some kind of political activity to register, or do you publishing activities of the BM combustion/Blob lot as a 'political organisation'?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:06 am
Devrim,

I don't think you can restrict representatives of various ideologies to membership of formal organisations - as you've done both here and on libcom. Cleary teenagers who like An4rky!!!111! can be excluded from any serious discussion on the merits and failures of anarchism (as can the bulk of teenagers wearing Che T-shirts from a discussion of Tankies and Trots). But the membership or not of a particular organisation at a particular time doesn't hold much sway, especially in the past 30+ years where the actually existing organisations have left so much to be desired.

Obviously there has to be some kind of political activity to register, or do you publishing activities of the BM combustion/Blob lot as a 'political organisation'?
Catch is one of the few people I respect on these boards, as I know he is involved in political activity. In some ways his points make sense, but I don't think they contradict my basic point that every thing that calls itself anarchy isn't. In fact he agrees with it.

Devrim

[DrFreeman09]

Because we recognize that both capitalism and the state must be abolished.

Lenin:

“[…] Only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed -- “nobody” in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population. We are not utopians, and do not deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to suppress such excesses. But, in the first place, no special apparatus of suppression is needed for this; this will be done by the armed people itself […]”

“[…] And secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the masses, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to ‘wither away’ […] With their withering away the state will also wither away.” (from "The State and Revolution")

Communists also recognize that capitalism and the state must be removed. You (Proper Tea is Theft) say that a socialist economy and a series of democratic workers' councils will eliminate oppression. I agree. And so did Marx, Engels and Lenin. But regardless of whether or not you view workers' councils to be a state or not, it is workers' rule; democracy of the workers and not of the bourgeoisie. This is what Marxists advocate.

But I have heard many, many anarchists use petty-bourgeois ideology to defend their theory. They use bourgeois criticism of communism to defend their theory that when "everyone" rules, no one does, and that the rule of everyone is the only way to stateless, classless society. It's good to see that you don't fall into this group, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people that do.

But as for what I said before, anarchists and pseudo-Leninists alike have accused me and others of disguising Leninism as anarchism. The hard core "Marxist-Leninists" feel that I and others are distorting Lenin's words to fit my "left childishness" and anarchists feel that people like me are trying to "trick" them.

I am doing neither.

Regardless of what your opinions are, anarchism has historically challenged Marxism on the idea of workers' rule. You could claim that Marx advocated that the workers should seize control of the state and use it for their own purposes, and that's the reason why anarchists opposed him, but Marx rejected this idea in 1872.

Marx recognized that the workers could not simply take over the existing state framework and that they would have to form their own system of rule. Workers' councils, as you advocate, are a system of rule, whether it is a state or not. Therefore, I believe your alignment is closer to Marx than it is to anarchism.

Further, people like Thoreau, who is considered by some (like Emma Goldman) to be the greatest anarchist[1], were thoroughly convinced that man is naturally perfect and that without a state, all of our problems will disappear[2]. This could not be further from the truth (I'm sure you agree with me on this one).

But Axel and I base our claim that anarchism frequently incorporates petty-bourgeois ideology because a large portion of anarchists have done so for a long time. The fact that YOU personally don't seem to is a good thing, but this doesn't mean that anarchism as a whole is the same way.

In short, it seems as though people like yourself have rejected anarchism as it has historically been, i.e. an ideology based on the state as the source of all of our problems. But anarchism in general is what Axel and I have said it is.

Only when oppression has been eliminated can we talk of freedom for all and the rule of everyone. Many anarchists don't seem to realize this.

[1] Goldman, Emma. "Anarchism and Other Essays." Project Gutenberg, 2000.

[2] Fried, Albert & Ronald Sanders. "Socialist Thought." Columbia University Press, 1992.

By the way, Devrim, I wasn't part of an anarchist organization per se, just as now, I'm not part of any particular communist organization. The kind of organization we need, I believe, does not yet exist. I can tell you, however, that I was a fan of Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky, but in the years since, I have read many Marxist writers and my opinion has changed drastically.

I have now almost completely rejected Goldman and I realize that much of what Chomsky has written is painfully innacurate.

Also, the reactionary prejudice I mentioned was the notion that I've heard from many anarchists that with the elimination of the state comes several other things automatically, like the elimination of oppression.

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:22 pm
I don't think they contradict my basic point that every thing that calls itself anarchy isn't. In fact he agrees with it.

Devrim
Just to make it clear, I do agree with the basic point. There's plenty of stuff that actually is anarchism that I've got little time for - but that doesn't warrant the misinformed rubbish spouted on this thread.

DrFreeman09 - Emma Goldman and Chomsky aren't representative of anarchism's theoretical and practical tradition, if that's all you read then you missed out many of the classic texts, and presumably much of the historical literature as well.

[YSR]

Tierra y Libertad seems to realize that the state is not the source of the oppression, but there are MANY anarchists who believe that it is (like Emma Goldman).

Not to be snarky but are you by chance referring to Emma "take the bread" Goldman, self-described and described by contemporary anarchists (de Cleyre in particular comes to mind) as a communist?

(okay, fine, this was snarky.)

[Bilan]

Originally posted by DrFreeman09
Communists also recognize that capitalism and the state must be removed. You (Proper Tea is Theft) say that a socialist economy and a series of democratic workers' councils will eliminate oppression. I agree. And so did Marx, Engels and Lenin. But regardless of whether or not you view workers' councils to be a state or not, it is workers' rule; democracy of the workers and not of the bourgeoisie. This is what Marxists advocate.

Then, from what I gather, this is good.
But there must be other means to eliminate other forms of oppression which exist in our society, relating to things like sexism, homophobia, and so forth.
Do you not agree?
But yes, we are in agreement.


But I have heard many, many anarchists use petty-bourgeois ideology to defend their theory. They use bourgeois criticism of communism to defend their theory that when "everyone" rules, no one does, and that the rule of everyone is the only way to stateless, classless society. It's good to see that you don't fall into this group, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people that do.

Well, the bourgeois criticisms of communism are, in my opinion, more a distortion by those who try to defend failed attempts at it - particularly around Russia (Which frankly, I am sick to fucking death of hearing about).
But actually, can you give me some examples of this bourgeois criticism of communism by anarchists?


But as for what I said before, anarchists and pseudo-Leninists alike have accused me and others of disguising Leninism as anarchism. The hard core "Marxist-Leninists" feel that I and others are distorting Lenin's words to fit my "left childishness" and anarchists feel that people like me are trying to "trick" them.

I am doing neither.

huzzah! :D



Regardless of what your opinions are, anarchism has historically challenged Marxism on the idea of workers' rule.

I don't agree with this; I think Anarchists have challenged Marxists on what workers control should look like in practice; how it should be carried out, etc.
But regardless, I think you'll find that anarchists have always advocated workers self-management; workers rule.


You could claim that Marx advocated that the workers should seize control of the state and use it for their own purposes, and that's the reason why anarchists opposed him, but Marx rejected this idea in 1872.

I don't think he did that. Well, at least not from what I read.


Marx recognized that the workers could not simply take over the existing state framework and that they would have to form their own system of rule. Workers' councils, as you advocate, are a system of rule, whether it is a state or not. Therefore, I believe your alignment is closer to Marx than it is to anarchism.

It's not closer to Marxism; I hold an anarchist communist/anarcho-syndicalist view point, which you could say has a very close alignment with Marxism (I'd say that for me, as I read a fair bit of Marx).


Further, people like Thoreau, who is considered by some (like Emma Goldman) to be the greatest anarchist[1], were thoroughly convinced that man is naturally perfect and that without a state, all of our problems will disappear[2]. This could not be further from the truth (I'm sure you agree with me on this one).

I have not read that, but I'll take your word on it for now.
And you should read what Malatesta had to say on said things.



But Axel and I base our claim that anarchism frequently incorporates petty-bourgeois ideology because a large portion of anarchists have done so for a long time. The fact that YOU personally don't seem to is a good thing, but this doesn't mean that anarchism as a whole is the same way.

I think you shouldn't bring Axel's arguements in on this. I'm sure Axel is brilliant when you want to talk to him about Leninism, but when it comes to Anarchism, he isn't exactly on the ball.
Anarchism as a whole does not incorporate petty-bourgeois ideology. I think that claim is just an attempt to slander anarchists who disagree with Lenin - ideologically, and from his actions in practice.



In short, it seems as though people like yourself have rejected anarchism as it has historically been, i.e. an ideology based on the state as the source of all of our problems. But anarchism in general is what Axel and I have said it is.

If you read some old Anarchist texts, say from Kropotkin, you'll see that this is not the case.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:02 pm
By the way, Devrim, I wasn't part of an anarchist organization per se, just as now, I'm not part of any particular communist organization. The kind of organization we need, I believe, does not yet exist. I can tell you, however, that I was a fan of Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky, but in the years since, I have read many Marxist writers and my opinion has changed drastically.

I have now almost completely rejected Goldman and I realize that much of what Chomsky has written is painfully innacurate.


I wouldn't say that you were an anarchist then. I would say that you were interested in anarchism.

On the people that you read. I don't know much about Goldman, nor have I read her, but most of the anarchists I know would view Chomsky as some sort of left liberal.

Devrim

[catch]

Originally posted by devrimankara+September 30, 2007 06:26 am--> (devrimankara @ September 30, 2007 06:26 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 08:02 pm
By the way, Devrim, I wasn't part of an anarchist organization per se, just as now, I'm not part of any particular communist organization. The kind of organization we need, I believe, does not yet exist. I can tell you, however, that I was a fan of Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky, but in the years since, I have read many Marxist writers and my opinion has changed drastically.

I have now almost completely rejected Goldman and I realize that much of what Chomsky has written is painfully innacurate.


I wouldn't say that you were an anarchist then. I would say that you were interested in anarchism.

On the people that you read. I don't know much about Goldman, nor have I read her, but most of the anarchists I know would view Chomsky as some sort of left liberal.

Devrim [/b]
That's essentially what Chomsky is I reckon. Goldman was alright, but I'm not a big fan of her theoretical work at all.

[Ultra-Violence]

Tierra y Libertad seems to realize that the state is not the source of the oppression, but there are MANY anarchists who believe that it is (like Emma Goldman). And how do anarchists propose that the social cause of oppression be eliminated? Such things are not eliminated with the elimination of the state and a stateless society would easliy collapse back into capitalism if the social causes of excess and oppression were not eliminated first.


But if you realize this, then why exactly are you anarchists? How are the causes of oppression to be eliminated without a state machine that exists for a period of time? You claim that you do not advocate that oppression is eliminated "overnight" with the overthrow of the state, but what exactly do you advocate if not this? If you advocate that the state must exist for a period to abolish private property, money etc., then you are in fact a communist.



Its yet to come. how do you know that if we smash the state and get a classles society"over night" that capitalism well just get raised from the dead again? Id like some proof. Lets take the Russina revolution for example what has history shown us thier? Russias not communist. Look at china? china aint communist. I mean fuck marx wasn't like a prophet or something and not every thing he said was right or became true. And you as a marxist im assuming Would use the tools of marxism i.e Historical materialism and see that the transitionry state is a bunch of bull shit and we dont need it! We have to get past that and move on. IMO

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 30, 2007 01:58 am

You could claim that Marx advocated that the workers should seize control of the state and use it for their own purposes, and that's the reason why anarchists opposed him, but Marx rejected this idea in 1872.

I don't think he did that. Well, at least not from what I read.


I think you need to reread then.

Devrim

[DrFreeman09]

And you as a marxist im assuming Would use the tools of marxism i.e Historical materialism and see that the transitionry state is a bunch of bull shit and we dont need it! We have to get past that and move on. IMO

I disagree.

Proper Tea is Theft claimed that a state is not necessary in a socialist economy. This is not true. Workers' rule, like the kind that both the anarchists here and the Marxists seem to be advocating, presupposes that classes still exist, and that class struggle still exists. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat will exist for a time after the overthrow of the current social order.

The question so far has been: does workers' rule take the form of a state? It is my opinion that it does.

As long as class struggle exists, there will be crime, suffering, and oppression of some sort. The socialist economy reduces this oppression, but it does not eliminate it entirely because such an economic model presupposes the existence of classes and therefore class struggle, which inevitably leads to oppression.

It is the goal of the state to, on the one hand, suppress the bourgeoisie, for they will still exist for a period and will still have piles of money, and on the other hand, help set up conditions so that classes will eventually end.

“The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into
his head to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to
believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes,
how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors,
would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes
or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure
not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the
fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to
Nobody!” (Rousseau)

Crime and social unrest that are the inevitable byproducts of class struggle necessitate a state in some form to keep these things under control. When the causes of this unrest are eliminated (which they will be in time), the state is no longer necessary.

As for the nature of this state, here is Marx:

"The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. [...]

"One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.' (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.)"
(From the preface to the 1872 German edition of The Communist Manifesto)

Marx did not change the actual text because he viewed it as "a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter."

Of course the proletariat must smash the old state and think up a new form of state that makes true workers' rule possible, but this doesn't mean that the state itself is unnecessary in a socialist economy.

As for the other points I was making, I will find anarchist critiques of communism when I have more time.

[YSR]

Why does every discussion of anarchism on this place involve more non-anarchists interested in trashing the whole discipline than actual anarchists interested in deepening their analysis?

[Ultra-Violence]

It is the goal of the state to, on the one hand, suppress the bourgeoisie, for they will still exist for a period and will still have piles of money, and on the other hand, help set up conditions so that classes will eventually end.


And the new goverment will look after their own Interest too POWER and Power corupts absolutely

[MarxSchmarx]

Crime and social unrest that are the inevitable byproducts of class struggle necessitate a state in some form to keep these things under control.

When poor people engage in it, it's called "social unrest." When rich people engage in it's called politics and law enforcement.


When the causes of this unrest are eliminated (which they will be in time), the state is no longer necessary.

Would a volunteer fire-department be a state "in some form"? How about a group of neighbors inspecting buildings to make sure a "fire-code" is being followed?

Let's take it a step further: how about a group of volunteering neighbors restraining a lunatic that poses a physical danger to others?

Are all these a "state in some form"? If so, this is really just a game of semantics.


how do you know that if we smash the state and get a classles society"over night" that capitalism well just get raised from the dead again? Id like some proof. Lets take the Russina revolution for example what has history shown us thier? Russias not communist. Look at china? china aint communist.

Who facilitated, encouraged, and undertook the task of resurrecting capitalism in those countries? Last I checked it was DA STATE.


Why does every discussion of anarchism on this place involve more non-anarchists interested in trashing the whole discipline than actual anarchists interested in deepening their analysis?

Is that a rhetorical question?

But yeah, YSR has a point. There are gobs of other "why anarchism sucks/will never work/is naive" threads lying around, especially in theory section.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70777
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71331
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70074
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69325
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69649

[DrFreeman09]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 02, 2007 06:22 am

It is the goal of the state to, on the one hand, suppress the bourgeoisie, for they will still exist for a period and will still have piles of money, and on the other hand, help set up conditions so that classes will eventually end.


And the new goverment will look after their own Interest too POWER and Power corupts absolutely
Power does corrupt. You know who first popularized that phrase? Karl Marx.

What are ways to suppress the bourgeoisie without suppressing the workers?

1. Separation of speech and property.

Everyone will have the right to say whatever they damn well please, but no one will be able to buy free speech through the media.

2. Cutting down to size and drowning out

The workers will drown out the cries of the bourgeoisie, preventing them from coming back to power.

The only regulation the state need set here is to make sure that no one can use their economic power to buy free speech. In this way, the bourgeoisie, who will exist for a long time after the overthrow of capitalism and they will still have economic power, are rendered powerless, and they will have no choice but to give up their riches and become workers if they want to have a say.

But back to the point of power corrupting: this is true. But direct democracy ensures that the interests of the government are synonymous with those of the people. If the state does something that is not in the interest of the workers, those within the state will be replaced. But the simple fact that power corrupts is no reason to abolish the state prematurely.

As long as class struggle exists, a state will remain necessary, as the necessary changes that will abolish class will not happen overnight. There is so much proof for this statement throughout history that I thought it would be common sense. But apparently it is not.

Someone asked me to provide a proof for the statement that if the state is abolished before classes themselves are abolished, the bourgeoisie would easily buy their way back to power and society would collapse into the capitalist mode of production once again.

The proof for this is simple. After the overthrow of capitalism, class struggle still exists until things like private property and the price system are abolished. These things are not abolished overnight, so class struggle will therefore exist for some time. Class struggle implies that there are classes, predominantly the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, whose riches will not simply disappear as soon as capitalism is overthrown, will still hold a vast amount of economic power, which in a society which has not yet abolished the price system and private property, is still power.

The bourgeoisie, therefore, in a socialist economy, still have a vast amount of power and influence. Without a state, they would be able to buy their way into contol fairly quickly.

If you deny that a transition period must exist between capitalism and classless society, then you are implying that the abolition of property and the price system, and because of this, the abolition of classes, will happen instantaneously. History has shown that nothing ever works this smoothly. So in the time when these things are being taken care of, because class struggle still exists violently, the bourgeoisie must be suppressed, and they will require a systematic form of suppression: the state.

There will be a time when a systematic form of suppression is not necessary, but this time will not come until excesses on a massive scale disappear, which will take a long time.

Here is where the petty-bourgeois nature of some anarchists shows itself:

Many anarchists have said that socialism and eventually communism are bad because no one should be suppressed. I've heard many anarchists object to the suppression of the bourgeoisie. Sure, they claim that the bourgeoisie are capitalist exploiters, but they object to the suppression of these people under workers' rule. In short, they want democracy for everyone. This is not bad, but what they aren't looking deep enough to discover that what they're advocating is the rule of the bourgeoisie.

If you do not suppress the bourgeoisie, then they will eventually retake power, and it will once again become democracy of the bourgeoisie and not the workers. This is why many anarchists schools of thought (like the ones advocated by Thoreau and such) have been labeled as petty-bourgeois ideology. I'm getting the feeling that this school of thought is not popular here, so I won't spend too much more time on this.

I want to make it clear that by suppression of the bourgeoisie, I don't mean putting them up against a wall and having them shot. Almost anyone would object to that and in a truly worker-controled state, it wouldn't happen. It does mean that the state must make the bourgeoisie's economic power worthless, which forces them to become workers to gain their rights.

But the bourgeoisie is so powerful (and will continue to remain that way for some time) that a systematic means of suppression will be necessary until oppression is abolished and, in turn, classes are abolished.

[Ultra-Violence]

But back to the point of power corrupting: this is true. But direct democracy ensures that the interests of the government are synonymous with those of the people. If the state does something that is not in the interest of the workers, those within the state will be replaced. But the simple fact that power corrupts is no reason to abolish the state prematurely.

OK but who says the new goverment is goana be a direct democracy?
What if A gruop of Highly educated individuals Think they know whats best for the people and set up some other type of bull shit govement? Totalitarian pehaps?
And their justification is to furher the revolution! what do you make of this?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 10:54 pm
It's quite simple: The people Axel describes as anarchists are not, from that description, anarchists.
Care to provide reasoning for that?


What is anarchism? I would say that anarchism implies organised militant activity, membership of a political organisation. Therefore, I have no problem with letting members of the anarchist organisations define what they think is anarchism, or not.

That makes absolutely no sense. Anarchists do not have to be a member of an organization to be considered anarchist (many anarchists on this forum could tell you as much). That should go without saying, but there you have it, it had to be said. Furthermore, it is simply ridiculous to let one group of anarchists determine what is and isn't anarchism when the definition must be objective and not subjective. Using your logic, you would be defined as not communist merely because certain groups said it out loud. Please, definitions need a bit more than the "I say so" argument.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 02, 2007 05:32 pm

What is anarchism? I would say that anarchism implies organised militant activity, membership of a political organisation. Therefore, I have no problem with letting members of the anarchist organisations define what they think is anarchism, or not.

That makes absolutely no sense. Anarchists do not have to be a member of an organization to be considered anarchist (many anarchists on this forum could tell you as much). That should go without saying, but there you have it, it had to be said. Furthermore, it is simply ridiculous to let one group of anarchists determine what is and isn't anarchism when the definition must be objective and not subjective. Using your logic, you would be defined as not communist merely because certain groups said it out loud. Please, definitions need a bit more than the "I say so" argument.
I didn't say one organisation determines it.

The definition is objective, it implies organised militant activity. Therefor those who are not in organisations, or working to build one are not anarchists. They may be influenced by anarchist ideas, but they are not militants.

Many anarchists one these forums are little more than liberal individualists. Of course, I don't say that about all of them, especially not the one with organised political activity in a political organisation.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:00 pm
I didn't say one organisation determines it.
Therefore, I have no problem with letting members of the anarchist organisations define what they think is anarchism, or not.

You said that you would let "members of the anarchist organizations" define anarchism.


The definition is objective, it implies organised militant activity. Therefor those who are not in organisations, or working to build one are not anarchists. They may be influenced by anarchist ideas, but they are not militants.

Many anarchists one these forums are little more than liberal individualists. Of course, I don't say that about all of them, especially not the one with organised political activity in a political organisation.

Not being actively involved does not negate your ideology. Period. Anarchists who are not engaged in militant activity are still anarchists, and no amount of logical gymnastics will prove that otherwise. Sure, they aren't militants in action, but that has no effect on the ideology they hold. Again, you're simply injecting your own views into a definition that needs to be objective.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 02, 2007 06:06 pm--> (manic expression @ October 02, 2007 06:06 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 06:00 pm
I didn't say one organisation determines it.
Therefore, I have no problem with letting members of the anarchist organisations define what they think is anarchism, or not.

You said that you would let "members of the anarchist organizations " define anarchism.




[/b]
Note the singulars, and plurals.

Of course, we all have our own definition of what anarchism is. Our organisation has one too. I don't think that there is an objective definition, but if there is to be one, it is more logical that it is created by those who are anarchists than by their political enemies. Otherwise it just becomes a way of slandering people for something they are not.


Not being actively involved does not negate your ideology. Period. Anarchists who are not engaged in militant activity are still anarchists, and no amount of logical gymnastics will prove that otherwise. Sure, they aren't militants in action, but that has no effect on the ideology they hold. Again, you're simply injecting your own views into a definition that needs to be objective.

Again it is not about 'logical gymnastics', objective definitions, or the ideology people hold.

Maybe you should read the discussions at the 1903 congress of the RSDLP.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:18 am
Note the singulars, and plurals.

Of course, we all have our own definition of what anarchism is. Our organisation has one too. I don't think that there is an objective definition, but if there is to be one, it is more logical that it is created by those who are anarchists than by their political enemies. Otherwise it just becomes a way of slandering people for something they are not.
No, real definitions cannot be left to the subjective, they must be made consistent. And you claim to have an objective, scientific viewpoint?

No, definitions are not created by those in question, that would also be anti-scientific. They have just as much of a vested interest in an un-objective portrayal as their enemies. So, what is to be done? Try making an objective definition independent of biases and those involved (which you refuse to do).


Again it is not about 'logical gymnastics', objective definitions, or the ideology people hold.

Maybe you should read the discussions at the 1903 congress of the RSDLP.

It is about defining something objectively and scientifically, which you don't want to do for some reason.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 03, 2007 01:45 pm
It is about defining something objectively and scientifically, which you don't want to do for some reason.
manic expression - that's a false objectivism. Ultimately you're trying to classify people by what they think, their political opinions, in this case - it's not possible to do that "objectively and scientifically" in any meaningful sense. The process of definition in terms of political ideology is something that has to be done via discussion

[Devrim]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 03, 2007 01:45 pm--> (manic expression @ October 03, 2007 01:45 pm)
Originally posted by devrimankara+October 03, 2007 06:18 am--> (devrimankara @ October 03, 2007 06:18 am) Note the singulars, and plurals.

Of course, we all have our own definition of what anarchism is. Our organisation has one too. I don't think that there is an objective definition, but if there is to be one, it is more logical that it is created by those who are anarchists than by their political enemies. Otherwise it just becomes a way of slandering people for something they are not. [/b]
No, real definitions cannot be left to the subjective, they must be made consistent. And you claim to have an objective, scientific viewpoint?

No, definitions are not created by those in question, that would also be anti-scientific. They have just as much of a vested interest in an un-objective portrayal as their enemies. So, what is to be done? Try making an objective definition independent of biases and those involved (which you refuse to do).

[/b]
This really is nonsense. How can there be an objective definition of anarchism? Of course, we do have our own definition, but I wouldn't claim it is in anyway objective. Nor did I claim to have a 'scientific viewpoint'.


manic [email protected]

Devrim
Again it is not about 'logical gymnastics', objective definitions, or the ideology people hold.

Maybe you should read the discussions at the 1903 congress of the RSDLP.

It is about defining something objectively and scientifically, which you don't want to do for some reason.

I meant the bit about how being a Social Democrat meant acting as a member of a party organisation.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:20 pm
This really is nonsense. How can there be an objective definition of anarchism? Of course, we do have our own definition, but I wouldn't claim it is in anyway objective. Nor did I claim to have a 'scientific viewpoint'.
Do you strive to have scientific analyses?


manic expression - that's a false objectivism. Ultimately you're trying to classify people by what they think, their political opinions, in this case - it's not possible to do that "objectively and scientifically" in any meaningful sense. The process of definition in terms of political ideology is something that has to be done via discussion

All I've been asking for is a reason to disqualify said anarchists as anarchists. That's all I wanted: why are these people not anarchists? No one's really given a straight answer.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 03, 2007 08:06 pm--> (manic expression @ October 03, 2007 08:06 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:20 pm
This really is nonsense. How can there be an objective definition of anarchism? Of course, we do have our own definition, but I wouldn't claim it is in anyway objective. Nor did I claim to have a 'scientific viewpoint'.
Do you strive to have scientific analyses?

[/b]
I think that the whole idea of 'scientific socialism' is a product of 19th Century positivism. I don't think that the phrase even makes any sense.


manic expression
All I've been asking for is a reason to disqualify said anarchists as anarchists. That's all I wanted: why are these people not anarchists? No one's really given a straight answer.

If we see anarchism as a current within the workers' movement (and I am not sure if you do), it automatically excludes all of the hippy rubbish.

Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Devrim
I wouldn't say that you were an anarchist then. I would say that you were interested in anarchism.

That would apply to me, but with Left-Communism.

Which brings me to my previous statement on this thread.

I'm innactive, but there just really seems very little actions to take part in that are meaningful. Theres so much of this demonstration vs. counter-demonstration, and handing out pamplets to the usual suspects of the events. The only worth demonstrations around hot-button political issues have are just spinning them into things they aren't really. If this is Communism then were nothing but cliques, or a deviant counter-culture, we might aswell adopt a style of dress and only listen to one type of music.

If its unions going on strike, they want to demands better conditions. What are you to say them "They'll keep taking gains away from you, and you'll have to try to get them back over and over again, these situations will be infinitive until us workers take control of socities ourselves." ? So all we can really do in this situtation is keep repeating the same 150 year old stuff.

Then theres the wildcats, which are rare. Depending on the circumstances it could turn into a revolutionary situtation or it will fizzle out until the next wildcat. This is worth doing, but for a millitant it takes expirience.

[catch]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 03, 2007 08:28 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 03, 2007 08:28 pm)
Originally posted by manic expression+October 03, 2007 08:06 pm--> (manic expression @ October 03, 2007 08:06 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 05:20 pm
This really is nonsense. How can there be an objective definition of anarchism? Of course, we do have our own definition, but I wouldn't claim it is in anyway objective. Nor did I claim to have a 'scientific viewpoint'.
Do you strive to have scientific analyses?

[/b]
I think that the whole idea of 'scientific socialism' is a product of 19th Century positivism. I don't think that the phrase even makes any sense.


manic expression
All I've been asking for is a reason to disqualify said anarchists as anarchists. That's all I wanted: why are these people not anarchists? No one's really given a straight answer.

If we see anarchism as a current within the workers' movement (and I am not sure if you do), it automatically excludes all of the hippy rubbish.

Devrim [/b]
Devrim, if you take the view that anarchism is what anarchists in anarchist organisations say it is, then I'm afraid you have to include a lot of the hippy rubbish - infoshop/Chuck0, various US groups are definitely anarchists, just crap ones. Even a lot of people in 'better' anarchist groups have quite wide definitions of anarchism - there's lifestylists in the IAF/IFA for example (witness Polish translations of Bey at the bookfair 3-4 years ago). This doesn't mean including the sub-NGOs like dissent etc. which wouldn't even claim to be anarchist anyway.

Manic Expression - Marx fought against a lot of this ultra-objectivist 'scientific socialism' rubbish, it always amazes me when it rears it's head again.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:50 pm
Manic Expression - Marx fought against a lot of this ultra-objectivist 'scientific socialism' rubbish, it always amazes me when it rears it's head again.
Marx also championed the idea of scientific analyses of society. That's the basis of communism. My point is that it's intellectually dishonest to disqualify someone as something just because you disagree with them. Anarchists saying other anarchists aren't anarchists just to get ahead in a debate is just too convenient and isn't really the product of an honest definition.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:50 pm
Devrim, if you take the view that anarchism is what anarchists in anarchist organisations say it is, then I'm afraid you have to include a lot of the hippy rubbish - infoshop/Chuck0, various US groups are definitely anarchists, just crap ones. Even a lot of people in 'better' anarchist groups have quite wide definitions of anarchism - there's lifestylists in the IAF/IFA for example (witness Polish translations of Bey at the bookfair 3-4 years ago). This doesn't mean including the sub-NGOs like dissent etc. which wouldn't even claim to be anarchist anyway.

Catch, I have said already that we have a view of what anarchism is.

Is this rubbish you talk about (info shop etc...) coming from an anarchist political organisation? Or is it a collective, or some other such nonsense?

I think the point is that there is no objective definition.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 04, 2007 07:58 pm
My point is that it's intellectually dishonest to disqualify someone as something just because you disagree with them. Anarchists saying other anarchists aren't anarchists just to get ahead in a debate is just too convenient and isn't really the product of an honest definition.
OK fine. But just remember every argument you come up with, I can find a 'Marxist' arguing the opposite.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:41 pm
OK fine. But just remember every argument you come up with, I can find a 'Marxist' arguing the opposite.
Such is the beauty of our diverse ideology...or something. Almost half the theads in this forum are heated debates between Marxists of different sorts. Anyway, that's a whole different issue. I think we understand one another.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 04, 2007 07:58 pm
My point is that it's intellectually dishonest to disqualify someone as something just because you disagree with them. Anarchists saying other anarchists aren't anarchists just to get ahead in a debate is just too convenient and isn't really the product of an honest definition.
Neither me nor Devrim are anarchists. Also we'd both agree that there are plenty of 'bad' anarchists. This doesn't however excuse tarring all anarchists with the worst excesses of the worst anarchists - which is what a few posters poorly attempted to do on this thread. It'd be the same as tarring the whole of 'marxism' with the brush of Stalin, I'd hope most discussion on here is a bit beyond that, but perhaps not.

Having said that, lumping radical liberals, anti-globalisation protestors - that sort of thing in with anarchists is what the bourgeios media does - a large number of these people are neither anarchists nor would describe themselves as such.

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:39 pm
Catch, I have said already that we have a view of what anarchism is.

OK sorry, forgot we'd already gone through this, and it's even on this thread.



Is this rubbish you talk about (info shop etc...) coming from an anarchist political organisation? Or is it a collective, or some other such nonsense?
It's a collective as far as I know, or at least most of it.

I take exception to you calling collectives 'nonsense'. libcom is run by a non-membership group, were it run by a membership organisation it'd probably be like most anarchist/ultra-left/left-communist organisation's websites (not great usually).

Although you may be using 'collective' in a similar context to the way I'd use 'network', in which case fine.

[Axel1917]

My point about that is that you tend to meet those sort of people because of your age. I tend to meet those sort of people because of mine. From my observations of anarchism in the UK, Solfed (the anarchosyndicalists) have an older profile, and I have heard their members worrying about attracting younger people. I was under the impression that the AF had a younger profile, but the guy earlier said that their average age is 35. I have no reason to disbelieve him.

Really? A good deal of the Trotskyists I have met are in fact older than me, a good deal of them ranging from their early 30's to late 50's. Hell, where I live, I am perhaps one of the youngest ones in the IMT. Not to mention that manic expression has also admitted my point in this aspect.


The point is that you meet these 18 year-olds because they are in your social circles. You are making these comments based on your own observations, which are by their very nature subjective. Basically not everyone is as young as you.

See above.


Trotskyism has virtually no influence in the working class. No 'socialists' anywhere have significant influence in the working class. In fact the only time that the Trotskyists did (in Sri Lanka), they joined a bourgeois government, just like the anarchists did in fact.

Trotskyism has a huge influence compared to anarchism because it actually has an influence. I have heard that some anarchist group in Spain (I don't know if this is true or not) has 100,000+ members. If so, this proves that they have no links with the working class, for it took far fewer Bolshevik cadres to win over the masses and take power in Russia.


Also, the faction of Trotskyism that you link to the IMT, thought that it could bring about socialism through sending redundancy notices to thousands of workers, and support the British bourgeois (however critically) in its imperialist wars.

Which slander machine did you get this from?


The problem though with your arguments against anarchism is that you address your idea of what anarchism is. The problem with this being that you don't have a clue. I would be surprised if you even knew what the main anarchist organisation is in your own country. I would be really shocked if you had actually read one of their publications, and absolutely flabbergasted if you knew anything at all about anarchism today in other countries.

Others can verify that it is a petty-bourgeois ideology that is largely a movement of deranged teenagers. It has been refuted by history. There is a reason why the bourgeoisie are not scared of anarchism - it poses no threat to their rule and it can actually be utilized by them as a battering ram against Bolshevism. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance of history will realize the fact that anarchist tactics are often counter-productive and that anarchism has a highly elitist attitude toward the toiling masses, claiming that they need to "show the way" because they have absolutely no faith in the working class whatsoever.


By the way, I am not a member of the ICC, nor have I ever been, or claimed to be. But, please don't let such little things as facts obscure your argument.

Devrim

I must have confused your avatar for an ICC logo or something. Sorry about that. Although this still does not change that fact that facts are not what your arguments are based upon, but rather neo-idealist ultra-leftism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:54 am

Also, the faction of Trotskyism that you link to the IMT, thought that it could bring about socialism through sending redundancy notices to thousands of workers, and support the British bourgeois (however critically) in its imperialist wars.

Which slander machine did you get this from?


I don't think there is much substance to the rest of your post, so I am not going to bother. It is just ill informed assertion dressed up as fact again.

I will of course provide the details to what you call a slander though. It didn't come from any machine. I remember it. I lived in the UK at the time. If you need references, I am sure that they can be provided. From the pages of the Militant if you don't trust other sources.

Liverpool city council issued thousands of redundancy notices to its workers.

The Militant supported the Falklands war.

Devrim

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:54 pm
Really? A good deal of the Trotskyists I have met are in fact older than me, a good deal of them ranging from their early 30's to late 50's.
And how did you meet them?


Trotskyism has a huge influence compared to anarchism because it actually has an influence. I have heard that some anarchist group in Spain (I don't know if this is true or not) has 100,000+ members. If so, this proves that they have no links with the working class, for it took far fewer Bolshevik cadres to win over the masses and take power in Russia.

Italy and France have some of the largest communist parties in Europe... what's their excuse? Beyond that, your logic in this paragraph should've been aborted- its absolutely terrible. If you're interested in raising your theoretical level, maybe you should look for facts instead of making asinine assertions based on nothing but assumptions, hm?


Others can verify that it is a petty-bourgeois ideology that is largely a movement of deranged teenagers.

And you can't because....? Oh right, you don't have a clue.


There is a reason why the bourgeoisie are not scared of anarchism - it poses no threat to their rule

They sure spend a lot of resources (more than on any Trot group) for something they're not scared of at all...


Anyone with the slightest acquaintance of history will realize the fact that anarchist tactics are often counter-productive

Oh please. Your ideology's history is a history of fail.


anarchism has a highly elitist attitude toward the toiling masses, claiming that they need to "show the way" because they have absolutely no faith in the working class whatsoever.

Can you please source me the anarchist text you're pulling that from? Because I've been an anarchist for almost a decade, and I haven't encountered that sort of shit from any anarchist I've ever met, nor have I read it in any text relevant to modern anarchism. Oddly enough, that sounds a lot closer to your ideology than to anarchism, what with the vanguard to lead the masses, etc, etc.



Although this still does not change that fact that facts are not what your arguments are based upon

Said the pot to the kettle...

[YSR]

There is a reason why the bourgeoisie are not scared of anarchism - it poses no threat to their rule

Which must be why the FBI's Number 1 internal targets are "eco-terrorists," code for green anarchists. And why the government has consistently spied on, invaded, and destroyed anarchist organizations.

Anarchism: Not a threat!

[BreadBros]

The problem with all this shit-slinging is that in the First World no revolutionary tendency has a large working-class base. Trotskyist and ML groups are just as small and impotent as most anarchist groups, despite whatever boasting to the contrary they may try to do. As someone who has experience with varied elements of the left I haven't really encountered any tendency that is predominantly petty-bourgois in composition. Axel is essentially taking a series of stereotypes (anarchists = disgruntled teenager, anti-revisionist = tyrannical monster, trotskyist = courageous revolutionary) as fact and basing his arguments on that, pretty pointless.

As far as the initial argument...it would have been much more interesting if the writer had actually done some analysis....such as: if the distinction between 'leftist' and 'revolutionary' is so pressing, why does it go unrecognized except for a small group of intellectuals. Surely there must be a material reason? Otherwise it doesn't seem to contain anything really novel or pertinent, just some superficial critique.

[DrFreeman09]

The largest problem with anarchism as I see it is this:

The anarchists here seem to recognize that a transitional period (at least from an economic perspective) must exist between capitalism and classless society. But they claim that during this transition period, there is no need for a state.

What they fail to explain is how the heck this is supposed to happen.

They don't explain how millions of people are going to know how to run the economy after bourgeois rule without a long period of experimentation on the part of the workers. How will millions of people know how to run an economy without money, capital, or exchange of any kind? This is something that has never been done before, and it will take time to learn how to do.

So during this period of transition, how can the re-emergence of bourgeois rule be prevented? The circulation of capital will exist for some time, as I believe it is foolish and naive to believe that the circulation of capital will simply cease to exist after the overthrow of bourgeois rule (again, I ask how anarchists propose this will happen? By magic?). Therefore, the rich will still maintain a huge amount of economic power, and they will have to be suppressed (by means of a state machine) in order to give the workers enough time to figure out how to run the economy.

The only arguments I've heard against this is that "shadow economies" will spring up during bourgeois rule giving workers time to figure out how to run the economy so that when bourgeois rule is ended, a transition will be short and a state will not be necessary. But these shadow economies just won't happen. The reason is that anything that produces a commodity is subject to the laws of commodity production, which means that anything that produces a commodity will inevitably turn into a capitalistic money-making machine.

Co-ops and collectives that have sprung up under bourgeois rule have all eventually turned into nothing more than money-making machines because in order to survive in a capitalist economy, they have to sell commodities in order to afford supplies and such, and therefore will eventually collapse into a business where relative few control the means of production while the real workers are poorly paid and suffer greatly.

Although things like co-ops and trade unions are not completely useless, we can't expect workers to learn how to run an entire economy with these things because they are subject to the laws of commodity production.

So, anarchism does boil down to the two ideas I discribed earlier:

1. All of the necessary changes like the abolition of property and money will happen overnight and millions of workers will spontaneously know how to run the economy

2. Workers will learn how to run the economy during bourgeois rule by means of "shadow economies."

Many anarchists seem to believe that both of these ideas are bullshit, but they don't provide any alternative. They save these questions for "tomorrow." We're just supposed to take their word for it that they know how the workers will run the economy after bourgeois rule without a transition period.

In short, the needed experimentation necessary for workers to effectively run the economy will not happen under bourgeois rule, and although such experimentation will be made ten thousand times easier under workers' rule, it will still take time, and the bourgeoisie will still have lots of power and will need to be suppressed.

I want to hear from anarchists why they believe the above statement is false, and if they accept the above statement, how do they propose such a transition can happen without such thing as a state?

Anarchists are currently not a serious threat to the bourgeoisie and are not taken seriously because a) they cannot explain what the future looks like in a way that makes any kind of sense or b) they cannot explain what the future looks like at all.

[YSR]

Anarchists are currently not a serious threat to the bourgeoisie and are not taken seriously because a) they cannot explain what the future looks like in a way that makes any kind of sense or b) they cannot explain what the future looks like at all.

I have just illustrated that this is false.

Furthermore, open your damn mind. Plenty of anarchists have explained what their vision is, "transition" period and all. I can't even begin to list how many examples there are.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 05, 2007 07:47 am--> (devrimankara @ October 05, 2007 07:47 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 05:54 am

Also, the faction of Trotskyism that you link to the IMT, thought that it could bring about socialism through sending redundancy notices to thousands of workers, and support the British bourgeois (however critically) in its imperialist wars.

Which slander machine did you get this from?


I don't think there is much substance to the rest of your post, so I am not going to bother. It is just ill informed assertion dressed up as fact again.

I will of course provide the details to what you call a slander though. It didn't come from any machine. I remember it. I lived in the UK at the time. If you need references, I am sure that they can be provided. From the pages of the Militant if you don't trust other sources.

Liverpool city council issued thousands of redundancy notices to its workers.

The Militant supported the Falklands war.

Devrim [/b]
I could care less for your subjective idealist judgment of my posts, but after reading up a bit on Falklands documents on marxist.com, the IMT (Militant at the time) never supported the bourgeoisie during the Falklands War. They were opposed to the Argentinian junta that invaded the Falklands to divert the masses away from problems at home as well as Tories war effort. What they did do was to use transitional demands, such as calling a general election to get rid of the Tories and for Labour (a traditional workers' organization) to move toward socialist policies. Then a revolutionary war could have been waged against Galtieri and a class appeal could have been made to Argentine workers to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

I don't really know anything about the redundancy note thing, but I know that you are completely wrong about the Militant's position on the Falklands. It was the only tendency in the world that had a correct position on the Falklands, and IMT material written at that time can still be presented without re-editing or anything like that. You are either making outright lies, relying on unreliable second hand sources, or you never understood what you read from the Militant in the first place (typical for ultra-lefts.). There are Falklands articles on marxist.com for all to see, and these can only confirm that you are dead wrong on this issue.


Which must be why the FBI's Number 1 internal targets are "eco-terrorists," code for green anarchists. And why the government has consistently spied on, invaded, and destroyed anarchist organizations.

Anarchism: Not a threat!

What specifically have these organizations done? If anything, the FBI classification has probably been a result of damage to profits via hooliganism, not a threat to bourgeois dictatorship itself, as history has so richly proven.

If anarchism were genuinely a threat to bourgeois dictatorship, it would get the same treatment that Bolshevism gets in all of the official history books.

DrFreeman09 is also correct in that anarchists, having no theoretical grounding, cannot explain how a stateless transitional period is to work, what the future society will look like, etc.

History has taken its revenge, and the article is correctly dismayed at the fact that history's revenge has consisted of anarchism degenerating into things hooligans with spraypaint, lifestylism, and primitivism. The author of the article does not have a materialist understanding of history and neither a theoretical grounding, though, so the author still neither understands the futility of anarchism nor does the author offer any kind of alternative. The article just scoffs at the hooligan element of today's anarchism.

[YSR]

If anarchism were genuinely a threat to bourgeois dictatorship, it would get the same treatment that Bolshevism gets in all of the official history books.

I guess we can play the "who's worse represented by history" game if you want. Let's see, at least you Leninists get an ideology in the "official" bourgeois history. Anarchists are portrayed as villains with big hats, mustaches, and bombs. The word "anarchy" is a synonym with "chaos" in most dictionaries. In the media, anarchists are almost exclusively referred to as "so-called anarchists," an attempt to delegitimize our struggle. So, yeah, I would venture that it gets represented worse than Marxism.


DrFreeman09 is also correct in that anarchists, having no theoretical grounding, cannot explain how a stateless transitional period is to work, what the future society will look like, etc.

One of the reasons why I like Marx but call myself an anarchist is because of this very reason: Marxists seem to be stuck in Marx's day. The idea that we cannot explain "how a stateless transitional period is to work" has been explained away ten bazillion times, on this website, in other sources, just fucking everywhere. There are a lot of different thinkers and ideas for a "post-revolutionary" society and what it is to look like. Lemme just throw out a couple that hit me in no particular order.


The Platform
The IWW's "Cooperative Commonwealth"
Albert's Participatory Economics
Herod's "Getting Free" neighborhood/workplace assemblies

All of these are just ideas, sketched out briefly, to be sure. But that's important and intentional. You can't decide what a revolution is going to look like or how to structure post-revolutionary society beforehand. That's the tragedy of Marxism. Revolutions are ongoing processes, processes in which we are always engaged. We are fighting in the first steps of the end of the bourgeois epoch every day. There will be no apocalyptic moment of "revolution" and no happy day of socialism afterwards.

It's not that anarchists have a poverty of thinking about how to structure our society. It's just that we lack the Bolshevik's arrogance in assuming that we will write a plan beforehand and everyone will follow it.

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:49 am
I could care less for your subjective idealist judgment of my posts, but after reading up a bit on Falklands documents on marxist.com, the IMT (Militant at the time) never supported the bourgeoisie during the Falklands War. They were opposed to the Argentinian junta that invaded the Falklands to divert the masses away from problems at home as well as Tories war effort. What they did do was to use transitional demands, such as calling a general election to get rid of the Tories and for Labour (a traditional workers' organization) to move toward socialist policies. Then a revolutionary war could have been waged against Galtieri and a class appeal could have been made to Argentine workers to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

The Labour party fighting a war against Argentina would still have been a bourgeios war.


I don't really know anything about the redundancy note thing

From a pro-Militant site:


1985:
September Liverpool's councillors issued 90-day redundancy notices to the 30,000 strong workforce to gain a breathing space to build the campaign to defend jobs. This tactic to gain money from the government was reported by unprincipled capitalist media as sackings.
http://www.liverpool47.org/Events/retro2.htm

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 08:01 am
There are a lot of different thinkers and ideas for a "post-revolutionary" society and what it is to look like.

The Platform
The Platform is a tactical/organisation paper and has no reference to a post-revolutionary society.

[YSR]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 15, 2007 05:19 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 15, 2007 05:19 am)
Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 08:01 am
There are a lot of different thinkers and ideas for a "post-revolutionary" society and what it is to look like.

The Platform
The Platform is a tactical/organisation paper and has no reference to a post-revolutionary society. [/b]
Good call.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+October 15, 2007 04:01 pm--> (Young Stupid Radical @ October 15, 2007 04:01 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 05:19 am

Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 08:01 am
There are a lot of different thinkers and ideas for a "post-revolutionary" society and what it is to look like.

The Platform
The Platform is a tactical/organisation paper and has no reference to a post-revolutionary society.
Good call. [/b]
That isn't true.

[Ultra-Violence]

All of these are just ideas, sketched out briefly, to be sure. But that's important and intentional. You can't decide what a revolution is going to look like or how to structure post-revolutionary society beforehand. That's the tragedy of Marxism. Revolutions are ongoing processes, processes in which we are always engaged. We are fighting in the first steps of the end of the bourgeois epoch every day. There will be no apocalyptic moment of "revolution" and no happy day of socialism afterwards.

It's not that anarchists have a poverty of thinking about how to structure our society. It's just that we lack the Bolshevik's arrogance in assuming that we will write a plan beforehand and everyone will follow it.


^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!THIS!THIS!

PUTING EMPHASIS

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Axel1917+October 15, 2007 02:49 am--> (Axel1917 @ October 15, 2007 02:49 am) but after reading up a bit on Falklands documents on marxist.com, the IMT (Militant at the time) never supported the bourgeoisie during the Falklands War. They were opposed to the Argentinian junta that invaded the Falklands to divert the masses away from problems at home as well as Tories war effort. What they did do was to use transitional demands, such as calling a general election to get rid of the Tories and for Labour (a traditional workers' organization) to move toward socialist policies. Then a revolutionary war could have been waged against Galtieri and a class appeal could have been made to Argentine workers to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

[/b]
This is pure insanity.


Axel1917
The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines.

As we see, Militant didn't have any problem with the war, just with who was managing it. Apart from the complete absurdity of the idea, what is worse is that they wanted to continue the war under the management of the Labour party, loyal servants of British imperialism.

I will leave others to decide whether these are 'outright lies'.

Devrim

[mandy_z]

Are anarchists for or against censorship? Why do they censor this?

[Herman]

One of the reasons why I like Marx but call myself an anarchist is because of this very reason: Marxists seem to be stuck in Marx's day.

Do mention this: "Some marxists seem to be stuck in Marx's day".

Besides, your argument can also be applied to anarchists in general. You don't hear me saying this however.

So what problem do anarchists have? The same marxists face: Disunity and lack of organization.

In general anarchists are great people and they have many good ideas. And it's really nonsense to talk about terrorism or "hooligan tactics".

There are the 'kiddie anarchists' and there are the serious working class anarchists. The former are taught through the misconception that anarchy is chaos and disorder. The latter have formed themselves through reading and joining working class organizations.

It's not that bizarre to find them disrespected in dictionaries, newspapers or the media in general. They do pose a threat, especially when their ideas are so radical.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+October 16, 2007 03:45 am--> (black coffee black metal @ October 16, 2007 03:45 am)
Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 04:01 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 05:19 am

Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 08:01 am
There are a lot of different thinkers and ideas for a "post-revolutionary" society and what it is to look like.

The Platform
The Platform is a tactical/organisation paper and has no reference to a post-revolutionary society.
Good call.
That isn't true. [/b]
Isn't it? Show me then...

[bcbm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 16, 2007 03:43 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 16, 2007 03:43 am)
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 16, 2007 03:45 am

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 04:01 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 05:19 am

Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 08:01 am
There are a lot of different thinkers and ideas for a "post-revolutionary" society and what it is to look like.

The Platform
The Platform is a tactical/organisation paper and has no reference to a post-revolutionary society.
Good call.
That isn't true.
Isn't it? Show me then... [/b]
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/..._construct.html (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_construct.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+October 16, 2007 10:54 am--> (black coffee black metal @ October 16, 2007 10:54 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 03:43 am

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 16, 2007 03:45 am

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 04:01 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 05:19 am

Young Stupid [email protected] 15, 2007 08:01 am
There are a lot of different thinkers and ideas for a "post-revolutionary" society and what it is to look like.

The Platform
The Platform is a tactical/organisation paper and has no reference to a post-revolutionary society.
Good call.
That isn't true.
Isn't it? Show me then...
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/..._construct.html (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_construct.html) [/b]
Thanks

[Axel1917]

This is pure insanity.

An ultra-left accusing me of insanity. :lol:


Here is what Militant wrote at the time:


Originally posted by Militant International [email protected], June 1982
The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines.


As we see, Militant didn't have any problem with the war, just with who was managing it. Apart from the complete absurdity of the idea, what is worse is that they wanted to continue the war under the management of the Labour party, loyal servants of British imperialism.

What on Earth are you talking about? They had a complete problem with the war between two reactionary bourgeoisies (the articles on the Falklands on marxist.com prove this. The Militant was the only organization in the world that got this issue right.). They resorted to traditional demands in an attempt to transform a bourgeois war into a revolutionary socialist one to help bring down Galtieri. Bring socialist policies at home and then wage a revolutionary war to bring them to Argentina and the Falklands.


I will leave others to decide whether these are 'outright lies'.

And the articles on the Falklands at marxist.com prove that you have no clue what you are even talking about. The only people that will agree with you are other de facto pro-capitalists like yourself.

[Devrim]

Axel 1917, I think that you are doing a better job of making yourself look ridiculous than I could ever hope to.
Thanks,
Devrim

[bcbm]

Indeed, devrim.


They resorted to traditional demands in an attempt to transform a bourgeois war into a revolutionary socialist one to help bring down Galtieri. Bring socialist policies at home and then wage a revolutionary war to bring them to Argentina and the Falklands.

I thought generally the point of turning an imperialist war in to a revolutionary or civil war, a la your heroes the Bolsheviks, was to pull out of the imperialist war, not continue it and try to force your new politics on the country. Revolutionary socialism in Argentina would be brought by the Argentine proletariat, not British soldiers.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by devrimanka[email protected] 17, 2007 05:55 am
Axel 1917, I think that you are doing a better job of making yourself look ridiculous than I could ever hope to.
Thanks,
Devrim
In other words, you are a subjective idealist, as you continue to spout out lies when there are articles at http://www.marxist.com/marxism-falklands-m...s-war140607.htm (http://www.marxist.com/marxism-falklands-malvinas-war140607.htm) that prove that Militant did not support imperialism.

Of course, apparently the only objective is Devrim's subjective. :rolleyes:


I thought generally the point of turning an imperialist war in to a revolutionary or civil war, a la your heroes the Bolsheviks, was to pull out of the imperialist war, not continue it and try to force your new politics on the country. Revolutionary socialism in Argentina would be brought by the Argentine proletariat, not British soldiers.

I admit I made a typo there now that I have looked over the quote you made (I was in a rush, and I meant to put transitional, but the articles prove my point and your "rebuttals" are a result of not knowing Marxist theory. Devrim has to keep in mind that his cheerleaders here are just hooligans that party all day and make life worse for workers by clogging up the roads with gangs of biker thugs.

BCBM obviously has not learned anything about waging revolutionary wars. Then again, the only Lenin these people know is the false one from the bourgeois press.

[bcbm]

I admit I made a typo there now that I have looked over the quote you made (I was in a rush, and I meant to put transitional, but the articles prove my point and your "rebuttals" are a result of not knowing Marxist theory. Devrim has to keep in mind that his cheerleaders here are just hooligans that party all day and make life worse for workers by clogging up the roads with gangs of biker thugs.

BCBM obviously has not learned anything about waging revolutionary wars. Then again, the only Lenin these people know is the false one from the bourgeois press.

This is an ad hominem logical fallacy, not an argument. Furthermore, you use attacks stemming from arguments you apparently couldn't even argue effectively, since you abandoned them.

But enough chit-chat...

Originally posted by The Militant
A Labour government committed to socialist policies would probably not need to wage war, but could issue a socialist appeal to the Argentine workers to overthrow the monstrous Junta, take power, and then organise a socialist federation of Britain and the Argentine, in conjunction with the Falkland Islands.

[Axel1917]

This is an ad hominem logical fallacy, not an argument. Furthermore, you use attacks stemming from arguments you apparently couldn't even argue effectively, since you abandoned them.

This is pretty hypocritical coming from profanity mongering ultra-leftist types. I also like how you say things like "ad hominem" in a vile attempt to skirt around the fact that you have not even bothered to read and understand Lenin, as I originally stated.

Anarchism is a logical fallacy. Proven by history.

And did you people even read those articles I put forth? Apparently not.


Originally posted by The Militant
A Labour government committed to socialist policies would probably not need to wage war, but could issue a socialist appeal to the Argentine workers to overthrow the monstrous Junta, take power, and then organise a socialist federation of Britain and the Argentine, in conjunction with the Falkland Islands.

Specific source? You ultra-lefts do have a habit of taking isolated quotations out of context, so it would be better to see the whole thing. Not to mention that some of those articles I put forth were written at the time by those that were actually in the Militant.

You can say this and say that, dump vile slanders all over the place, but the fact remains that anarchism has been refuted in a practical manner by history. It has amounted to nothing, it has capitulated to capitalist reaction, and it has largely degenerated into teens with spraypaint and masks. At least FoB made an attempt to criticize some these things within anarchism and realized that all kinds of foolish types hide under the guise of "leftist." The rest of you just blindly follow the "Neo-anarchist" current.

[catch]

Originally posted by Axel1917+October 17, 2007 04:21 pm--> (Axel1917 @ October 17, 2007 04:21 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 05:55 am
Axel 1917, I think that you are doing a better job of making yourself look ridiculous than I could ever hope to.
Thanks,
Devrim
In other words, you are a subjective idealist, as you continue to spout out lies when there are articles at http://www.marxist.com/marxism-falklands-m...s-war140607.htm (http://www.marxist.com/marxism-falklands-malvinas-war140607.htm) that prove that Militant did not support imperialism.
[/b]
Here's a quote from one of the articles you linked to:


Marxists have always distinguished between wars waged by capitalism and wars waged by a workers' state, deformed or healthy. In the Second World War (1939-45), the only country to which the Marxists gave critical support was the Soviet Union. This was in spite of the most monstrous totalitarian dictatorship of the Stalinist bureaucracy whose privilege and income was based on the state ownership of the means of production and a plan, which they were therefore forced to defend. The deformed workers' state in Russia was relatively more progressive than capitalism. A victory for Hitler would have ushered in an entire epoch of counter-revolution. Thus Marxists gave critical support to the war of Russia against Nazi Germany. They also gave critical support to China, a colonial country in its war against Japan which seized Manchuria in 1931 and engaged in a war with China in 1937-1945. This was despite the fact that the butcher of the Chinese revolution of 1925-27, the Bonapartist dictator Chiang Kai-Shek, controlled China. While supporting China, the Marxists pointed out the complete incapacity of Chiang and the landlord-capitalist regime to wage war on Japan.


In 1935-36 Mussolini, Italy's fascist dictator, invaded Abyssinia (now called Ethiopia) in the interests of Italian capitalism. Despite the existence of chattel slavery in Abyssinia, Trotsky advocated support for Abyssinia in a war of national liberation from the imperialist power out to enslave the country.
This shows a complete misunderstanding of what imperialism is.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:14 pm
This shows a complete misunderstanding of what imperialism is.
Care to point out how, catch?

If I remember correctly, the last time I tried to get a definition of imperialism from ultra-leftists, I got some flowery stuff by Rosa Luxembourg that never came close to a real definition (and was never meant to be a real definition, either). I always seem to be in this situation: asking ultra-leftists for the slightest bit of rationale.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:07 pm
This is pretty hypocritical coming from profanity mongering ultra-leftist types.
Types? I'm one person, Axel. You also parody yourself nicely.


I also like how you say things like "ad hominem" in a vile attempt to skirt around the fact that you have not even bothered to read and understand Lenin, as I originally stated.

I never said I had read Lenin; I have better things to do with my time than sit around reading the largely irrelevant writings of a dead man. I merely brought up one part of his thinking that I remembered, and if I used it incorrectly than feel free to explain the idea instead of just saying "Nuh uh, you're wrong, nah nah nah nah."


Anarchism is a logical fallacy. Proven by history.

You've asserted this countless times, but always end up backing down when somebody actually calls you on it and engages in a debate- shown in this very thread. Indeed, you've done that about all the slanders you continue to put forth against members here.


And did you people even read those articles I put forth? Apparently not.

Which is why I quoted from one of them? Have you even read them?



Specific source? You ultra-lefts do have a habit of taking isolated quotations out of context, so it would be better to see the whole thing. Not to mention that some of those articles I put forth were written at the time by those that were actually in the Militant.

Its from one of the articles you linked, near the bottom. The earliest article, time wise, written while the war was ongoing. You seem more excited about continuing the war "along socialist lines" than they do.


You can say this and say that, dump vile slanders all over the place, but the fact remains that anarchism has been refuted in a practical manner by history. It has amounted to nothing, it has capitulated to capitalist reaction, and it has largely degenerated into teens with spraypaint and masks.

The same sorts of criticism could be easily extended to your movement, if not worse criticisms and your blindness to that fact is easily the most damning thing about your elitist rantings.

You also continue to try and sidetrack the debate by bringing up the "illogic" of anarchism, which hasn't really been what we've discussing for a page or two now, has it? You just can't surpass an opportunity to sling the same tired and refuted criticisms, especially when it distracts from what is actually being discussed.


At least FoB made an attempt to criticize some these things within anarchism and realized that all kinds of foolish types hide under the guise of "leftist." The rest of you just blindly follow the "Neo-anarchist" current.

Modern anarchism falls across a wide spectrum, and the members of this board who identify as anarchists come from many parts of that spectrum. I'd be hard-pressed to name one who I think "blindly" follows anything.

[Axel1917]

Types? I'm one person, Axel. You also parody yourself nicely.

I believe I recall you profanity mongering somewhere, when I made my "infamous remark." To be picky, you also tossed things around like "asshole" and "shit" in that critical mass thread. Since CM fails to meet the criterion of raising class consciousness, I considered all counter points refuted there.


I never said I had read Lenin; I have better things to do with my time than sit around reading the largely irrelevant writings of a dead man. I merely brought up one part of his thinking that I remembered, and if I used it incorrectly than feel free to explain the idea instead of just saying "Nuh uh, you're wrong, nah nah nah nah."

So then you admit that you do not know what you are talking about here.


You've asserted this countless times, but always end up backing down when somebody actually calls you on it and engages in a debate- shown in this very thread. Indeed, you've done that about all the slanders you continue to put forth against members here.

And again, none of you have even studied history. Had you done as such, you would know what I am talking about. Many others here do.

And has anarchism ever delivered in practice? Definitely not, so this fact alone is more than enough to refute you.


Which is why I quoted from one of them? Have you even read them?

The recent one I started digging through, written in 2002, I think, argues this point. I think it is the best summary of the affair, as it has the historical analysis based on past articles. There are changes in this or that detail over time.


Its from one of the articles you linked, near the bottom. The earliest article, time wise, written while the war was ongoing. You seem more excited about continuing the war "along socialist lines" than they do.

I went through the 2002 one, as it sums things up.


The same sorts of criticism could be easily extended to your movement, if not worse criticisms and your blindness to that fact is easily the most damning thing about your elitist rantings.

But Bolshevism has put up in practice. It is the only tendency in history that has overthrown capitalism on a large scale and established workers' democracy (all of the capitalist and anarchist nonsense is well refuted at http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-c...olution-116.htm (http://www.marxist.com/russia-revolution-counterrevolution-116.htm) ).

Anarchism on the other hand has done, what? Established Makhno's brutal bandit regime, where Makhno killed communists, raped women in orgies, hypocritically made secret police and essentially a state, looted villages, made public drunkenness illegal for his troops yet he was drunk all the time, had veto power over all decisions, called for a reactionary congress to topple Soviet power? cathbert386 put forth a devastating article in that Makhno/Anti-Semite thread, which totally demolishes the Makhno myth.

Or refusing to seize power in Spain and helping reaction triumph?

Or strengthening the police reaction and repelling the working class from them via hooligan tactics today?

I don't see any large scale overthrow of capitalism or the establishment of workers' democracy in your history, nor do I see the bourgeoisie even being scared of it.


You also continue to try and sidetrack the debate by bringing up the "illogic" of anarchism, which hasn't really been what we've discussing for a page or two now, has it? You just can't surpass an opportunity to sling the same tired and refuted criticisms, especially when it distracts from what is actually being discussed.

I think the whole illogical aspects of anarchism are tied to the original article, which does at the very least show that the mainstream anarchism is a bunch of nonsense, being the product of deranged juvenile angst. I have repeatedly stated that the article fails to work out a scientific alternative to what it deems "neo-anarchism." Does the thread not start out with a criticism of today's anarchist currents, with that article?


Modern anarchism falls across a wide spectrum, and the members of this board who identify as anarchists come from many parts of that spectrum. I'd be hard-pressed to name one who I think "blindly" follows anything.

And it a spectrum of lunacy - green anarchism/primitivism, lifestylism, hooliganism, etc. It has virtually no links with the working class and most anarchists are just deranged juveniles. It plays a reactionary role by helping the bourgeoisie slander Bolshevism and strengthen the police by individual attacks against them, repelling workers by clogging roads with bikes, tagging street signs, buildings, etc.

Overall, due to the effects of the postwar boom and Stalinism, the left is in terrible shape, and anarchism does not escape the neo-idealism and other such rubbish that makes up virtually all of the left today. In fact, it is perhaps the "sore thumb" that really shows the messed up state of the bulk of the left today.

[p.m.a.]

Wow, Axel1917's responses to bcbm make me embarrassed to call myself a Marxist.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by p.m.a.+October 18, 2007 05:11 am--> (p.m.a. @ October 18, 2007 05:11 am) Wow, Axel1917's responses to bcbm make me embarrassed to call myself a Marxist. [/b]
I know. It is very poor isn't it.

Axel, I have some questions.

Are you supporting the Brits in Iraq now because they have a Labour government.

If not what makes this war different from 'a socialist war against Argentina' if there had been a General election in the Middle of the War, and Labour had been elected?


Originally posted by Axel [email protected]

BCBM
Which is why I quoted from one of them? Have you even read them?

The recent one I started digging through, written in 2002, I think, argues this point. I think it is the best summary of the affair, as it has the historical analysis based on past articles. There are changes in this or that detail over time

I would suggest going through their articles at the time, not when they are sitting back twenty years later trying to excuse themselves.

Worse than their articles at the time (which are bad enough) was their behaviour on the ground. One may put it down to a low level of political understanding within the membership who didn't understand the organisations line (which would be a poor excuse), but what I heard from Militant members at the time was all about 'supporting our boys'.

Devrim

[Axel1917]

I know. It is very poor isn't it.

Tough words from someone that did not even understand what I posted and cited to begin with


Axel, I have some questions.

Okay...

[quot]Are you supporting the Brits in Iraq now because they have a Labour government.[/quote]

Absolutely not. You should have been able to infer that from those articles I posted. The fact is that the workers move through their traditional organizations first, no matter how rotten the leadership is. It is important to enter these organizations to win these workers over and not to leave them behind to the bourgeois influence. This is what worked for the Bolsheviks, and not doing this is the reason why the left wing movement has largely been a failure. The sects mock and laugh at us, but we are putting up in practice by growing and being the ones that are understanding things. We are the only group in the world that has understood the Venezuelan revolution from the very beginning. The ultra-lefts attacked us at the time. Now they have been scrambling to catch up with the revolution we have understood from the very start!

If the proverbial key to winning the working class over is in the middle of a fire, the ultra-left reaches for it and backs his/her hand away the second some pain is sensed and never goes near it again. The Bolshevik continues to put his/her hand there, in an agonizing manner (believe me, there are a lot of stressful moments in the life of a Bolshevik!), not stopping until that key is retrieved. Most of the left is not prepared to make sacrifices and keep on top of things, to make a priority of organizational work (I am so sick of some of the stuff I have to do for the IMT, but I still have to do it.). The ultra-left just takes the path that requires the least amount of theory, with disastrous results.


If not what makes this war different from 'a socialist war against Argentina' if there had been a General election in the Middle of the War, and Labour had been elected?

Did you even read the article? Going into the traditional workers' organizations, using transitional demands to win them over as well as working with them, transforming the organization and implementing socialist policies, all of this is grossly different from bourgeois politics (the articles do state that the Militant was against both Galtieri and the British bourgeoisie.). We cannot leave the workers in the traditional organizations to be moulded by the bourgeois mis-leaders of the unions and Labour. The fact that the working class moves through their traditional composes a vital aspect of the ABC of Marxism, this vital fact being ditched by 99.9% of the left today in favor of neo-idealism.


I would suggest going through their articles at the time, not when they are sitting back twenty years later trying to excuse themselves.

The article is based on past ones and sums up what was contained in those articles. The author of the 2002 article even states that the old articles can still be displayed and not lose their relevant attributes.


Worse than their articles at the time (which are bad enough) was their behaviour on the ground. One may put it down to a low level of political understanding within the membership who didn't understand the organisations line (which would be a poor excuse), but what I heard from Militant members at the time was all about 'supporting our boys'.

This is nonsense. The articles (written by Militant members at the time and one afterward, 20 years later) have explained my position, and you have not even bothered reading them. The problem is that you don't understand transitional demands, you don't understand Lenin's work, "Left Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder, you don't understand entering traditional workers' organizations to win workers over and to start implementing socialist policies, nothing. Your attempts are really weak, and every real Marxist at this site will be able to see that (all of your "wise people seeing my errors" are in fact anarchist and ultra-left cheerleaders!). Every post of yours just makes yourself stand out like the ultra-leftist you are. You back away from every pinprick you encounter, just writing off the traditional workers' organizations as "too bourgeoisifed" as an excuse to sit around and put your line above the interests of the working class. The junk politics of the libcap forum are refuted by history, and the only serve to create all kinds of "mass workers' organizations" and "autonomous communes" of two men and a dog.

Ultra-leftism and anarchism have been nothing but failures in the history of the left. They are the least successful aspects of left wing ideologies, and they are destined to never get anywhere.

I challenge all of my opponents here to [i]put up in practice (no more subjectivist rants!). Time to put your money where your mouths are! This is my [i]final refutation of the nonsense spewed out by the anarchists and their ultra-left allies in this thread! I am confident in the method, practical measures, theory, ideas, etc. of genuine Bolshevism and history here will back me up in the coming decades. Any fool can shoot his/her mouth off. Actually putting up in practice and getting something done is quite another manner!

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:07 am
This is my final refutation of the nonsense spewed out by the anarchists and their ultra-left allies in this thread!
Please continue. Everyone is enjoying it.

Devrim

[Marion]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 19, 2007 06:56 am--> (devrimankara @ October 19, 2007 06:56 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 04:07 am
This is my final refutation of the nonsense spewed out by the anarchists and their ultra-left allies in this thread!
Please continue. Everyone is enjoying it.

Devrim[/b]
Now now Devrim. You'll never be able to get the "proverbial key" out of "the middle of a fire" with that type of attitude...