I'm stuck between Anarchism and Trotskyism

[flyingpants]

Hi there. I've been a longtime reader of Noam Chomsky and others. Recently I've been doing reading about Trotskyism and have been getting more interested.

The points that got me thinking were:
1. How would anarchists defend the revolution, without centralised state power?
2. How would you bring about an anarchist revolution, without a centralised party (like a communist party?)
3. Anarchism is supposed to be democratic. But what form of control does the proletariat have over the country under a Trotskyist-style government?
4. The purpose of a capitalist state is to protect private property, keep the class relations the same, and keep the status quo. They jail dissidents. Doesn't the communist state do all of these things as well?
5. If there are so many different revolutionary left parties, and each one is saying "we are the right one, all the other ones are counterrevolutionary" etc. then, which one do i pick? but much more importantly: does it matter which so-called "communist party" comes to power anyway? when it is in power, can't the policy be changed democratically? and if the revolution really depends on picking the right party now, then do we even have a chance

[BobKKKindle$]

I'll try and give you some answers from a non-anarchist perspective.

Contrary to what many Anarchists presume, a workers state is not synonymous with the dictatorial subordination of everyone to the hegemony of a political party claiming to represent the workers. This is partly because few Anarchists understand what Marxists mean when they talk about the 'state' as an institution.

For Marxists, the state is simple an institution of class oppression (State and Revolution: arising from the irreconcilability of class antagonisms) based on armed bodies of men. Whilst maintaining these essential features, the state apparatus can assume a range of different forms, as is clear from the range of different political systems and processes that currently exist.

Marx, however, explicitly said that the Paris Commune had many important features of a workers' state and should serve as a model for future movements. Although it is always difficult to describe how society would be organized in the future, given the turbulent nature of revolution, a workers' state would be far more democratic than the institutions of bourgeois democracy. Democracy would be extended to the use of economic resources through a system of workers' councils, which could also form the basis for organizing the defense of the revolution, and all elected officials would be subject to a system of recall, such that they could be replaced if they were not able to fully represent the views of the community.

As I stated above, the workers' state, like the state apparatuses that have existed under previous modes of production, is an institution of class oppression. It is inevitable than former sections of the bourgeoisie will try to regain control of their property. In response, some degree of 'repression' is required. The Russian Civil War demonstrates this historical inevitability. Armed forces will be deployed against forces loyal to the bourgeoisie, and it may be seen as necessary to censor those who spread material expressing support for capitalism and other forms of bourgeois ideology such as racism. However, the most important way to deprive the bourgeoisie of their political power is agitation amongst the forces under the command of bourgeois leaders, in order to convince them that their interests lie with their fellow workers and they should come over to the side of the workers' revolution.

I hope that helps!

[BobKKKindle$]

I just want to say a bit about the 'vanguard' before others post.

When Marxists speak about a 'vanguard' in the context of political agitation, they mean the most class conscious section of the working class. There will always be a small group of workers that, relative to their fellows, have a better understanding of how capitalist society is based on exploitation and what is necessary to dissolve the class antagonism. There is never uniform consciousness. The question, then, is not whether this 'vanguard' exists as such, but how, or one might say, if, they should be organised.

Marxists call for the formation of a party. This party agitates amongst the working class, explaining how workers are exploited and showing how local problems are linked to and are derived from the capitalist economic system. This overturns what Marx referred to as 'ideology' - the ideas that obscure or provide a justification for the central divisions of a capitalist society. An important part of agitation is the publication of a socialist newspaper such as, in the case of the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, Socialist Worker. An important organisationl feature of the party is democratic centralism. This means that discussion should take place, but once a decision has been taken, every party member has to stick to that decision. This is important because the objective of the vanguard party is socialist revolution, and during crises it will be necessary to maintain discipline and take decisions very quickly.

I am not really familiar with Anarchist organisation in depth. Anarchists reject the vanguard model as elitist - even though a 'vanguard' is present in all political movements. Anarchists are generally more likely to support small, dencentralised consciousness-raising groups based on a federation structure. However, I feel this system does not faciliate the discipline that is necessary during a period of revolutionary struggle.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:41 am
Hi there. I've been a longtime reader of Noam Chomsky and others. Recently I've been doing reading about Trotskyism and have been getting more interested.

The points that got me thinking were:
1. How would anarchists defend the revolution, without centralised state power?
2. How would you bring about an anarchist revolution, without a centralised party (like a communist party?)
3. Anarchism is supposed to be democratic. But what form of control does the proletariat have over the country under a Trotskyist-style government?
4. The purpose of a capitalist state is to protect private property, keep the class relations the same, and keep the status quo. They jail dissidents. Doesn't the communist state do all of these things as well?
5. If there are so many different revolutionary left parties, and each one is saying "we are the right one, all the other ones are counterrevolutionary" etc. then, which one do i pick? but much more importantly: does it matter which so-called "communist party" comes to power anyway? when it is in power, can't the policy be changed democratically? and if the revolution really depends on picking the right party now, then do we even have a chance
> I'm stuck between Anarchism and Trotskyism, help
With a title like that, you are sure to start a flame war... :P

>1. How would anarchists defend the revolution, without centralised state power?
There are a variety of theories about this. One recent thread on anarchism and warfare is, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72013
I have outlined some thoughts in that thread on region defence.

>2. How would you bring about an anarchist revolution, without a centralised party (like a communist party?)
The thing is, it wouldn't be an "anarchist" revolution, so much as simply a worker revolution. Or even, people revolution. Just as few people today, identify as "capitalist" and actively have thought about and support the present system, few people will actively identify as "anarchist". They will no doubt support the ideas in general however.
As well, like all revolutions, you don't need any centralised party. What you need is a mass of people on the streets, willing to fight. And a centralised party can't do that for you.

>3. Anarchism is supposed to be democratic. But what form of control does the proletariat have over the country under a Trotskyist-style government?
Umm, well I guess you could say that anarchism is "democratic". I'll let the trots answer the rest of the question.

>4. The purpose of a capitalist state is to protect private property, keep the class relations the same, and keep the status quo. They jail dissidents. Doesn't the communist state do all of these things as well?
The anarchist opinion (and definition) of the state is different to the alleged Marxist one. Many Marxists claim a state which is only vaguely recognised as such by anarchists. Anyway, I'll leave the trots to finish answering this question (but the answer is yes, that is what states do...).
>5. If there are so many different revolutionary left parties, and each one is saying "we are the right one, all the other ones are counterrevolutionary" etc. then, which one do i pick? but much more importantly: does it matter which so-called "communist party" comes to power anyway? when it is in power, can't the policy be changed democratically? and if the revolution really depends on picking the right party now, then do we even have a chance.
I would suggest don't join any such party. All the so called communist parties that claim any relation to Lenin are probably not worth much. They would attempt to eliminate all opposition etc. (judging solely from history).


Anyway, I would suggest browsing the Anarchism sticky in Learning as well.

[BobKKKindle$]

As you can see, the previous poster has tried to characterise Marxism as an ideology that denies the independent action of the working class.

He has suggested that a 'mass of people' is the most important component of a revolution. Most Marxists would agree - revolutions grow out of mass movements, not the isolated struggles of political organisations. However, we have to consider how the general proletariat attains a revolutionary class consciousness. Marxists argue that, in the absence of the vanguard, workers are only able to attain a trade union consciousness, based on limited gains within the framework of capitalism.

Consciousness is dependent on two seperate factors, the first of which is objective conditions, meaning the general standard of living. This is important because, during periods of economic crises, when people are unable to make ends meet, they are more willing to accept the arguments of radicals, as moderate political idoelogies, and the institutions an dparties associated with these ideologies appear lacking in legitimacy. The second factor is subjective conditions - the ideas workers have access to and the political agitation of those with an advanced consciousness. I have already the discussed the role and importance of the vanguard party and the previous poster did not specify how Anarchists encourage the development of class consciousness through political organisation. One can only assume, based on the previous member's comments, that they are willing to 'wait' until the proletariat 'rises up' with no external guidance or encouragement.

Thus far we have been dealing with agitation in a capitalist society. When a revolutionary situation exists (characterised, among other things, by internal divisions and struggles within the ruling class) the Vanguard also has a role. The party will need to set an active example by pushing for a more confrontational position and encouraging workers to make political demands, and will also need to assume an organisational role, for example, collecting weapons and linking different sections of the movement together. Vanguard party members are conscious of the final objective - Socialism and so are suited for this leadership role, whilst maintaining active links with the proletariat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To the original poster:

Have you considered "left communism"? [I'll let the proper left-communists speak out here, because it is sandwiched between the two. To the left of the left-communists, and closer to anarchism, are the autonomous Marxists. To the right of the left-communists but to the left of the Trotskyists and further-right Stalinists (and Maoists) are "Leninists" like myself.]

[BobKKKindle$]

If one is concerned solely with organisational questions, Trotskyism does not differ from Lenin-ism. Trotsky's most important historical contributions were in the form of his evaluation of the USSR and the theory of permanent revolution - although in the case of the latter, Trotsky's views can also be found amongst Lenin's earlier works. I personally prefer to define myself as a Lenin-ist (although I am a member of a Trotskyist political party) and what we are actually discussing in this thread is disagreement between Anarchism and Lenin-ism (or, one could argue, orthodox Marxism).

[RGacky3]

well considered most Trotskyists were perfectly OK with the repression that went on up until Stalin, it seams strange to have to choose between the 2.

[Forward Union]

I'm stuck between Anarchism and Trotskyism

Platformism.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:41 am
1. How would anarchists defend the revolution, without centralised state power?
They would have a centeralised millitary body. That would be mandated by a system of free workers assemblies.

This is how Ukraine worked during the Russian Revolution, when it was under the control of the Anarchists. It's also how Catalonia worked in the Spainish revolution, under the Anarchist CNTs control.

Members of the "Revolutionary Insurgent army of Ukraine" Who were anarchists.
http://www.nestormakhno.info/images/08.jpg

Anarchist soldiers in Spain 1936

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/militia.jpg


2. How would you bring about an anarchist revolution, without a centralised party (like a communist party?)

With Anarchist unions, and workers Federations. Who would assist the workers in their self organisation. Much like how the FAU has currently got the German bike manufacurers to occupy the factory.

[BobKKKindle$]

They would have a centeralised millitary body

What does 'centeralised mean'? Or was that suppossed to be 'centralised'? I am not being an arse, I want to make sure we are talking about the same form of organisation.

Putting that aside, though, if you do not believe a 'centeralised millitary body' is synonymous with the concept of a state (it could be interpreted thus under the Marxist definition, thereby reducing disagreement to organisation in a capitalist society) can you please give us a definition of what the 'state' is and, following from this definition, explain why Anarchists oppose the state.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:37 pm
What does 'centeralised mean'? Or was that suppossed to be 'centralised'? I am not being an arse, I want to make sure we are talking about the same form of organisation.

We are, I made a spelling mistake.


Putting that aside, though, if you do not believe a 'centeralised millitary body' is synonymous with the concept of a state (it could be interpreted thus under the Marxist definition, thereby reducing disagreement to organisation in a capitalist society) can you please give us a definition of what the 'state' is and, following from this definition, explain why Anarchists oppose the state.

Well in this instance the State would be a body that has decision making control, and authority over the millitary. Whereas in this instance the millitary is mandated and controlled by a federation of free workers assemblies. Which would involve everyone.

You could call that a state, but it would be a state that had the participation of the entire working class, and no centralised decision making body.

[BobKKKindle$]

Well in this instance the State would be a body that has decision making control, and authority over the millitary. Whereas in this instance the millitary is mandated and controlled by a federation of free workers assemblies. Which would involve everyone.

The workers' state, as a theoretical construct, is also based on the mass participation of the working class, in the form of democratic councils, serving to integrate political and economic power, in individual workplaces, and across large geographical regions and urban concentrations. The term 'state' cannot be defined by the extent of popular consent and participation as the state can assume a range of different forms whilst maintaining the same essential function of mediating class antagonisms – something I recognized earlier in this thread.

If this discussion is to proceed, a clear Anarchist definition of the state is required. So, please complete, State (noun): .....

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 19, 2007 04:01 pm--> (William Everard @ October 19, 2007 04:01 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 08:41 am
1. How would anarchists defend the revolution, without centralised state power?
They would have a centeralised millitary body. That would be mandated by a system of free workers assemblies.

This is how Ukraine worked during the Russian Revolution, when it was under the control of the Anarchists. It's also how Catalonia worked in the Spainish revolution, under the Anarchist CNTs control.

Members of the "Revolutionary Insurgent army of Ukraine" Who were anarchists.
http://www.nestormakhno.info/images/08.jpg

Anarchist soldiers in Spain 1936

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/militia.jpg


2. How would you bring about an anarchist revolution, without a centralised party (like a communist party?)

With Anarchist unions, and workers Federations. Who would assist the workers in their self organisation. Much like how the FAU has currently got the German bike manufacurers to occupy the factory. [/b]
This is not radically different from the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat.

Real life is messier than theory. Neither the anarchists or marxists have stuck to their ideas 100%.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:24 pm
a clear Anarchist definition of the state is required.
The anarchist definition of the state is a collection of centralised, hierarchical institutions mandated with political authority.

What William Everard is talking about is an overreaction to Bolshevism and a deviation from anarchism. It's essentially post-anarchy where anarchist definitions are reduced to semantical arguments and things like "theoretical unity" and "collective responsibility" become Orwellian euphemisms for centralisation and political authority.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:41 am
Hi there. I've been a longtime reader of Noam Chomsky and others. Recently I've been doing reading about Trotskyism and have been getting more interested.

The points that got me thinking were:
1. How would anarchists defend the revolution, without centralised state power?
2. How would you bring about an anarchist revolution, without a centralised party (like a communist party?)
3. Anarchism is supposed to be democratic. But what form of control does the proletariat have over the country under a Trotskyist-style government?
4. The purpose of a capitalist state is to protect private property, keep the class relations the same, and keep the status quo. They jail dissidents. Doesn't the communist state do all of these things as well?
5. If there are so many different revolutionary left parties, and each one is saying "we are the right one, all the other ones are counterrevolutionary" etc. then, which one do i pick? but much more importantly: does it matter which so-called "communist party" comes to power anyway? when it is in power, can't the policy be changed democratically? and if the revolution really depends on picking the right party now, then do we even have a chance

I personally rejected trotskyism after i learned he was the one who designed the gulags.
1. defense is handled by a citizens militia
2. the fact is the party does not bring about the revolution, a rejection of the structures of everyday life by the populace, we believe in building the new world in the shell of the old, google: dual power
3. the people have no more control than they do now, likey less
4. yes, except everything belongs to the state
5. correct again!

[black magick hustla]

You don't need to be stuck under one "label", this is not an ideology shop.

I consider myself a communist but I have been greatly influenced by the anarchist tradition as well.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 07:13 pm
What William Everard is talking about is an overreaction to Bolshevism and a deviation from anarchism. It's essentially post-anarchy where anarchist definitions are reduced to semantical arguments and things like "theoretical unity" and "collective responsibility" become Orwellian euphemisms for centralisation and political authority.
It sounds like there is a fair bit on tension in the AF, TAT.
Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 19, 2007 09:07 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 19, 2007 09:07 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 07:13 pm
What William Everard is talking about is an overreaction to Bolshevism and a deviation from anarchism. It's essentially post-anarchy where anarchist definitions are reduced to semantical arguments and things like "theoretical unity" and "collective responsibility" become Orwellian euphemisms for centralisation and political authority.
It sounds like there is a fair bit on tension in the AF, TAT.
Devrim [/b]
Why are you so interested in the internal dynamics of the AF?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:01 am
If one is concerned solely with organisational questions, Trotskyism does not differ from Lenin-ism. Trotsky's most important historical contributions were in the form of his evaluation of the USSR and the theory of permanent revolution - although in the case of the latter, Trotsky's views can also be found amongst Lenin's earlier works. I personally prefer to define myself as a Lenin-ist (although I am a member of a Trotskyist political party) and what we are actually discussing in this thread is disagreement between Anarchism and Lenin-ism (or, one could argue, orthodox Marxism).
I won't address once more the differences between permanent revolution and "revolutionary democracy," since the link in my profile says it best. :mellow:



I also won't go into too much detail regarding the differences between his "deformed workers' state" position and the more logical state-capitalist position (which is very broad, even under more politically authoritarian environments). The former position is as overly convoluted as the parecon position (the feeble attempt by its "ideological authors" to separate itself from other forms of [i]consumer capitalism, as another poster said).

[BobKKKindle$]

No anarchist has yet specified what form of organizational structure and agitation strategy they advocate in a capitalist society. I have never seen an anarchist paper being sold in a public space, which, in my opinion, is the most important component of a socialist party's engagement with the working class. Anarchist action seems limited to participation in protests and small-scale projects such as 'Food not bombs'. Do anarchists participate in groups like the Stop the War Coalition or the Anti Nazi League?


The anarchist definition of the state is a collection of centralised, hierarchical institutions mandated with political authority.

This definition presents further problems. What do you define as a system of hierarchy - would you consider democratic centralism hierarchical? Is it possible to clearly distinguish between a decentralized and centralized form of organizational structure? What if a Marxist advocates what they consider a 'state' based on workers' councils?

I generally find that Anarchists base their politics on an unclear dislike for authority and a lack of theoretical depth. They are unable to recognize the need for discipline and are thus unable to develop a coherent and organized strategy.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 20, 2007 06:07 am--> (devrimankara @ October 20, 2007 06:07 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 07:13 pm
What William Everard is talking about is an overreaction to Bolshevism and a deviation from anarchism. It's essentially post-anarchy where anarchist definitions are reduced to semantical arguments and things like "theoretical unity" and "collective responsibility" become Orwellian euphemisms for centralisation and political authority.
It sounds like there is a fair bit on tension in the AF, TAT.
Devrim [/b]
It seems more like just between TAT and WE.
No love. :(

[Bilan]

No anarchist has yet specified what form of organizational structure and agitation strategy they advocate in a capitalist society. I have never seen an anarchist paper being sold in a public space, which, in my opinion, is the most important component of a socialist party's engagement with the working class.

Are you saying that your party isn't part of the working class?
But I'll save the mockery.
Besides, that's absurd. Anarchists always do that, they just don't try and hijack the event like some socialist groups here (who brought red-flags and started handing them out at a march for Indigenous deaths in custody(BDIC). I mean for fucks sake have some respect!)

But I mean seriously, that statement is absolute rubbish.


What if a Marxist advocates what they consider a 'state' based on workers' councils?

Then wouldn't they be a Libertarian Marxist?


I generally find that Anarchists base their politics on an unclear dislike for authority and a lack of theoretical depth.

I find Marxists are arrogant, patronising dickwads who, despite a lack of knowledge on anarchism, profess that they know more about it than anarchists themselves, and insist that anarchists are misguided teenagers.
Tell me Bobby, have you ever bothered to read any classical anarchist texts, such as Mutual Aid, Fields factories and workshops, God and the State, or anything?

I would strong suggest it, and then, after that, burn your copy of Engels essay on authority, and realize that his statements on anarchism are outdated, irrelevant crap.


They are unable to recognize the need for discipline and are thus unable to develop a coherent and organized strategy.

Yeah, you definitely don't know what you're talking about.

[BobKKKindle$]

Then wouldn't they be a Libertarian Marxist?

Not really. Lenin always emphasised the importance of democracy and predicted the eventual disintegration of the state. From 'State and Revolution', Chapter III: Experience of the Paris Commune of 1871. Marx's Analysis, 'What is to Replace the Smashed State Machine?'


The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type.

'Abolition of Parliamentarism':


The way out of parliamentarism is not, of course, the abolition of representative institutions and the elective principle, but the conversion of the representative institutions from talking shops into “working” bodies. "The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time.

State and Revolution is a great book.


Besides, that's absurd. Anarchists always do that, they just don't try and hijack the event like some socialist groups here (who brought red-flags and started handing them out at a march for Indigenous deaths in custody(BDIC). I mean for fucks sake have some respect!)


Yeah, you definitely don't know what you're talking about

Let's examine some of the most important politics movements currently operating in the UK and evaluate the importance and participation of Anarchists in each case. The Stop the War Coalition, which has introduced a new generation to the socialist analysis of imperial conquest and has been able to bring a diverse range of social groups together in support of a single cause, was founded by the Socialist Workers' Party. Anarchists do not, to my knowledge, have an active presence in this organization, and Anarchists did not use the anti-war movement as an opportunity to introduce their ideas to working class communities and encourage people to become politically active. Can you produce evidence show support for Anarchist ideas in working class communities?

How do Anarchists even intend to spread their ideas and overcome the limitations of trade-union consciousness? Anarchists do not have a party organization to host meetings and publish a newspaper. Apart from participating in protests, what do Anarchists actually do? How do Anarchists create favorable subjective conditions?


Tell me Bobby, have you ever bothered to read any classical anarchist texts, such as Mutual Aid, Fields factories and workshops, God and the State, or anything?

I have indeed Anarchist texts; Kropotkin's works serve, in my opinion, as a good basis for economic organisation in a socialist society. Have you read State and Revolution?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:48 am
Have you considered "left communism"? [I'll let the proper left-communists speak out here, because it is sandwiched between the two. To the left of the left-communists, and closer to anarchism, are the autonomous Marxists. To the right of the left-communists but to the left of the Trotskyists and further-right Stalinists (and Maoists) are "Leninists" like myself.]
To consider left-communism "sandwiched" between Trotskyism and anarchism is have an incredibly vague and simplistic understanding of left-communism.

[BobKKKindle$]

This (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/archive/1714/sw171411.htm) article from 2000 contains a contemporary example of how a lack of democratic centralism (and the discipline that arises from this organizational structure) can prevent effective action during a crisis:

"Protesters put up several roadblocks during the major anti-capitalist demonstration in Washington in April of this year. The police tried to clear them. The question arose of what the protesters should do.

Some wanted to try to maintain the roadblocks. Others thought the best tactic was to reorganise the protests into one demonstration. Instead of coming to a clear decision and acting on it, the key organiser of the whole event told people at each roadblock to do what they thought was right.

The resulting confusion weakened all the protests. The police, needless to say, did not "decentralise" their decision making. They coordinated across the city to break the protests."

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:42 am
No anarchist has yet specified what form of organizational structure and agitation strategy they advocate in a capitalist society. I have never seen an anarchist paper being sold in a public space, which, in my opinion, is the most important component of a socialist party's engagement with the working class. Anarchist action seems limited to participation in protests and small-scale projects such as 'Food not bombs'. Do anarchists participate in groups like the Stop the War Coalition or the Anti Nazi League?
The only "Leninist" newspapers I have seen being sold (or even given away) are the same tired rags repeating the same tired rhetoric. The various groups that I know of advocate either joining the parliament to spread revolution, or else have no clear plan (beyond educating workers and building consciousness, very vague in other words) They invariably bow to the authority of the state at protests (marching where the cops say, even if it makes it easier for the cops to attack the protest), often even selling out other protesters in the media for a good image (those nasty Black Blocers should not be challenging the cops!).

Leninist action seems limited to participation in protests (often groups co-opt protests for their own benefit), showing movies and small scale single issue projects such as stop the war or peace groups (which they invariably try and take over and use to spread their message).


Anarchists on the other hand not only participate in protests (without trying to co-opt them), but directly challenge the state at such protests. They protect (and of course, it isn't just anarchists) other protesters by being at the front line often, directly confronting the police (Black Bloc style).

Anarchists are involved in various groups around the world, including IWW, and various federations (e.g. Anarchist Federation in the UK). Anti-Fascist Action includes many anarchists.

As well, anarchists are involved in groups that try and make a difference to peoples everyday life (lifestylism for the win!), such as Food Not Bombs.

We can all make generalisations from our limited experience, but it isn't such a good idea most of the time with regards to society. That is a lesson you could learn.



The anarchist definition of the state is a collection of centralised, hierarchical institutions mandated with political authority.

This definition presents further problems. What do you define as a system of hierarchy - would you consider democratic centralism hierarchical? Is it possible to clearly distinguish between a decentralized and centralized form of organizational structure? What if a Marxist advocates what they consider a 'state' based on workers' councils?

So called democratic centralism is of course hierarchical. And if you fail to see that, then you should examine your knowledge base to see why. Many of the debates between anarchists and Marxists hinge on the different definitions of the state. Many Marxists advocate something that anarchists don't consider to be a state, decentralised workers' councils for example. But then again, many Marxists advocate centralism (which is invariably hierarchical).


I generally find that Anarchists base their politics on an unclear dislike for authority and a lack of theoretical depth. They are unable to recognize the need for discipline and are thus unable to develop a coherent and organized strategy.
Haha. I base my politics on a clear dislike for authority. And I have a theoretical depth. Just because many anarchists are like you say, doesn't mean that all are or that anarchism as a super-set of ideologies is flawed because of it.

As for discipline, there is no need for discipline, you have to recognise that people are capable of deciding their own opinions on matters, they don't need other people to tell them what to do.

And that it seems is the main difference between Leninists and anarchists. Anarchists are happy to let people do what they think is best, while Leninists would rather tell them. Thanks, but I don't need a capitalist state as a parent, and I don't need your Leninist state as a parent either. I'm a grown up now...

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:32 am
This (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/archive/1714/sw171411.htm) article from 2000 contains a contemporary example of how a lack of democratic centralism (and the discipline that arises from this organizational structure) can prevent effective action during a crisis:

"Protesters put up several roadblocks during the major anti-capitalist demonstration in Washington in April of this year. The police tried to clear them. The question arose of what the protesters should do.

Some wanted to try to maintain the roadblocks. Others thought the best tactic was to reorganise the protests into one demonstration. Instead of coming to a clear decision and acting on it, the key organiser of the whole event told people at each roadblock to do what they thought was right.

The resulting confusion weakened all the protests. The police, needless to say, did not "decentralise" their decision making. They coordinated across the city to break the protests."
Did you even think about another way that the protest could have been organised?

OK, you have given two options, democratic centralism (which is anything but democratic, a small group tells everyone else what to do...) or individual small group action, uncoordinated.


It is possible to coordinate without having a small group tell everyone else what to do.


Of course, when it comes down to it, democratic centralism is never going to work unless all the people at a protest are of one party and are willing to accept the authority of that small group. As soon as you have three or four parties, each trying to be the "real" centre, then things break down.

Besides, what gives one person ("the key organiser of the whole event") the right to tell people what to do in a potentially dangerous situation? Each group knew what was happening and could decide based on local circumstances.

So, coordination without centralisation.
Have you heard of spokes councils? They are large gatherings of upwards of hundreds of people from various small groups (affinity groups, parties, whatever else) that discuss actions. People agree on what they are going to do, with actions being planned. Often groups won't participate in any action, but will still be at the meeting.

Basically, it works that no one is forced to do anything, but things can be arranged.

It doesn't work so well /during/ a protest, but if things are worked out before, people know what to expect each other group to do.
During the protest, just like the police have remote communications, it is possible to have remote communications. And, that is how a centralised protest would have to get the message out, so why wouldn't it work to co-ordinate things as well?


:rolleyes:

[catch]

flyingpants, my advice would be don't sign up to any group yet. There are much more differences between anarchism and trotskyism than 'what would happen during a revolution?' and also more to revolutionary theory and history than those two strands.

You may have already done this, but here's some general notes. I'm unapologetically including links to the site I help run, most articles on there are from anarchist, council-communist and left-communist writers.

History - Russian Revolution (http://libcom.org/history/russian-revolution) and Spanish Civil war (http://libcom.org/tags/spanish-civil-war) are obvious events - as well as those, at least a bit on Germany 1918-23 (http://libcom.org/tags/german-revolution-1918), Hungary '56 (http://libcom.org/tags/hungary-56), Paris '68, Poland 1980 etc. - these events had little influence from either anarchists or Leninists/Trotskyists (although there were of course Stalinist and Social Democratic groups on the wrong side of the barricades).

You should also look at the council communists - especially the Dutch and German groups in the '20s that had criticism of both anarchist and leninist currents (KAPD, Ruhle, Mattick etc), and those groups that broke with Trotskyism mainly after the Second World War - Socialisme ou Barbarie, the Johnson Forrest Tendency (CLR James and Raya Dunayevska), Solidarity UK, then people like Gilles Dauve, Echanges. Google will find you free online texts by all of these tendencies.

Yes it's a lot to go through, but you'll have a better idea about the differences between the various strands, and how they acted in an historical context as well.

Last but not least, you should read some Marx - Capital, german ideology etc. - a lot of anarchists have straw-man criticisms of Marx due to historical antipathy rather than whether it's any good or not, and a lot of Leninists misrepresent what he said to suit particular agendas (and plenty of "Marxists" haven't read much Marx either).

[Bilan]

Not really. Lenin always emphasised the importance of democracy and predicted the eventual disintegration of the state. From 'State and Revolution', Chapter III: Experience of the Paris Commune of 1871. Marx's Analysis, 'What is to Replace the Smashed State Machine?'


The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type.


Indeed, but that's really what you specified.
Libertarian Marxists have more Libertarian tendencies compared to other Marxists and Leninists. Is that not what you were asking?


Let's examine some of the most important politics movements currently operating in the UK and evaluate the importance and participation of Anarchists in each case. The Stop the War Coalition, which has introduced a new generation to the socialist analysis of imperial conquest and has been able to bring a diverse range of social groups together in support of a single cause, was founded by the Socialist Workers' Party.

I'm not from the UK, but the Stop the War Coalition here, run by "Socialist" groups is a load of absolute shit, and a waste of fucking time, with no real socialist analysis; it is bourgeois, reformist crap. Aint nothing to be proud of.



Anarchists do not, to my knowledge, have an active presence in this organization, and Anarchists did not use the anti-war movement as an opportunity to introduce their ideas to working class communities and encourage people to become politically active.

I believe that is exactly what the Mutiny collective started out as.
(I could be wrong)



Can you produce evidence show support for Anarchist ideas in working class communities?


Yes (http://iww.org) and Yes. (http://raisethefist.com)


How do Anarchists even intend to spread their ideas and overcome the limitations of trade-union consciousness? Anarchists do not have a party organization to host meetings and publish a newspaper.

That is a blatant lie. They do not have a party - because we're anarchists, derrr - we have organizations (you're from England, right? Well, the AF is one that publishes newspapers and has meetings and organizes)
And the IWW does too. As does the ASN, anarcho-sydnicalists organizations across the world (e.g. Zabalaza, CNT, etc)



I have indeed Anarchist texts; Kropotkin's works serve, in my opinion, as a good basis for economic organisation in a socialist society. Have you read State and Revolution?

Then your previous statement on this is bullshit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:42 am
No anarchist has yet specified what form of organizational structure and agitation strategy they advocate in a capitalist society.
You mean on the forum or ever? The Anarchist Federation is a structured organisation.


I have never seen an anarchist paper being sold in a public space...

Get out more then.


...which, in my opinion, is the most important component of a socialist party's engagement with the working class.

:lol:

Well, in our opinion the most important part of our engagment with the working class is working with them in struggle against capitalism and the state. Such as anti-fascism, anti-casualisation, local anti-capitalist campaigns such as against massive corporations in communities.

But, by all means sell your paper.


Anarchist action seems limited to participation in protests and small-scale projects such as 'Food not bombs'.

Are you saying that this is an unworthy thing to be apart of?


Do anarchists participate in groups like the Stop the War Coalition or the Anti Nazi League?

Erm, no.

StWC is dominated by the SWP and the ANL doesn't exist anymore. Anarchists have absolutely no interest in working with such an authoritarian party like the SWP who dominate groups. In fact, Lindsey German and John Rees successfully managed to oust the only anarchist on the steering committee at its inception.

Anarchists tend to adopt more direct methods of organisation and actually many anarchist groups have sustained and consistent direct protests against institutions involved in the war.

Also, many anarchists are involved in Antifa, a decentralised network of anti-fascists. The UAF alternative is a liberl, platform allowing recruitment ground for the SWP.



The anarchist definition of the state is a collection of centralised, hierarchical institutions mandated with political authority.

This definition presents further problems. What do you define as a system of hierarchy

Anything that had positions/individuals/institutions of centralised command.


would you consider democratic centralism hierarchical?

Yes.


Is it possible to clearly distinguish between a decentralized and centralized form of organizational structure?

Yes.


What if a Marxist advocates what they consider a 'state' based on workers' councils?

Many do and if it is decentralised, federated and without institutionalised political authority then I don't care what they call it.


I generally find that Anarchists base their politics on an unclear dislike for authority and a lack of theoretical depth.

It's only unclear to you because you haven't taken the time to understand it. You could read What is Authority? by Bakunin.


They are unable to recognize the need for discipline and are thus unable to develop a coherent and organized strategy.

What is discipline and how does this effect having a "coherent and organized strategy"? Are you saying that without people to tell someone what to do and without that person doing it without question an organisation cannot be coherent or organised?

[BobKKKindle$]

Indeed, but that's really what you specified.
Libertarian Marxists have more Libertarian tendencies compared to other Marxists and Leninists. Is that not what you were asking?

Your comments suggested that a system of workers councils should not be considered a state or was not an accurate reflection of Lenin's conception of how a workers state should be organized. By quoting from State and Revolution I showed how both of these assertions are incorrect. If you did not contest this, I apologize. Either way, Lenin, and parties that recognize Lenin as an ideological inspiration, did not call for a system of party dictatorship, and a workers state can (and, in my view, should) assume the form of workers' councils.


That is a blatant lie. They do not have a party - because we're anarchists, derrr - we have organizations (you're from England, right? Well, the AF is one that publishes newspapers and has meetings and organizes)
And the IWW does too. As does the ASN, anarcho-sydnicalists organizations across the world (e.g. Zabalaza, CNT, etc)

Would you not agree, then, that in this capacity, Anarchists are assuming the role of a vanguard? These organizations and parties such as the SWP essentially have the same objectives although they are not structured in the same way - they all encompass a section of the working class with a more developed consciousness and exist to raise the general level of consciousness through agitation. How do you reconcile this objective reality with the Anarchist rejection of the vanguard, as a theoretical construct, and as a basis for political struggle? Do you recognize that spontaneous theoretical development and revolt in the absence of an external organization cannot occur?


I'm not from the UK, but the Stop the War Coalition here, run by "Socialist" groups is a load of absolute shit, and a waste of fucking time, with no real socialist analysis; it is bourgeois, reformist crap. Aint nothing to be proud of.

It is not the same organization, and the STWC is not reformist. The leaders of the SWP supported George's Galloway's call for direct action and a general strike if any country conducts a military strike against Iran in order to prevent a further war. The STWC also initiated a people's assembly, an extra-parliamentary forum for discussion comprised of the components of the coalition and other radical groups, convered in depth here (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=11005)


They invariably bow to the authority of the state at protests (marching where the cops say, even if it makes it easier for the cops to attack the protest), often even selling out other protesters in the media for a good image (those nasty Black Blocers should not be challenging the cops!).

Yet another assertion without justification. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to the news – fairly recently the STWC chose to defy a government ban on all forms of political protest within a one-mile area surrounding parliament (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13139) and during the campaign against the National Front, at what would later become known as the battle of Lewisham, members of the local community and the party were subject to the attacks of the policy when they conducted a demonstration against the far-right, something no other section of the left seemed capable of doing. The SWP does not accept the state - although I remind you, this thread is supposed to be about Trotskyism -although it is flattering that you consider the SWP as a representative for the entire Marxist movement.


OK, you have given two options, democratic centralism (which is anything but democratic, a small group tells everyone else what to do...) or individual small group action, uncoordinated.

Democratic centralism is not based on the rule of a small group. Under this structure every aspect of party policy is subject to open discussion at every level of the party, but once a decision has been taken through the democratic process every member has to abide by it. I fail to see how this supports minority rule. This is a basic principle of any democratic system but is of great importance for a revolutionary movement, for reasons that have already been stated. Anarchist 'respect' for each agents ability to make their own decision with no regard for the interests or policy of the movement as a whole encourages incoherence.

There is, I believe, a need for discipline. I do not reject the importance of individual choice. However, some members will always be better equipped to make decisions, possibly due to greater experience, and their value should be recognized.


The only "Leninist" newspapers I have seen being sold (or even given away) are the same tired rags repeating the same tired rhetoric. The various groups that I know of advocate either joining the parliament to spread revolution, or else have no clear plan (beyond educating workers and building consciousness, very vague in other words)

Participating in elections (and winning seats) allows the party to draw attention to the failure of the capitalist system to meet the needs of the working class, through the use of parliamentary bodies as forums for discussion, and through issuing transitional demands.

[BobKKKindle$]

Also, many anarchists are involved in Antifa, a decentralised network of anti-fascists. The UAF alternative is a liberl, platform allowing recruitment ground for the SWP.

I frankly have no problem with using the SWP's presence in various organisations as a means to draw more members to the party. That's politics.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:15 am

Then wouldn't they be a Libertarian Marxist?

Not really. Lenin always emphasised the importance of democracy and predicted the eventual disintegration of the state.
Yes he emphasised and predicted it but didn't manage to create it.


State and Revolution is a great book.

But fundamentally flawed.


Let's examine some of the most important politics movements currently operating in the UK and evaluate the importance and participation of Anarchists in each case. The Stop the War Coalition, which has introduced a new generation to the socialist analysis of imperial conquest and has been able to bring a diverse range of social groups together in support of a single cause, was founded by the Socialist Workers' Party.

It wasn't created by the SWP it was taken over by them and has since created stagnation and destroyed momentum. The StWC is simply an extension of the SWP and has worked hard in ensuring that any dissenting voice no longer has one anywhere in the organisation. You plan yearly demonstrations that pose absolutely no threat to the state or the capitalists who profit from the occupation.

You have stalls in city centres and use it as an opportunity to recruit members to the SWP. Give me one good reason why anyone with half a political brain would want to be involved in that - indeed, how could any anarchist possibly be even if we wanted to?

You seem very naive to the realities of SWP politics. Having once been a member for 7 years I came to realise that the Central Committee demand an hegemony of politics over seemingly radical groups. It's called entryism and the SWP are very effective at it. They enter an organisation (which they did with StWC), fill its hierarchy with members and take it over in an attempt to push their politics.

People like John Rees and Lindsey German don't want anarchists in the StWC. They've tried damn hard to make that a reality.


Anarchists do not, to my knowledge, have an active presence in this organization, and Anarchists did not use the anti-war movement as an opportunity to introduce their ideas to working class communities and encourage people to become politically active.

You are right with that, but I don't see a problem.


Anarchists do not have a party organization to host meetings and publish a newspaper.

That's because we don't need a party organisation to do those things...

The AF publishes monthly and quarterly publications and each regional federation publishes its own newsletter. Also federations all over the country hold public and group organisational meetings. This seems like an odd thing to justify, it's practically self-evident that these things happen because otherwise we wouldn't be an organisation would we, we'd just be individuals who did nothing.

Stop believing what your leaders tell you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:38 am

Also, many anarchists are involved in Antifa, a decentralised network of anti-fascists. The UAF alternative is a liberl, platform allowing recruitment ground for the SWP.

I frankly have no problem with using the SWP's presence in various organisations as a means to draw more members to the party.
Of course you don't.


That's politics.

No, it's called authoritarianism.

You don't "use your presence" you enter an organisation and take control of it, pushing it towards your politics. It's not a debate, it's a take over. This is how undemocratic the SWP actually are and this is why they are banned from involvement in many groups.

[Herman]

As for discipline, there is no need for discipline, you have to recognise that people are capable of deciding their own opinions on matters, they don't need other people to tell them what to do.

That's not what discipline means though.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:50 am

As for discipline, there is no need for discipline, you have to recognise that people are capable of deciding their own opinions on matters, they don't need other people to tell them what to do.

That's not what discipline means though.
Then clarify it.

[Bilan]

Your comments suggested that a system of workers councils should not be considered a state or was not an accurate reflection of Lenin's conception of how a workers state should be organized. By quoting from State and Revolution I showed how both of these assertions are incorrect. If you did not contest this, I apologize. Either way, Lenin, and parties that recognize Lenin as an ideological inspiration, did not call for a system of party dictatorship, and a workers state can (and, in my view, should) assume the form of workers' councils.


I'm not going to comment on his theory, for I don't think I've read enough to make an adequate judgment on that.
But all I can say is, despite his sweet words, he certainly didn't put that into practice.


Would you not agree, then, that in this capacity, Anarchists are assuming the role of a vanguard?

No, we're not trying to lead the working class.


These organizations and parties such as the SWP essentially have the same objectives although they are not structured in the same way

Do we?


- they all encompass a section of the working class with a more developed consciousness and exist to raise the general level of consciousness through agitation.


But to what end?


Do you recognize that spontaneous theoretical development and revolt in the absence of an external organization cannot occur?

You don't need to have read Das Kapital to understand why capitalism is a fucked up system.
And I think you should read the speech (Aint that sad?) by Fred Hampton on History as a Weapon on this.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:34 pm

They invariably bow to the authority of the state at protests (marching where the cops say, even if it makes it easier for the cops to attack the protest), often even selling out other protesters in the media for a good image (those nasty Black Blocers should not be challenging the cops!).

Yet another assertion without justification. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to the news – fairly recently the STWC chose to defy a government ban on all forms of political protest within a one-mile area surrounding parliament (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13139) and during the campaign against the National Front, at what would later become known as the battle of Lewisham, members of the local community and the party were subject to the attacks of the policy when they conducted a demonstration against the far-right, something no other section of the left seemed capable of doing. The SWP does not accept the state - although I remind you, this thread is supposed to be about Trotskyism -although it is flattering that you consider the SWP as a representative for the entire Marxist movement.
You made the first "assertion without justification" in this thread. I'm basing my claim of socialists (and socialist groups) selling out people who aren't part of their party on their actions here in Australia. Take the G20 last year in Melbourne for example. If you had seen any of the coverage, you would know what I was talking about. There were people from the various Leninist groups on the media condemning the actions of the Arterial Bloc. The media interviewed other people to, and they didn't condemn the bloc, they rarely came out in direct support of it, instead running the line that different groups do different things (which is what the socialists should have done, but didn't...).

Then you can see it again at the APEC meeting this year... The Socialist Alliance (Who run for parliament, which takes up most of their time it seems, though they have never had anyone ever elected. A better use of elections would be directly attacking them, but no... We support the state!) spokesperson (though I think they were acting in their role as Stop the War spokesperson :rolleyes:), claimed that no one was going to do what happened at the G20... And then later at the protests socialists tried to physically remove people who had covered their faces! Fuck that.

Anyway, I'm not talking about the SWP, I don't give a shit about them, I'm not in the UK. I'm talking about the vast majority of Leninist (and they are mostly Trots...) parties in Australia. To put it bluntly, they suck, unless you happen to like the state, and being told what to do.



OK, you have given two options, democratic centralism (which is anything but democratic, a small group tells everyone else what to do...) or individual small group action, uncoordinated.

Democratic centralism is not based on the rule of a small group. Under this structure every aspect of party policy is subject to open discussion at every level of the party, but once a decision has been taken through the democratic process every member has to abide by it. I fail to see how this supports minority rule. This is a basic principle of any democratic system but is of great importance for a revolutionary movement, for reasons that have already been stated. Anarchist 'respect' for each agents ability to make their own decision with no regard for the interests or policy of the movement as a whole encourages incoherence.

There is, I believe, a need for discipline. I do not reject the importance of individual choice. However, some members will always be better equipped to make decisions, possibly due to greater experience, and their value should be recognized.
How do you get democratic centralism at the protest that you mentioned earlier?
Who decides who has greater experience then another person (and thus more worthy of being listened to)?
Have you heard the quote about the boot-maker? Anarchists don't have a problem with experience. We have a problem with authority, and if you say that because you have greater experience that you should be listened to more... Well don't mind me telling you, politely, to fuck off.


The only "Leninist" newspapers I have seen being sold (or even given away) are the same tired rags repeating the same tired rhetoric. The various groups that I know of advocate either joining the parliament to spread revolution, or else have no clear plan (beyond educating workers and building consciousness, very vague in other words)

Participating in elections (and winning seats) allows the party to draw attention to the failure of the capitalist system to meet the needs of the working class, through the use of parliamentary bodies as forums for discussion, and through issuing transitional demands.Well, as I mentioned above, the biggest Leninist party in Australia has (as far as I know) never won a seat in any parliament in the country. You don't use elections to win seats, you use them to attack the system of elections! The parliament isn't there for the workers, and having socialist members of parliament isn't going to help anything at all. In fact, it is more likely to corrupt them (the socialists) then it is to show the workers anything. Even if you did have a few members in parliament, how are they going to vote? With the Labor/Labour party most of the time ... Well fuck that.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:24 pm
The workers' state, as a theoretical construct, is also based on the mass participation of the working class, in the form of democratic councils,
What is this, an extract from "101 Trotskyist myths"


If this discussion is to proceed, a clear Anarchist definition of the state is required. So, please complete, State (noun): .....

"A state is a centralised, political association with effective dominion over a geographic territory. It includes the set of institutions (police, millitary, etc) that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory"

So a state (or more accurately; nation state) is a political body that governs it's subjects. It is by definition, hierarchical, and cannot be a political body that is governed by it's subjects, nor can it be composed of everyone!

Pretty much all the functions of the state, military, law enforcement, bin collection etc, will still have to be done post-state. By a federation of workers assemblies, with no central decision making body.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 20, 2007 12:37 pm
"A state is a centralised, political association with effective dominion over a geographic territory. It includes the set of institutions (police, millitary, etc) that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory"

So a state (or more accurately; nation state) is a political body that governs it's subjects. It is by definition, hierarchical, and cannot be a political body that is governed by it's subjects, nor can it be composed of everyone!

Pretty much all the functions of the state, military, law enforcement, bin collection etc, will still have to be done post-state. By a federation of workers assemblies, with no central decision making body.
Yes! We agree on something

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 12:29 pm
How do you get democratic centralism at the protest that you mentioned earlier?
I think you and Bob are talking about something different. Democratic centralism can be effective in organising a demonstration but decentralised affinity groups who act independently of each other are, in my experience (and it's quite a lot) far more effective in perpetrating direct action, avoiding or confronting the police.

Trotskyists want to form demonstrations so that they can attract members and sell newspapers. Anarchists want to work towards attracting people to make symbolic or actual preventative demonstrations by directly challenging state or capitalist institutions.

[Herman]

Then clarify it.

When leninists talk about discipline they refer to self-control and complete motivation to the cause. Shouldn't an anarchist be disciplined, according to this meaning?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:52 pm

Then clarify it.

When leninists talk about discipline they refer to self-control
What is self-control?


complete motivation to the cause

This is called activism.

[Herman]

This is called activism.

It's more like determination, but that's what the "leninist discipline" refers to. Having a firm ideological commitment and upholding democratic principles.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:47 pm

This is called activism.

It's more like determination, but that's what the "leninist discipline" refers to. Having a firm ideological commitment and upholding democratic principles.
People have determination and firm ideological commitment but don't actually do any political activity.

[TC]

1. How would anarchists defend the revolution, without centralised state power?

they wouldn't. its impossible to resist a centrally coordinated military opponent without coordinated military resistance, and any organisation that has a monopoly on the use of coercive force over an area is by definition a state. This is why every anarchist revolution has been crushed, and crushed easily: anarchy doesn't work in a world of states.


2. How would you bring about an anarchist revolution, without a centralised party (like a communist party?)

again, they wouldn't, this is why there has never been a serious attempt at an anarchist overthrow of a government, only anarchists taking advantage of governments in collapse due to civil war caused by other organised forces (such as in spain and russia)


3. Anarchism is supposed to be democratic. But what form of control does the proletariat have over the country under a Trotskyist-style government?

Governments by soviets or workers councils or communal councils or whatever they're called, organs of direct popular democracy which send delegates to higher bodies, recallable at every level, allow for vastly more participatory democracy than bourgeois representational "democracies" and they've demonstrated their practicality in both the Soviet Union and Cuba.


4. The purpose of a capitalist state is to protect private property, keep the class relations the same, and keep the status quo. They jail dissidents. Doesn't the communist state do all of these things as well?


Yes, apart from protecting private property (since a socialist state protects public and collective forms of property instead). States like parties or armies or conferences or meetings are just means to achieve an ends, what ends depends on the class. In a bourgeois state, the state protects the bourgeois control of the economy to the exclusion of others, in a socialist state, the state protects the workers control of the economy to the exclusion of others.

And "communist state" is *not* an oxymoron as it simply refers to a state with a socialist economy run by communists (the use of the term 'communist' is as an adjective not 'communism' as a noun) and not the highest stages of global communism where the state has whithered away due to the absense of any competing class interests (as all other classes have been eliminated). In any case all serious leftists including lenin have used the term both ways only people who think they're smart on revleft whine that theres no such thing as a 'communist state.'


5. If there are so many different revolutionary left parties, and each one is saying "we are the right one, all the other ones are counterrevolutionary" etc. then, which one do i pick? but much more importantly: does it matter which so-called "communist party" comes to power anyway? when it is in power, can't the policy be changed democratically? and if the revolution really depends on picking the right party now, then do we even have a chance

Put simply, unless you're in venezuela, nepal, india, bolivia, maybe brazil, maybe mexico, etc, it really doesn't matter since none of the "parties" around have a chance at contesting state power.

Selling newspapers and going to the pub will not make a revolution.

[KC]

What is self-control?

TAT, it sounds like you were thinking of "obedience" when he said discipline. Although I have no idea why he's talking about "self-control".


"A state is a centralised, political association with effective dominion over a geographic territory. It includes the set of institutions (police, millitary, etc) that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory"

So a state (or more accurately; nation state) is a political body that governs it's subjects. It is by definition, hierarchical, and cannot be a political body that is governed by it's subjects, nor can it be composed of everyone!

Pretty much all the functions of the state, military, law enforcement, bin collection etc, will still have to be done post-state. By a federation of workers assemblies, with no central decision making body.

What do you mean by centralized? Because, depending on what you mean by it, everyone here could agree with you. Centralized into the hands of a class? of a minority? Of what?

Also, the state doesn't merely include the institutions that "govern" society; it is those institutions. And as for a state being a political body that "governs its subjects" that is somewhat accurate, although very vague and not a very indepth analysis of the function of the state. The state doesn't exist to "govern subjects"; it is a tool that exists to maintain the conditions of rule of the ruling class.

So is this hierarchical? Sure, in the sense that we have a ruling class implementing the state to maintain the conditions of its rule against other classes.

What do you think of this quote:

"It is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination. The organ of suppression, however, is here the majority of the population, and not a minority, as was always the case under slavery, serfdom, and wage slavery. And since the majority of people itself suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force" for suppression is no longer necessary! ... Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority (privileged officialdom, the chiefs of the standing army), the majority itself can directly fulfill all these functions, and the more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power."

[Herman]

People have determination and firm ideological commitment but don't actually do any political activity.

If you are commited ideologically, then you will be doing political activity or any activity related to your ideas.

[KC]

If you are commited ideologically, then you will be doing political activity or any activity related to your ideas.

Not really. Committed ideologically doesn't necessarily mean that you are attempting to promote that ideology; it merely means that you are committed to believing it. Also, ideology doesn't necessarily have to be political, as it's merely an overall world view based on the environment in which one develops. Racism, sexism or homophobia, for example, aren't political ideologies.

[syndicat]

b.k.:
How do Anarchists even intend to spread their ideas and overcome the limitations of trade-union consciousness? Anarchists do not have a party organization to host meetings and publish a newspaper.

This is silly nonsense. Numerous Left-libertarian political organizations have had publications and hosted meetings. To take an example in the U.S., NEFAC publishes "The Northeastern Anarchist" and they occasionally host public meetings. When i was a member of the Anarchist Communist Federation (of North America) in the late '70s we produced a regular newspaper, Strike!, and we occasionally had meetings. But the problem has been lack of numbers which makes it difficult to maintain these kinds of initiatives. The group i currently belonged to used publish a theoretical magazine, ideas & action, and currently publishes "Worker Solidarity". Over the years we've been involved in developing rank and file action committees in unions, organizing unions where they didn't exist, participating in the movement to defend reproductive rights, in community organizations around anti-gentrification and tenant struggles, and a variety of other activities. Our focus is in helping to build mass organizations, encourage them to engage in militant collective action, and work for rank and file control of mass organizations such as unions or other organizations.

We don't call our political organizations "parties" because a party is an organization that aims to run a state.

Separation of the state apparatus from effective control by the mass of the people is an essential characteristic of the state, as Engels pointed out. The modern state is articulated into top-down hierarchies, with control concentrated into the hands of managers and top professionals, like the corporate hierarchy. This type of hierarchical control structure presupposes a system of class subordination. You could use the state to expropriate the capitalists, but you wouldn't get rid of the class system because the state is itself the basis of class division.

We favor political organization but not a group that aims to concentrate power in its hands by way of a statist hierarchy. The role of the layer of activists and organizers and publicists -- the "vanguard" -- within the working class need not be understood, as Leninists do, as managers of the social movements, with the aim of using those movements to gain power for their party. Rather, we can envision the relationship as one where the activsts and organizers and publicists are working to develop in the working class broadly the self-confidence, skills, consciousness and organizational strength to fight more effectively and build movements they control, which is necessary as the path to building a society they control.

To answer questions like the defense of the revolution and such, the important thing to keep in mind is the need to reject substitutionism, the party substituting itself for the mass democracy of the working class itself.

[Rawthentic]

You could use the state to expropriate the capitalists, but you wouldn't get rid of the class system because the state is itself the basis of class division.
lol, so you really think that classes can be abolished right after the revolution?


Separation of the state apparatus from effective control by the mass of the people is an essential characteristic of the state, as Engels pointed out
oh yeah use a materialist analysis of the state when its convenient huh? He is referring to the capitalist state in this sense.


We favor political organization but not a group that aims to concentrate power in its hands by way of a statist hierarchy. The role of the layer of activists and organizers and publicists -- the "vanguard" -- within the working class need not be understood, as Leninists do, as managers of the social movements, with the aim of using those movements to gain power for their party. Rather, we can envision the relationship as one where the activsts and organizers and publicists are working to develop in the working class broadly the self-confidence, skills, consciousness and organizational strength to fight more effectively and build movements they control, which is necessary as the path to building a society they control.
How many thoroughgoing social revolutions have their been without a strong, organized political party? None, and never will be. The vanguard are the further-seeing, most active members of the proletariat. Marxists understand that consciousness in capitalist society is not uniform, and there will be those that are far more conscious than others. Those are the ones that take leadership role in movements and point the way forward to revolution.

Parties unite the broadest sectors of the proletariat and other oppressed classes around a revolutionary program that they can unite around and work towards. If there had not been such a party and program, there would have never been a Russian Revolution. The millions of workers and peasants that rallied to the Bolsheviks is a testament to this. Lenin was a man that they were able to unite around and make the first socialist revolution.

Such communist vanguards are accepted, strengthened, and yes, loved by the proletariat. One needs only to look at history, or the Black Panther Party and how their revolutionary leadership led to a revolutionary movement of armed black proletarians to defend against police brutality. They organized themselves in the efficient way against the capitalist state, while still creating social programs that gave normal working people the ability to participate in politics.

Your talk on the state is the same anti-working class garbage.

[BobKKKindle$]

lol, so you really think that classes can be abolished right after the revolution?
I am sure you had this quote in mind, LFTP - It is a favourite of mine!


"Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests.

"On the People's Democratic Dictatorship" (June 30, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 418.

[Random Precision]

I don't have enough energy or knowledge to comprehensively answer the other questions, so...


5. If there are so many different revolutionary left parties, and each one is saying "we are the right one, all the other ones are counterrevolutionary" etc. then, which one do i pick?

I think you are starting in the wrong place. It is true that there is a plethora of revolutionary leftist organizations out there, but I don't accept that theoretical agreement is the best or even a good approach when looking for one to join. Rather, I think you should look around to see what's happening in your country, see which organization it is the most active in opposing capitalism and building the revolutionary movement. For example, when I became involved in left-wing politics, I joined the ISO not because I fully agreed with their theory, but because I was impressed by their high level of organization and the sheer amount of anti-capitalist activity they participated in. In time, I came to agree with the greater part of their theoretical line, through my own reading and research. I must say, however, that I strongly disagree with their reformist tendencies, but this will not cause me to leave because they are still the best-organized and loudest advocate of socialism that I can find on the US Left.


but much more importantly: does it matter which so-called "communist party" comes to power anyway? when it is in power, can't the policy be changed democratically?

Any communist party worthy of the name would be that way, yes. Unfortunately that is not always the case...


and if the revolution really depends on picking the right party now, then do we even have a chance

At least as far as the US goes, I don't think there's any party currently on the Left that would be capable of acting as the proletarian vanguard if the revolution were to happen tomorrow, that includes my own organization. This is because we are not anywhere close to a revolutionary situation right now. The identity of the vanguard can only be determined by a revolution, it is then we will see which parties back their words up with action and which sink into obscurity or open counter-revolution, as no doubt many of them will. I wouldn't be too concerned with picking exactly the right "vanguard party" right now, that is to say.

Maybe joining a political organization is the wrong place to start out altogether. Immersing yourself in the day-to-day struggle would be much better in my opinion. Join a union or start organizing if there isn't one around. Get involved in the issues for workers in your community.

Just my $0.02...

[Bilan]

How many thoroughgoing social revolutions have their been without a strong, organized political party? None, and never will be.

Dun be like that, cat. It doesn't take a party trying to take power to bring a revolution, it takes mass organization - in the workplace, and in communities, - as well as practical education, which Fred Hampton speaks of here,

Originally posted by Fred Hampton -Power anywhere there's people

And a lot of people will tell you, way, Well, the people dont have any theory, they need some theory. They need some theory even if they don't have any practice. And the Black Panther Party tells you that if a man tells you that he's the type of man who has you buying candy bars and eating the wrapping and throwing the candy away, he'd have you walking East when you're supposed to be walking West. Its true. If you listen to what the pig says, you be walkin' outside when the sun is shining with your umbrella over your head. And when it's raining youll be goin' outside leaving your umbrella inside. That's right. You gotta get it together. Im saying that's what they have you doing.

Now, what do WE do? We say that the Breakfast For Children program is a socialistic program. It teaches the people basically that by practice, we thought up and let them practice that theory and inspect that theory. What's more important? You learn something just like everybody else.

Let me try to break it down to you.

You say this Brother here goes to school 8 years to be an auto mechanic. And that teacher who used to be an auto mechanic, he tells him, "Well, n****r, you gotta go on what we call on-the-job-training." And he says, "Damn, with all this theory I got, I gotta go to on-the-job-training? What for?"

He said, "On on-the-job-training he works with me. Ive been here for 20 years. When I started work, they didn't even have auto mechanics. I ain't got no theory, I just got a whole bunch of practice."

What happened? A car came in making a whole lot of funny noise. This Brother here go get his book. He on page one, he ain't got to page 200. I'm sitting here listening to the car. He says, "What do you think it is?"

I say, "I think its the carburetor."

He says, "No I don't see anywhere in here where it says a carburetor make no noise like that." And he says, "How do you know its the carburetor?"

I said, "Well, n****r, with all them degrees as many as a thermometer, around 20 years ago, 19 to be exact, I was listening to the same kind of noise. And what I did was I took apart the voltage regulator and it wasn't that. Then I took apart the alternator and it wasn't that. I took apart the generator brushes and it wasn't that. I took apart the generator and it wasn't that. I took apart the generator and it wasn't even that. After I took apart all that I finally got to the carburetor and when I got to the carburetor I found that that's what it was. And I told myself that 'fool, next time you hear this sound you better take apart the carburetor first.'"

How did he learn? He learned through practice.



The vanguard are the further-seeing, most active members of the proletariat.

There instances in history where this is true, and where vanguard parties have been so, but this is not always the case, and is not even really the issue.



Parties unite the broadest sectors of the proletariat and other oppressed classes around a revolutionary program that they can unite around and work towards.

My experience with parties is quite the contrary.
It seems like here in Australia, most of them seem to like talking about how much unity they're doing - like the Socialist Alliance - when in reality, they do the exact opposite.




Such communist vanguards are accepted, strengthened, and yes, loved by the proletariat. One needs only to look at history, or the Black Panther Party and how their revolutionary leadership led to a revolutionary movement of armed black proletarians to defend against police brutality. They organized themselves in the efficient way against the capitalist state, while still creating social programs that gave normal working people the ability to participate in politics.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. The success of the BPP is due to more than just that, though, I think that with out certain people (particularly Huey P. and Fred Hampton, the BPP would've been far less successful).


Your talk on the state is the same anti-working class garbage.

Oh fuck off!

EDIT: forgot to put the Fred Hampton quote in :blush:

[Rawthentic]

bobkindles, thats definitely a great quote to illustrate my point that classes cannot be abolished overnight (I laugh when I think that people can actually believe that).


I think you are starting in the wrong place. It is true that there is a plethora of revolutionary leftist organizations out there, but I don't accept that theoretical agreement is the best or even a good approach when looking for one to join.
Dude, seriously, this is horrible advice. One should never choose an organization based on how active they are. Thats opportunism and only leads to one getting disillusioned and burnt out. One needs to find a party that puts forward a correct and principled communist analysis and couples that with practice. Because, after all, however active a party is, all its really doing is putting forward a crappy line through that practice.

[Rawthentic]

Dun be like that, cat. It doesn't take a party trying to take power to bring a revolution, it takes mass organization - in the workplace, and in communities, - as well as practical education, which Fred Hampton speaks of here,
Well yes, of course, but this in no way negates the need for a communist vanguard.

Don't give me that Fred Hampton crap, he was teh evil lEninist.


There instances in history where this is true, and where vanguard parties have been so, but this is not always the case, and is not even really the issue.
Wow, great argument, backed up with real historical evidence of emancipating revolutions.


I don't think it's quite as simple as that. The success of the BPP is due to more than just that, though, I think that with out certain people (particularly Huey P. and Fred Hampton, the BPP would've been far less successful).
The success of the Panthers is due to the fact that black proletarians organized themselves around the Panthers mufuckin' 10-Point Platform, in a similar way that the Bolsheviks did under Lenin and the CCP under Mao. I never said it was simple, but urban blacks strengthened the Maoist vanguard, upheld revolutionary leadership, and defended from pig brutality.

Without the BPP as a communist vanguard, this never would have happened. Ah, once again, historical evidence to back me up. :)


Oh fuck off!
Thats what workers need to do tell their leaders next time such "revolutionaries" negate a seizure of power all because they are afraid of it and their silly notion of the "state."

[KC]

You could use the state to expropriate the capitalists, but you wouldn't get rid of the class system because the state is itself the basis of class division.

The state isn't the cause of class division, it is the effect.


Separation of the state apparatus from effective control by the mass of the people is an essential characteristic of the state, as Engels pointed out

Could you quote where you are talking about? Where did Engels say this, and was he discussing the state in general or the bourgeois state?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 21, 2007 02:59 am
How many thoroughgoing social revolutions have their been without a strong, organized political party? None, and never will be.
The word party is used to distinguish a centralised political organisation from a decentralised one. If you were to say "strong, organised political organisaiton" I don't think anyone would diagree; the issue here is that of centralisation.


The vanguard are the further-seeing, most active members of the proletariat.

Another semantic issue. If you are simply talking about class conscious workers who actively resist the state and capitalism and attempt to propagandise class struggle then you can call it what you want. I would say that the word 'vangaurd' was inappropriate, but what ever floats-ya-boat.

If, however, you are using the vanguard to refer to a centralised political minority who lead the working class as intellectuals then it is this that we oppose when we refer to a vanguard; after all it is this that has history has produced in terms of a vanguard.

It has not been my former definition.


Marxists understand that consciousness in capitalist society is not uniform

Accepted.


...and there will be those that are far more conscious than others. Those are the ones that take leadership role in movements and point the way forward to revolution.

Again, you need to be careful how you use words. Historically Leninists have lead the working class by asserting a central command over them.


If there had not been such a party and program, there would have never been a Russian Revolution.

You make a lot of assumptions in your arguments.

The material conditions of Russia created the revolution, not the party or program. But granted, in order to facilitate those conditions towards an organised and effective attack on a crumbling state there needed to be an organised and effective organsiation. This could have taken many forms.

Leninist organisation is not the only organisation that is effective, an opinion you clearly have. You have no basis or experience to make such a claim. It can be your opinion, but it's not a fact so it seems odd that you keep asserting it as one. A fact requires evidence to validate it as such.


Such communist vanguards are accepted, strengthened, and yes, loved by the proletariat.

Where?

On our recent experience on a postal strike the posties were highly suspicious of the IWW/AF members who went down to support their picket because they thought we were from a vanguard party trying to recruit them. In my experience the "proletariat" are far from loving of vanguard parties. In fact, they're down right opposed to them - even when it comes to being on their picket.


One needs only to look at history, or the Black Panther Party and how their revolutionary leadership led to a revolutionary movement of armed black proletarians to defend against police brutality. They organized themselves in the efficient way against the capitalist state, while still creating social programs that gave normal working people the ability to participate in politics.

I wouldn't call that leadership.


Your talk on the state is the same anti-working class garbage.

That's just silly hyperbole. You should stop that.

[catch]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 21, 2007 09:47 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 21, 2007 09:47 am)
Live for the [email protected] 21, 2007 02:59 am
How many thoroughgoing social revolutions have their been without a strong, organized political party? None, and never will be.
The word party is used to distinguish a centralised political organisation from a decentralised one. If you were to say "strong, organised political organisaiton" I don't think anyone would diagree; the issue here is that of centralisation. [/b]
It'd be quite possible to have a decentralised political organisation that was running for parliament or had a similar relationship to the wider working class as the Leninist parties. There are 'centralised' organisations of a dozen people, and 'decentralised' organisations of the same number - in practice they can act quite similarly. Content is as important as form.

The question isn't one of centralisation or not as a fundamental principle, but of the organisation's attitude to the working class as a whole, and to the role of the organisation in relating to organs which are thrown up in struggle. In this I think one of the most important distinctions is whether it sees itself as in fact being such an organisation of struggle representing the working class - such as the Bolsheviks, or for that matter elements in today's IWW did/do to an extent - or recognises that the working class will create their own organisations during periods of mass struggle.

Centralisation/decentralisation also ignores the informal hierarchies that develop, especially in so-called 'anti-authoritarian' organisations, where a veneer of decentralisation and consensus decision making allows a few people to control proceedings via personal influence, control of procedures etc.

Also I'd say federalism is (or should be) a centralising tendency - just that it centralises only to the extent that is necessary/desirable rather than as a matter of principle -centralisation from the bottom up. It's a false dichotomy that obscures the real issues - from both the Leninist/Trot side and the anarchist side most of the time.

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by Zampanò@October 20, 2007 11:21 pm
Committed ideologically doesn't necessarily mean that you are attempting to promote that ideology; it merely means that you are committed to believing it.
I beg to differ. Claiming to be a communist because you commit yourself to the communist ideology doesn't make you a communist.

This sounds like a contradiction but let me explain.

To be a communist is to take part in the class struggle, to organize yourself in a party which fights capitalism and promotes the emancipation of the working class, and promotes the socialist revolution and the communist ideal. If a 'communist' does not participate in any of these actions, he is not a communist. He is just person with sympathy for the communist ideals. That is a big difference and it clearly shows why theory and practice have to be connected and why that is a fundamental element in communist ideology.

[Bilan]

Well yes, of course, but this in no way negates the need for a communist vanguard.

It does and it doesn't.
Perhaps a vanguard can be successful to organize prior to the revolution, but I think history shows that it certainly changes its course after the revolution.
It's not essential to the revolution, but it has been something which has been successful to leading to it


Don't give me that Fred Hampton crap, he was teh evil lEninist.

Yep, but man did he kick ass. :lol:


Wow, great argument, backed up with real historical evidence of emancipating revolutions.

What, you mean because I'm not going to out-right deny that vanguards have been successful in organizing (such as the BPP) that it's some how "bad"?
You weren't arguing against what the problem with Vanguard Parties is, thats it.



The success of the Panthers is due to the fact that black proletarians organized themselves around the Panthers mufuckin' 10-Point Platform, in a similar way that the Bolsheviks did under Lenin and the CCP under Mao.

Myup. The Panthers had the right program for the time, no doubt. But the fact that they were a party, and not an organization was not why they were successful now, was it?


I never said it was simple, but urban blacks strengthened the Maoist vanguard, upheld revolutionary leadership, and defended from pig brutality.

werd. But the upholding of the leadership became an issue, didn't it? Or, rather, the idolizing of Huey P.


Thats what workers need to do tell their leaders next time such "revolutionaries" negate a seizure of power all because they are afraid of it and their silly notion of the "state."

That was insanely patronising, and really quite unnecessary.

[KC]

If, however, you are using the vanguard to refer to a centralised political minority

How could the vanguard be centralized?


I beg to differ. Claiming to be a communist because you commit yourself to the communist ideology doesn't make you a communist.

Well, that depends on whether or not you consider communism an ideology. Personally, I don't. An ideology is a worldview that comes out of the environment in which one develops. Marxist theory doesn't come out of the environment in which one develops.


To be a communist is to take part in the class struggle, to organize yourself in a party which fights capitalism and promotes the emancipation of the working class, and promotes the socialist revolution and the communist ideal.

Of course; to be a communist by its very definition means you actively take part in the class struggle. But none of your post at all goes against what I said in my post.

[syndicat]

me:

You could use the state to expropriate the capitalists, but you wouldn't get rid of the class system because the state is itself the basis of class division.



lol, so you really think that classes can be abolished right after the revolution?

The revolution IS the process of abolition of the class system or it's a swindle. The working class takes over direct management of industry, creates its own organizations for running the communities and regions and the country, a process that derives, not from a "party", but from the mass movements, the mass organizations that the working class has built, in the community and in the workplaces. There is no other way for the working class to liberate itself.

And referring to the role of "vanguard parties" in revolutions of the 20th century doesn't do you any good because the working class in all those countries remained a subjugated, exploited class. All those "communist" revolutions created a coordinator ruling class, a boss class to which the workers were subordinate.

And if you suggest that over time the "vanguard party" will give up its power for the working class, your position is crazy...no ruling class in history has ever given up its power voluntarily and none ever will. It's un-materialist to believe that just because they started out with "socialist ideas" or "revolutionary ideas" they'll give up their power. That's the sort of error that's called "idealism". What happens is that they manufacture excuses and change the meaning of "socialism" so that it doesn't mean the direct power of the working class.

B.K.'s quote doesn't really prove anything. That's because the working class itself can build its own army -- like the labor militia in the Spanish revolution. The working class can build its own governance structures, such as industrial federations to run the industries, regional and national regional grassroots congresses to develop national plans for defense and other key areas, and can establish coodinating councils that it directly controls, which coordinate defense of the revolution, and are accountable to the worker assemblies at the base. That's the way it needs to be done if the working class is to be in power when the smoke clears.

Eliminating the class system is the revolution if the revolution is an act of self-liberation by the working class. This means expropriating the capitalists and eliminating the top-down hierarchies of management in the economy and governance, and replacing these by organizations of worker self-management in the industries, and institutions for self-governance based on participatory democracy.

All of this is consistent with there being revolutionary political organizations that have influence within the mass organizations. But we have to ensure that this influence doesn't become hierarchical dominance of society by a party leadership, which Leninism leads to.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@October 21, 2007 04:43 pm

If, however, you are using the vanguard to refer to a centralised political minority

How could the vanguard be centralized?
Seemingly quite easily.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Springmeester+October 21, 2007 04:15 am--> (Springmeester @ October 21, 2007 04:15 am)
Zampanò@October 20, 2007 11:21 pm
Committed ideologically doesn't necessarily mean that you are attempting to promote that ideology; it merely means that you are committed to believing it.
I beg to differ. Claiming to be a communist because you commit yourself to the communist ideology doesn't make you a communist.

This sounds like a contradiction but let me explain.

To be a communist is to take part in the class struggle, to organize yourself in a party which fights capitalism and promotes the emancipation of the working class, and promotes the socialist revolution and the communist ideal. If a 'communist' does not participate in any of these actions, he is not a communist. He is just person with sympathy for the communist ideals. That is a big difference and it clearly shows why theory and practice have to be connected and why that is a fundamental element in communist ideology. [/b]
Isn&#39;t that a bit of a Catch-22 with the useless and opportunistic sectarianism these days? <_<

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by Hammer+October 21, 2007 05:55 pm--> (Hammer &#064; October 21, 2007 05:55 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:15 am

Zampanò@October 20, 2007 11:21 pm
Committed ideologically doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that you are attempting to promote that ideology; it merely means that you are committed to believing it.
I beg to differ. Claiming to be a communist because you commit yourself to the communist ideology doesn&#39;t make you a communist.

This sounds like a contradiction but let me explain.

To be a communist is to take part in the class struggle, to organize yourself in a party which fights capitalism and promotes the emancipation of the working class, and promotes the socialist revolution and the communist ideal. If a &#39;communist&#39; does not participate in any of these actions, he is not a communist. He is just person with sympathy for the communist ideals. That is a big difference and it clearly shows why theory and practice have to be connected and why that is a fundamental element in communist ideology.
Isn&#39;t that a bit of a Catch-22 with the useless and opportunistic sectarianism these days? <_< [/b]
Why sectarianism? I don&#39;t understand your point.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is no Stalinism or Trotskyism anymore (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67429&view=findpost&p=1292329899)

Why not an international socialist party? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744)

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:59 pm
There is no Stalinism or Trotskyism anymore (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67429&view=findpost&p=1292329899)

Why not an international socialist party? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744)
Interesting articles but still nobody told me yet in what way my post is &#39;sectarian&#39;.
So please, write a decent reply if you will not just a few links.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Springmeester+October 21, 2007 12:06 pm--> (Springmeester &#064; October 21, 2007 12:06 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 05:59 pm
There is no Stalinism or Trotskyism anymore (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67429&view=findpost&p=1292329899)

Why not an international socialist party? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744)
Interesting articles but still nobody told me yet in what way my post is &#39;sectarian&#39;.
So please, write a decent reply if you will not just a few links. [/b]
I was not saying that your post is sectarian. I was saying that, with the sectarian environment and individualism plaguing workers&#39; movements in the developed world these days, genuine revolutionary-minded folks are caught between a rock and a hard place (between joining a pointless party and staying away).

[This was what drove me away from Trotskyism and then Stalinism in the first place.]

At this point, I&#39;m a "Leninist" but non-partisan "litterateur" (as Lenin called his exile occupation) with strong leanings towards the ICC (despite not being a proper "left-communist").