The Fall of Anarchist Spain

[abbielives!]

The fatal mistake of the spanish was collaboration with the goverment, betraying their anarchist principles. of course the republic/communists betrayed them, that is to be expected! but why was collaboration decided upon? some point to the war with the fascists and "exceptional circumstances", as though a revolution will ever take place under anything execpt original cirumstances. others say that the leadership was responsible, but how could this be possible unless the CNT did not actually function in an anarchist fashion( Bookchin seems to suggest this), after all if it were anarchist why didn't the membership recall the offending delegates?


Basically I want your take on why the CNT did not support revolution.

[Rawthentic]

Its expected that communists betray revolutions?

lol, how many have anarchists made....?

I wish I didnt have to put this in, but abbielives! sectarian crap compelled me to.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its expected that communists betray revolutions?

lol, how many have anarchists made....?

I wish I didnt have to put this in, but abbielives! sectarian crap compelled me to.


sectarian? the communists sent tanks to destroy the collectives, if that doesn't qualify as betrayal what the fuck does?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by abbielives!+October 24, 2007 12:57 am--> (abbielives! @ October 24, 2007 12:57 am) The fatal mistake of the spanish was collaboration with the goverment, betraying their anarchist principles. of course the republic/communists betrayed them, that is to be expected! but why was collaboration decided upon? [/b]
Let's let the clearest of the anarchists in Spain at the time speak for themselves:


The Friends of Durruti
How do we account for the fact that in the July revolution we saw a repetition of the errors we have criticised hundreds and hundreds of times? How come we did not hold out for social revolution in July? How come workers' organisations failed to assume maximum control of the country?

The vast majority of the working population stood by the CNT. Inside Catalonia, the CNT was the majority organisation. What happened, that the CNT did not makes its revolution, the people's revolution, the revolution of the majority of the population?

What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty; but when all is said and done, we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to give substance to the popular effusion which erupted inside our organisations. By not knowing what to do, we handed the revolution on a platter to the bourgeoisie and the marxists who support the farce of yesteryear. What is worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space; to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by abbielives!@October 24, 2007 02:57 am
The fatal mistake of the spanish was collaboration with the goverment, betraying their anarchist principles. of course the republic/communists betrayed them, that is to be expected! but why was collaboration decided upon? some point to the war with the fascists and "exceptional circumstances", as though a revolution will ever take place under anything execpt original cirumstances. others say that the leadership was responsible, but how could this be possible unless the CNT did not actually function in an anarchist fashion( Bookchin seems to suggest this), after all if it were anarchist why didn't the membership recall the offending delegates?


Basically I want your take on why the CNT did not support revolution.
I find this idealistic... there wasn't enough devotion to anarchism?

[Herman]

I find this idealistic... there wasn't enough devotion to anarchism?

Not to its theory at least. Anarchists had made great gains in terms of worker's control of factories and collectivization, but they lacked a unifying idea or programme to follow. Nonetheless, you cannot but sympathize with them and the dead worker's of Catalonia.

[ComradeR]

Spain shows what happens when the vanguard fails in it's leadership.

[ComradeR]

sectarian? the communists sent tanks to destroy the collectives, if that doesn't qualify as betrayal what the fuck does?
Yes and it's tragic what happened, but you imply in the first post that this is and always shall be the case, so yes it's sectarian.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Well theres the factor of the failure of the union between the CNT and UGT.
Without this, the revolutionaries couldn't have elected an insurrection committee, you need full class-conscious support when you do, otherwize it'll fail and you'll be executed.

There are too many factors here why Anarchist Spain crumbled, but it's useless to say it was all because of the theory of Anarchism.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by abbielives!@October 24, 2007 12:57 am
The fatal mistake of the spanish was collaboration with the goverment, betraying their anarchist principles. of course the republic/communists betrayed them, that is to be expected! but why was collaboration decided upon? some point to the war with the fascists and "exceptional circumstances", as though a revolution will ever take place under anything execpt original cirumstances. others say that the leadership was responsible, but how could this be possible unless the CNT did not actually function in an anarchist fashion( Bookchin seems to suggest this), after all if it were anarchist why didn't the membership recall the offending delegates?


Basically I want your take on why the CNT did not support revolution.
well it all started with a majority in the CNT not wanting to take power in Catalonia because that would go against their principles. From there it just got gradually worse.

So it had more to do with them not taking power, leading them to in the end sell out to those who DID take power, than to not adhering to principles. It was a misinterpretation of principles who led them down that path.

Also, you have to understand that "even" in the anarchist CNT there were leaders, just like there are in other organisations, who can do stupid things which can damn the entire organisation. This is not a critique of the CNT, its reality. The membership just wasnt aware of what was happening until it was to late.

http://libcom.org/library/workers-power-an...tion-tom-wetzel (http://libcom.org/library/workers-power-and-the-spanish-revolution-tom-wetzel)

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 24, 2007 04:41 pm
Well theres the factor of the failure of the union between the CNT and UGT.
Without this, the revolutionaries couldn't have elected an insurrection committee, you need full class-conscious support when you do, otherwize it'll fail and you'll be executed.



I dont think a revolutionary union between the CNT and the UGT was ever a realistic possibility, the UGT being far too reformist.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:53 pm

well it all started with a majority in the CNT not wanting to take power in Catalonia because that would go against their principles. From there it just got gradually worse.

So it had more to do with them not taking power, leading them to in the end sell out to those who DID take power, than to not adhering to principles. It was a misinterpretation of principles who led them down that path.

Also, you have to understand that "even" in the anarchist CNT there were leaders, just like there are in other organisations, who can do stupid things which can damn the entire organisation. This is not a critique of the CNT, its reality. The membership just wasnt aware of what was happening until it was to late.

http://libcom.org/library/workers-power-an...tion-tom-wetzel (http://libcom.org/library/workers-power-and-the-spanish-revolution-tom-wetzel)

if by 'take power' you mean over throwing the Generalitat and implementing anarchist theory completely, then i would be inclined to agree with you

[Devrim]

Originally posted by abbielives!@October 24, 2007 09:00 pm
I dont think a revolutionary union between the CNT and the UGT was ever a realistic possibility, the UGT being far too reformist.
And the CNT being er...reformist.

Devrim

[syndicat]

There wouldn't have been a proletarian revolution in Spain without the CNT. but leave it to ultraleftists like Devrim to ignore this obvious fact.

It's simply false that the CNT taking power in Catalonia would have been contrary to their principles. Actually taking power was what their libertarian communist program called for. This business about the CNT being "against taking power" is to a large extent a Trotskyist fabrication. as Jose Peirats writes in "Anarchiss in the Spanish revolution", the CNT was clear that the aim was "all social power being in the hands of the proletariat."

When the CNT union delegates debated whether to overthrow the government of the Generalitat in July of 1936, the union delegates from the industrial area of Baix Llobregat put forward the motion to overthrow the government and implement libertarian communism. The majority voted for a "temporary" collaboration with the Popular Front parties thru the Central Committees of Anti-fascist Militias. The debate in the CNT continued and on Sept 3, 1936, the national CNT adopted a proposal for regional and national worker class government, through joint CNT-UGT defense committees, regional and national worker congresses, a unifield people's militia, to replace the uncoordinated party and union militias.

The quote that Devrim reproduced above was written by Jaime Balius. In Sept-Oct 1936 he was employed as a journalist by the CNT daily paper Solidaridad Obrera in Barcelonia. He wrote many of the editorials beating the drum for the defense council proposal.

But apparently there was continuing internal disagreement in the CNT regional federation of Catalonia. The revolutionaries gained a temporary dominance at the national plenary of Sept 3 but apparently the moderates had regained the initiative in the CNT federation in Catalonia a few weeks later, beause on Sept 26 the CNT joined the Generalitat, in direct violation of the program decided on Sept 3.

The UGT varied in its political character from industry to industry and region to region. There were some industries in Catalonia where the UGT and CNT seized industries jointly, as on the railways and public utilties, and these sections of the UGT tended to later resist Communist domination of the UGT of Catalonia.

The Left Socialists had spent months arguing for a "proletarian revolution" and a "workers government" from 1934 til the spring of 1936. The biggest base of support of the Left Socialists were the Land Workers Federation, which organized tens of thousands of farm workers to begin mass seizures of the land in March 1936, before the coup detat. In Castile and Valencia the Land Workers Federation and the CNT farm workers union were in a direct alliance and their position in regard to collectivization was at odds with the Communists. The problem with the Left Socialists, as Durruti and other anarchists were aware, is that had a notorious tendency to waiver between rhetorical revolutionism and cautious social democratic practice. But with some encouragement and pushing, they could be brought around to a revolutionary alliance.

Thus it was not unreasonable to expect at least a significant part of the UGT membership to go along with a revolutionary course of action, replacing the Republican state with a worker controlled governance structure, and dragging some of the union's leaders with them.

But the CNT needed to stand firm, and that is what it failed to do.

Cesar Lorenzo's explanation for the flip flopping and inconsistencies of the CNT after July 1936 is their failure to work out a concrete program of action at their national congress in May 1936. He wrote that this led to the CNT having to "improvise in total incoherence." This is also probably what Jaime Balius is referring to as lack of concrete revolutionary theory, in the passage quoted above by Devrim.

Altho the CNT did develop structures of working class power in the industries and at the local level, they needed to consolidate this at regional and national level. They did form a workers congress and regional defense council in Aragon, but that was not their main power base. They needed to extend that solution to Catalonia, and then spread it. This was Durruti's proposed strategy, as revealed by a quote from him in Abel Paz's recent biography.

They needed to consolidate power so they could offer the masses a plausible alternative defense strategy to the Communists' proposals of rebuilding the Republican state and a conventional hierarchical army. the Communists' game plan was to weasel their way into control of the officer corps of the army and police, and eventually gain state power that way....a kind of permeationist strategy. The Communists' recruitment among the middle strata, their moves towards nationalization of the economy during the civil war, and the rebuilding of a hierarchical army all point towards the creation of a statist hierarchical economy controlled by the coordinator class (managers, top professionals, political apparatchiks etc), just as in the USSR.

[RedStaredRevolution]

The revolution in Spain fell for a number of reasons (most of them listed by the above poster).

Another one however was the fact that everyone (even the anarchists) saw the defeat of the facists as the number 1 priority. The UGT would argue that Franco should be put down and then they could deal with the revolution, while the CNT saw the revolution and the war as inseperable. But the communists* and republicans used used this idea (of fascisms defeat being mandatory) as a way of taking power from the CNT. They used the excuses that the unions militias and the worker controlled factories were inefficiant and were hurting the war. This gave them justification to seize back the means of production and eventually dissolve the workers militias into the goverments main army.

Also I think a lot of people, anarchist and republicans alike, were somewhat forced to appease the Stalinists who held high goverment positions. If they used to much force against them there was always the possibility of the USSR ceasing to send aid to Spain; something which they coulden't afford to happen.

*For anyone who doesnt know. When I say communists I am refering to the Stalinists and those loyal to the Soviet Union at the time, who infiltrated the Spanish goverment.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by abbielives!+October 24, 2007 01:03 am--> (abbielives! @ October 24, 2007 01:03 am)
Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its expected that communists betray revolutions?

lol, how many have anarchists made....?

I wish I didnt have to put this in, but abbielives! sectarian crap compelled me to.


sectarian? the communists sent tanks to destroy the collectives, if that doesn't qualify as betrayal what the fuck does? [/b]
I'm a Communist, but I have to side with abbielives on this one.

It's a historical fact that Stalin was fearful of western interference if he tried to 'export the revolution'. Same reason Trotsky bit the dust.

So he thought he could appease the western leaders by failing to confront fascism in Europe.

He was also probably afraid of interfering in a Hitler-aided coup, but this has not been proven-to my knowledge anyway.

[IronColumn]

I think it's important to note that the CNT didn't just betray it's principles in June by not crushing the government, nor in May 1937 by telling the workers to abandon the barricades and go back to work. As an Anarchist group it was also telling people to vote in the 1936 elections, it completely blew the 1934 crisis in the Asturias (when it indeed had a serious chance to make a revolutionary alliance with the UGT rank and file), it participated in many useless putsches from 1931-1936 that depleted its strength...it also missed a revolutionary opportunity in 1919. This pattern of revolutionary rhetoric and unimpressive action, complete with revolutionary "betrayals", is quite similar to the German SPD.

What happened, perhaps inevitable (but in our present day a moot point anyways), was that Syndicalism overwhelmed Anarchism, much as Malatesta feared it would. Thus to call the events in Spain a failure of Anarchism is about as absurd as to call the events in Germany a failure of Marxism. In both cases, workers in a reformist pseudo-revolutionary organization realized, albeit too late in both cases, that their leaders were sell-outs and their organization was a brake on the revolution.

Of course, Anarchists will never make the Spanish mistake twice, largely because I don't believe we'll ever get 2 million members in our unions ever again.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:40 pm

They needed to consolidate power so they could offer the masses a plausible alternative defense strategy to the Communists' proposals of rebuilding the Republican state and a conventional hierarchical army. the Communists' game plan was to weasel their way into control of the officer corps of the army and police, and eventually gain state power that way....a kind of permeationist strategy. The Communists' recruitment among the middle strata, their moves towards nationalization of the economy during the civil war, and the rebuilding of a hierarchical army all point towards the creation of a statist hierarchical economy controlled by the coordinator class (managers, top professionals, political apparatchiks etc), just as in the USSR.

We know that their are steps that the CNT could have taken to achive victory, I am more interested in WHY they did not.

[Louis Pio]

We know that their are steps that the CNT could have taken to achive victory, I am more interested in WHY they did not.


I think it's pretty simple, one thing is theory, people like the leaders in CNT can claim this or that in theory, just like people like Kautsky would. However they get entangled in socalled "practical politics" and make one compromise after the other starting in the small and growing everlarger, I would also add I think it has something to do with lack of theory or/and flaws in same theory, but thats a bigger discussion. In Catalonia in ended with CNT having power but giving back to the bourgious politicians thus totally perplexing their own rank and file. A big treason in the league of what stalinists or people like Kautsky have done

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Anarchists are always complaining about how they were always "betrayed" by someone or crushed by outside force. No shit. What did you expect? Anarchism is actually a reactionary ideology in the economic sense, and never takes the time to analyze certain key points:

1. Production relations within society, how various communes would operate a fully functioning economy, how inequalities between communities would be dealt with.

2. Humans aren't going to spontaneously become good socialists working for the common good. We have all been conditioned under capitalism and all the cultural and social aspects that entails. None of us have ever been able to excercise our own will in running daily affairs beyond our own personal business(and a lot of that is impeded as well). How do you expect people under those conditions to just revolt one day, and have a community based on self-rule?

3. Anarchists like to claim that the reason for their 100% failure rate is that they were crushed by Fascists, Communists, whatever. Great- but here's the problem. Your wonderful "no authority" system isn't worth the paper you print its leaflets on if you can't maintain it against aggression for more than a few months.

4. For the love of a non-existent God, could you PLEASE STOP arbitrarily labelling movements you like as "grass roots"? I had to carefully explain to an anarchist over several days that Hugo Chavez is the leader of a STATE, which still has a more-or-less capitalist system. Emilo Zapata also has in his ranks a hierarchy and authority- get over it.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 31, 2007 10:48 pm
Anarchists are always complaining about how they were always "betrayed" by someone or crushed by outside force. No shit. What did you expect? Anarchism is actually a reactionary ideology in the economic sense, and never takes the time to analyze certain key points:

o rly?

The rest of your points can be demolished with ten minutes of reading through the history of anarchist movement, so it's not worth my time to do that for you.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its expected that communists betray revolutions?

lol, how many have anarchists made....?

How many communist ones didn't end in mass murder and totalitarianism?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 05:48 am
Anarchists are always complaining about how they were always "betrayed" by someone or crushed by outside force. No shit. What did you expect? Anarchism is actually a reactionary ideology in the economic sense, and never takes the time to analyze certain key points:

1. Production relations within society, how various communes would operate a fully functioning economy, how inequalities between communities would be dealt with.

2. Humans aren't going to spontaneously become good socialists working for the common good. We have all been conditioned under capitalism and all the cultural and social aspects that entails. None of us have ever been able to excercise our own will in running daily affairs beyond our own personal business(and a lot of that is impeded as well). How do you expect people under those conditions to just revolt one day, and have a community based on self-rule?

3. Anarchists like to claim that the reason for their 100% failure rate is that they were crushed by Fascists, Communists, whatever. Great- but here's the problem. Your wonderful "no authority" system isn't worth the paper you print its leaflets on if you can't maintain it against aggression for more than a few months.

4. For the love of a non-existent God, could you PLEASE STOP arbitrarily labelling movements you like as "grass roots"? I had to carefully explain to an anarchist over several days that Hugo Chavez is the leader of a STATE, which still has a more-or-less capitalist system. Emilo Zapata also has in his ranks a hierarchy and authority- get over it.
Oh boo hoo boo! (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jbrons/failure.jpg)

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 02:48 pm




Anarchism is actually a reactionary ideology in the economic sense

Don't be ridiculous. I hope one day that cats like you pull your finger out and actually fucking bother to read some anarchist literature. It will do you a world of good, even if it is just to help you critique it.


1. Production relations within society, how various communes would operate a fully functioning economy, how inequalities between communities would be dealt with.

How exactly have anarchists ignored this?



2. Humans aren't going to spontaneously become good socialists working for the common good. We have all been conditioned under capitalism and all the cultural and social aspects that entails. None of us have ever been able to excercise our own will in running daily affairs beyond our own personal business(and a lot of that is impeded as well). How do you expect people under those conditions to just revolt one day, and have a community based on self-rule?

Oh please, don't be simple.
No anarchist ever thinks it simply works like that.

"Hey, lets have a revolution!"
"Okay"

You suck.


3. Anarchists like to claim that the reason for their 100% failure rate is that they were crushed by Fascists, Communists, whatever. Great- but here's the problem. Your wonderful "no authority" system isn't worth the paper you print its leaflets on if you can't maintain it against aggression for more than a few months.

Oh yes, it's a fault of anarchist theory.
No, no, it could not have been due to the factors surrounding the anarchist revolutions or revolts that ultimatley led to their demise, such as being attacked from all sides by Stalinists, Fascists and capitalists all at the same fucking time.
It's not a fault of theory, it's the product of the conditions surrounding the revolt.


4. For the love of a non-existent God, could you PLEASE STOP arbitrarily labelling movements you like as "grass roots"? I had to carefully explain to an anarchist over several days that Hugo Chavez is the leader of a STATE, which still has a more-or-less capitalist system. Emilo Zapata also has in his ranks a hierarchy and authority- get over it.

That is truly fascinating. Truly.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+November 01, 2007 05:57 am--> (Nusocialist @ November 01, 2007 05:57 am)
Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its
How many communist ones didn't end in mass murder and totalitarianism? [/b]


Leave it to the anarchists to resort to the bourgeois press when they need to explain their failures in contrast to Communist success. Revolution entails bloodshed, get over it. "Totalitarianism" is just a buzzword used to paint anything outside of the context of western liberal democracy.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft
Oh yes, it's a fault of anarchist theory.
No, no, it could not have been due to the factors surrounding the anarchist revolutions or revolts that ultimatley led to their demise, such as being attacked from all sides by Stalinists, Fascists and capitalists all at the same fucking time.
It's not a fault of theory, it's the product of the conditions surrounding the revolt.

Proving my point exactly. These conditions you describe are the natural result of revolution. Communists could defend their revolutions- anarchists can't. End of story. And as long as you people are demanding I read more anarchist history, why don't we start with the history of that genius Makhno?

[syndicat]

more ultraleft nonsense from I.C.:
What happened, perhaps inevitable (but in our present day a moot point anyways), was that Syndicalism overwhelmed Anarchism, much as Malatesta feared it would. Thus to call the events in Spain a failure of Anarchism is about as absurd as to call the events in Germany a failure of Marxism. In both cases, workers in a reformist pseudo-revolutionary organization realized, albeit too late in both cases, that their leaders were sell-outs and their organization was a brake on the revolution.

Your little theory has a problem: It's contrary to the facts. At the big meeting of CNT delegates in Barcelona in July 1936, just after they'd beaten the army, who was it who advocated overthrow of the government and carrying out their libertarian communist program, and who was it that played to fear and advocated collaboration with the Popular Front parties?

The people who advocated cautiion and Popular Front collaboration where leading intellectuals from the FAI: Felix Carrasquer, Federica Montseny, Adad Diego de Santillan. they weren't members of CNT industrial unions. They were there as representatives of the FAI Peninsular Committe. and who advocated the overthrow of the government and worker power? It was the union delegates from Baix Llobregat, an industrial region on the south edge of Barcelona. so it was the revolutionary syndicalists who advocated overthrow of the government and the anarchist midddle class intellectuals who advocated caution. so much for your theory about syndicalism winning over anarchism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Cmde. Slavyanski+November 01, 2007 08:24 pm--> (Cmde. Slavyanski @ November 01, 2007 08:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:57 am

Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its
How many communist ones didn't end in mass murder and totalitarianism?


Leave it to the anarchists to resort to the bourgeois press when they need to explain their failures in contrast to Communist success. Revolution entails bloodshed, get over it. "Totalitarianism" is just a buzzword used to paint anything outside of the context of western liberal democracy. [/b]
Are you honestly asserting that Stalins Russia was democratic? What serious Leninist would ever claim such a thing?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 01, 2007 07:47 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 01, 2007 07:47 pm)
Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 08:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:57 am

Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its
How many communist ones didn't end in mass murder and totalitarianism?


Leave it to the anarchists to resort to the bourgeois press when they need to explain their failures in contrast to Communist success. Revolution entails bloodshed, get over it. "Totalitarianism" is just a buzzword used to paint anything outside of the context of western liberal democracy.
Are you honestly asserting that Stalins Russia was democratic? What serious Leninist would ever claim such a thing? [/b]
Totalitarianism is a word used by western cappies to equate Communism to Fascism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 02, 2007 01:52 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 02, 2007 01:52 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 01, 2007 07:47 pm

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 08:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:57 am

Live for the [email protected]tober 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its
How many communist ones didn't end in mass murder and totalitarianism?


Leave it to the anarchists to resort to the bourgeois press when they need to explain their failures in contrast to Communist success. Revolution entails bloodshed, get over it. "Totalitarianism" is just a buzzword used to paint anything outside of the context of western liberal democracy.
Are you honestly asserting that Stalins Russia was democratic? What serious Leninist would ever claim such a thing?
Totalitarianism is a word used by western cappies to equate Communism to Fascism. [/b]
It's not an unreasonable assessment.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 01, 2007 07:57 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 01, 2007 07:57 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 01:52 am

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 01, 2007 07:47 pm

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 08:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:57 am

Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its
How many communist ones didn't end in mass murder and totalitarianism?


Leave it to the anarchists to resort to the bourgeois press when they need to explain their failures in contrast to Communist success. Revolution entails bloodshed, get over it. "Totalitarianism" is just a buzzword used to paint anything outside of the context of western liberal democracy.
Are you honestly asserting that Stalins Russia was democratic? What serious Leninist would ever claim such a thing?
Totalitarianism is a word used by western cappies to equate Communism to Fascism.
It's not an unreasonable assessment. [/b]
Only if you equate communism with the particular variety of government that arose in the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea.

[IronColumn]

Syn: You assume the FAI represented Anarchism. It joined the bourgeois government and before that was advising people to vote; I don't see how this can be called Anarchism nor how it contradicts what I've said. I think that the "Anarchism" in the FAI was not really an "Anarchism" at all, and any historical sense of the term from Bakunin and Kropotkin on justifies that reading. An understanding of this specific "Anarchism" should be situated within the syndicalist milieu of the CNT union, where it served as an ideology to mask the true nature of the union. This is how something so fundamental as not smashing the state could happen to a supposedly "anarchist" movement of 2 million people and millions more sympathizers.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the rank and file were more militant as proven by your example. But the fact is that those workers still didn't break with their union and establish socialism themselves through their councils, that they still trusted intellectuals and didn't smash the state on their own. That in itself represents the mentality of syndicalism, as I see it, as opposed to Anarchism.

On the other side of the aisle, this is exactly the same sort of dilemna faced by those in the German SPD. Similarly, that wasn't "Marxism" at all that the party was representing. And in both cases radical workers were forced to realize their leaders didn't betray them, but that the actions of their organizations were the logical course of events stemming from this reformist practice.

I don't think this is ultra-left silliness, this is common sense. If you keep ignoring your theory to fit your practice (i.e. joining the capitalist government, praising the USSR, telling the workers to abandon the barricades on the May Days etc.), it's probably because your practice can't match the theory. This is what I meant when I referenced Malatesta.

[Donnie]

edit.

[Herman]

I think that the "Anarchism" in the FAI was not really an "Anarchism" at all, and any historical sense of the term from Bakunin and Kropotkin on justifies that reading.

Well, if we're going to follow every theory by the letter, you can be sure we will NEVER succeed.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 07:26 pm
Communists could defend their revolutions- anarchists can't.
at least the Spanish Civil War was an actual revolution - exchanging power form the few to the masses - not merely the exchanging of power from one minority to another in your so-called 'glorious' 'communist' revolutions.

The way that communist revolutions are "defended" is counter-revolutionary in itself

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:40 pm
This business about the CNT being "against taking power" is to a large extent a Trotskyist fabrication.
yeah that's the BS i was told at the Marxist festival in London in July, by the Trotskyist SWP

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 02, 2007 12:47 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 02, 2007 12:47 am)
Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 08:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:57 am

Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 am
Its
How many communist ones didn't end in mass murder and totalitarianism?


Leave it to the anarchists to resort to the bourgeois press when they need to explain their failures in contrast to Communist success. Revolution entails bloodshed, get over it. "Totalitarianism" is just a buzzword used to paint anything outside of the context of western liberal democracy.
Are you honestly asserting that Stalins Russia was democratic? What serious Leninist would ever claim such a thing? [/b]
More democratic than Makhno's movement, ironically.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 04:48 am
Humans aren't going to spontaneously become good socialists working for the common good. We have all been conditioned under capitalism and all the cultural and social aspects that entails. None of us have ever been able to excercise our own will in running daily affairs beyond our own personal business(and a lot of that is impeded as well). How do you expect people under those conditions to just revolt one day, and have a community based on self-rule?
why do all communists think that anarchists have their eyes set on a one-day revolution?


Anarchists like to claim that the reason for their 100% failure rate is that they were crushed by Fascists, Communists, whatever
really? how many times have communist revolutions actually succeeded and not ended in despotism?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by Fodman+November 02, 2007 02:41 pm--> (Fodman @ November 02, 2007 02:41 pm)
Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 04:48 am
Humans aren't going to spontaneously become good socialists working for the common good. We have all been conditioned under capitalism and all the cultural and social aspects that entails. None of us have ever been able to excercise our own will in running daily affairs beyond our own personal business(and a lot of that is impeded as well). How do you expect people under those conditions to just revolt one day, and have a community based on self-rule?
why do all communists think that anarchists have their eyes set on a one-day revolution?


Anarchists like to claim that the reason for their 100% failure rate is that they were crushed by Fascists, Communists, whatever
really? how many times have communist revolutions actually succeeded and not ended in despotism? [/b]
When did I say that anarchists support a one-day revolution? The problem is you want to abolish this concept of the state more or less at once, and that is simply not possible. Anarchism's idealistic theories prevent it from handling society, and defending itself from counter-revolution.

Now as for despotism, these charges come mainly from none other than the capitalist press and academia. These things did occur of course, but it is simply not accurate to write-off the real-world experience of socialism with something like "totalitarianism" or "despotism." It is also worth noting that while Marxism-Leninism was able to build stable socialist societies that lasted decades and made huge achievements, anarchism has a 100% failure rate, due to reasons I already outlined. Ironically, during the short-lived existence of some anarchist movements(like that of Makhno), anarchists have been guilty of equal or even worse forms of coercian than those they accuse Bolsheviks of. For example, Makhno's army conscripted and procured grain as well.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 02, 2007 02:48 pm
When did I say that anarchists support a one-day revolution?

communists on this site frequently make assumptions that anarchists are intent on overturning the system in one day.


These things did occur of course, but it is simply not accurate to write-off the real-world experience of socialism with something like "totalitarianism" or "despotism."
i'm sorry but i'll refer to 100% control of the media by the state and upto 1 in 6 of the population being informers for the government as pretty much a totalitarian state, thanks



Marxism-Leninism was able to build stable socialist societies that lasted decades and made huge achievements
....teeming with oppression


anarchism has a 100% failure rate
how many years did Barcelona have to be draped in red and black until you called it a success? even if it was only a few years, it was still a success

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by Fodman+November 02, 2007 03:05 pm--> (Fodman @ November 02, 2007 03:05 pm)
Fodman

communists on this site frequently make assumptions that anarchists are intent on overturning the system in one day.

Well I didn't.


These things did occur of course, but it is simply not accurate to write-off the real-world experience of socialism with something like "totalitarianism" or "despotism."
i'm sorry but i'll refer to 100% control of the media by the state and upto 1 in 6 of the population being informers for the government as pretty much a totalitarian state, thanks

So you would let private people own media in your little anarchist commune? And what happens when the guy who has more capital or resources decides he doesn't have enough, so he buys a newspaper and starts agitating against your little system?




....teeming with oppression

According to whom? Oh that's right, the capitalist intelligentsia you guys are supposedly opposed to. Funny how so many people who lived under that 'oppression' long for it today here in Russia.


anarchism has a 100% failure rate
how many years did Barcelona have to be draped in red and black until you called it a success? even if it was only a few years, it was still a success

Hmm...looks more like Franco's success to me. One city that manages to last a few years in the context of a Civil War isn't a success. Face it, your ideology hampers your ability to properly use the means of production and defend against counter-revolution.

[/b]
DF

[Marsella]

anarchists have been guilty of equal or even worse forms of coercian than those they accuse Bolsheviks of

Statistics would be welcomed. But lets look at the Bolshevik record:

Tambov rebellion:

Tambov was a huge peasant rebellion which was the result of the Red Army’s ruthless plundering of the region. The amount of grain required by Soviet authorities under Prodrazvyorstka would mean starvation. The Union of Working Peasants, a congress of Tambov rebels, abolished Soviet power and decided to create a Constituent Assembly under equal voting, and to return all land to the peasants.

In October 1920 the peasant army numbered more than 50,000 fighters, joined by numerous deserters from Red Army. The uprising was so great that nearly 100,000 soldiers were sent in, including special Cheka detachments. The Red Army under Tukhachevsky took and executed without trial, civilian hostages.

Tukhachevsky and Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko signed an order, dated June 12 1921, that stated: "The forests where the bandits are hiding are to be cleared by the use of poison gas. This must be carefully calculated, so that the layer of gas penetrates the forests and kills everyone hiding there." Chemical weapons were used "from end of June 1921 until apparently the fall of 1921", by direct order from leadership of Red Army and Communist party

Total losses among the population of Tambov region in 1920-1922 resulting from the war, executions, and imprisonment in concentration camps were estimated as at least 240,000.

Seven Concentration camps were set up. At least 50,000 people were interned, mostly women, children, and elderly, some of them were sent there as hostages.

The Krondstat rebellion:

The Petrograd workers were under martial law and could offer little support to Kronstadt. The rebellion was crushed with some 60,000 troops. Thousands of rebels died, thousands more imprisoned and even more fled.

And more specifically at the Red Terror:

It is believed that more than 3 million deserters escaped from the Red Army in 1919 and 1920. Around 500,000 deserters were arrested in 1919 and close to 800,000 in 1920 by Cheka troops and special divisions created to combat desertions. Thousands of deserters were killed, and their families were often taken hostage. According to Lenin's instructions,


"After the expiration of the seven-day deadline for deserters to turn themselves in, punishment must be increased for these incorrigible traitors to the cause of the people. Families and anyone found to be assisting them in any way whatsoever are to be considered as hostages and treated accordingly."

In September 1918, only in twelve provinces of Russia, 48,735 deserters and 7,325 bandits were arrested, 1,826 were killed and 2,230 were executed.

This campaign marked the beginning of the Gulag, and some scholars have estimated that 70,000 were imprisoned by September, 1921.

Grigory Zinoviev declared in September 1918:

"To dispose of our enemies, we will have to create our own socialist terror. For this we will have to train 90 million of the 100 million of Russians and have them all on our side. We have nothing to say to the other 10 million; we will have to get rid of them."

Indeed, 10 million died of starvation from 1921 to 1923. Whilst it would not be fair to blame this solely on the Bolsheviks, it may be argued that their 'War Communism' attributed to it.

And all of this was before Stalin!

So before you throw baseless accusations, which have no grounding in history, perhaps it would be wise to pull your hand out of your arsehole and read several books.

Otherwise you will just look like a fool.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Actually Martov, had you done your research, you would know exactly what I was talking about in regard to Makhno's movement. For once you said something correct: that the famine of 21-22 killed 10 million people. The thing is, this famine occurred due to the war, and the war continued due to the massive support for the White Guards by the interventionalist powers- had this not occurred the Russian Civil War would not have lasted so long. This says nothing of the food problems that had been already occuring in the Russian Empire due to WWI, and the fact that the Russian empire, due to the backwardness of its agriculture, had always experienced numerous famines for decades at that time.

It's funny how you, supposedly anti-capitalist and revolution, subscribe to the same irrational reasoning of the capitalist "Black Book" types. A war breaks out, supported by the capitalists, who succeed in lengthening it, and yet the Communists are responsible for everyone that dies due to a famine, just as surely as they shot those people against a wall.

Before you start talking about who knows what and who has their head up their own ass, take a deep breath and remind yourself that you are an anarchist.

[Fodman]

So you would let private people own media in your little anarchist commune?
no, i would let worker's associations run the media


According to whom? Oh that's right, the capitalist intelligentsia you guys are supposedly opposed to. Funny how so many people who lived under that 'oppression' long for it today here in Russia.
did i say that the oppression wasn't present before Stalin and the like, or indeed after?

Funny how you assume that all information given out by sources in capitalist countries are false.

Are you denying the police state of East Germany, the gulags of Stalin's Empire?

go and live out the 'glorious revolution' in North Korea and tell me that the oppression is just lies


Hmm...looks more like Franco's success to me. One city that manages to last a few years in the context of a Civil War isn't a success. Face it, your ideology hampers your ability to properly use the means of production and defend against counter-revolution.
now you're making comparisons - that's like me saying that Tsarism is more successful than Authoritative Socialism, because Tsarism had 200 years on the latter

it is a fact that Barcelona, even if for only a few years, was a success

[Marsella]

Actually Martov, had you done your research, you would know exactly what I was talking about in regard to Makhno's movement. For once you said something correct: that the famine of 21-22 killed 10 million people.

No, it was in fact from 21-23 that 10 million starved. A year makes a difference you know.


The thing is, this famine occurred due to the war, and the war continued due to the massive support for the White Guards by the interventionalist powers- had this not occurred the Russian Civil War would not have lasted so long.

There were other things beside the war that the contributed to the famine. The policy of Prodrazvyorstka certainly didn't help.

And what a brilliant deduction, the Civil War would not have lasted so long if not for the existence of White Guards! Your logic astounds me.


This says nothing of the food problems that had been already occuring in the Russian Empire due to WWI, and the fact that the Russian empire, due to the backwardness of its agriculture, had always experienced numerous famines for decades at that time.

Err...I agree, in fact I stated:


Whilst it would not be fair to blame this solely on the Bolsheviks, it may be argued that their 'War Communism' attributed to it.


It's funny how you, supposedly anti-capitalist and revolution, subscribe to the same irrational reasoning of the capitalist "Black Book" types. A war breaks out, supported by the capitalists, who succeed in lengthening it, and yet the Communists are responsible for everyone that dies due to a famine, just as surely as they shot those people against a wall.

No I specifically referred to the events which were done under the Bolsheviks hands.

And did I say that they were responsible for everyone that dies due to famine?

And yes, the Bolsheviks did shoot people against walls and in cellars.

Repeating the opposite to yourself in the corner of your room won't change history.


Before you start talking about who knows what and who has their head up their own ass, take a deep breath and remind yourself that you are an anarchist.

1. I am not an anarchist.

2. I have read little, next to nothing, of anarchist literature.

3. I don't see how being an anarchist (even though I'm not) somehow disproves statistics.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on your statistics which prove that anarchists are equal to if not more autocratic than communists.

And I have a feeling I will be waiting a long time.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Cmde. Slavyanski+October 31, 2007 11:48 pm--> (Cmde. Slavyanski @ October 31, 2007 11:48 pm) Anarchists are always complaining about how they were always "betrayed" by someone or crushed by outside force. No shit. What did you expect? Anarchism is actually a reactionary ideology in the economic sense, and never takes the time to analyze certain key points: [/b]
I agree that anarchists use the reason of betrayal far too often (often to overlook cases where anarchism FAILED, however Stalin's refusal to ally with the Spanish anarchists was as unethical as it was strategically flawed. It didn't make any sense to attempt to appease the Westerners, since any attempt to invade the USSR would've fallen flat on it's face.


Cmde. Slavyanski @ October [email protected] 2007 11:48 pm

1. Production relations within society, how various communes would operate a fully functioning economy, how inequalities between communities would be dealt with.

2. Humans aren't going to spontaneously become good socialists working for the common good. We have all been conditioned under capitalism and all the cultural and social aspects that entails. None of us have ever been able to excercise our own will in running daily affairs beyond our own personal business(and a lot of that is impeded as well). How do you expect people under those conditions to just revolt one day, and have a community based on self-rule?

3. Anarchists like to claim that the reason for their 100% failure rate is that they were crushed by Fascists, Communists, whatever. Great- but here's the problem. Your wonderful "no authority" system isn't worth the paper you print its leaflets on if you can't maintain it against aggression for more than a few months.

4. For the love of a non-existent God, could you PLEASE STOP arbitrarily labelling movements you like as "grass roots"? I had to carefully explain to an anarchist over several days that Hugo Chavez is the leader of a STATE, which still has a more-or-less capitalist system. Emilo Zapata also has in his ranks a hierarchy and authority- get over it.
All of your other points are great though. :hammer:

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:37 pm

So you would let private people own media in your little anarchist commune?
no, i would let worker's associations run the media


According to whom? Oh that's right, the capitalist intelligentsia you guys are supposedly opposed to. Funny how so many people who lived under that 'oppression' long for it today here in Russia.
did i say that the oppression wasn't present before Stalin and the like, or indeed after?

Funny how you assume that all information given out by sources in capitalist countries are false.

Are you denying the police state of East Germany, the gulags of Stalin's Empire?

go and live out the 'glorious revolution' in North Korea and tell me that the oppression is just lies


Hmm...looks more like Franco's success to me. One city that manages to last a few years in the context of a Civil War isn't a success. Face it, your ideology hampers your ability to properly use the means of production and defend against counter-revolution.
now you're making comparisons - that's like me saying that Tsarism is more successful than Authoritative Socialism, because Tsarism had 200 years on the latter

it is a fact that Barcelona, even if for only a few years, was a success
And what happens when some people in the workers situation, by sheer nature of their work, industry, or whatever, realize that they can get far more power and influence via a restoration of capitalism, and use their greater resources to dominate the media? Keep in mind this is a serious threat because after you have overthrown the current ruling class, there is an opportunity for certain elements to come in and take their place, such as petit-bourgeois types.


I have never insisted that all information given out by capitalist countries are false. However, it is indeed odd that anarchists, along with Trotskyites, suddenly turn into neo-cons or Fascists in the propaganda department, when faced with Bolshevik success. The matter here isn't so much fact, but rather perspectives. Granted, anarchists could claim that their society has no coercian whatsoever(more or less), and thus is morally beyond capitalism vs. Bolshevism, but since you can't really bring that society into being it's a moot point.

And why are you addressing me on North Korea? Did you not know that North Korea underwent a massive change of ideology since the fall of the East Bloc, and is no longer a Marxist-Leninist country? In fact, the birth of North Korea was extremely popular and democratic by anyone's standards(in fact the US had to step in to prevent South Koreans from voting for unification under the KWP). What North Korea became is the product of rape, pillage, and a more than 50 year siege by superior military powers. Yet you blame the victim, just like some conservative pundit would.

Lastly, Barcelona was not a "success", sorry. The issue here isn't that "time=success", the issue here is whether a revolution or change can occur, and thereafter survive the inevitable counter-revolution for a significant amount of time.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by Martov+November 02, 2007 03:43 pm--> (Martov @ November 02, 2007 03:43 pm)


No, it was in fact from 21-23 that 10 million starved. A year makes a difference you know.

[QUOTE]The thing is, this famine occurred due to the war, and the war continued due to the massive support for the White Guards by the interventionalist powers- had this not occurred the Russian Civil War would not have lasted so long.

There were other things beside the war that the contributed to the famine. The policy of Prodrazvyorstka certainly didn't help.

And what a brilliant deduction, the Civil War would not have lasted so long if not for the existence of White Guards! Your logic astounds me.


This says nothing of the food problems that had been already occuring in the Russian Empire due to WWI, and the fact that the Russian empire, due to the backwardness of its agriculture, had always experienced numerous famines for decades at that time.

Err...I agree, in fact I stated:


Whilst it would not be fair to blame this solely on the Bolsheviks, it may be argued that their 'War Communism' attributed to it.


It's funny how you, supposedly anti-capitalist and revolution, subscribe to the same irrational reasoning of the capitalist "Black Book" types. A war breaks out, supported by the capitalists, who succeed in lengthening it, and yet the Communists are responsible for everyone that dies due to a famine, just as surely as they shot those people against a wall.

No I specifically referred to the events which were done under the Bolsheviks hands.

And did I say that they were responsible for everyone that dies due to famine?

And yes, the Bolsheviks did shoot people against walls and in cellars.

Repeating the opposite to yourself in the corner of your room won't change history.


Before you start talking about who knows what and who has their head up their own ass, take a deep breath and remind yourself that you are an anarchist.

1. I am not an anarchist.

2. I have read little, next to nothing, of anarchist literature.

3. I don't see how being an anarchist (even though I'm not) somehow disproves statistics.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on your statistics which prove that anarchists are equal to if not more autocratic than communists.

And I have a feeling I will be waiting a long time. [/b]


No, it was in fact from 21-23 that 10 million starved. A year makes a difference you know.

Really? http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?act...amine&Year=1921 (http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1921famine&Year=1921)


Originally posted by Martov+--> (Martov)There were other things beside the war that the contributed to the famine. The policy of Prodrazvyorstka certainly didn't help.[/b]

The war was the main cause though.


Originally posted by Martov
And what a brilliant deduction, the Civil War would not have lasted so long if not for the existence of White Guards! Your logic astounds me.


You are a bit confused here aren't you? The White Guards were able to continue the fight due to military aid from the interventionalist powers. Otherwise they would have been defeated in much less time.


[email protected]
And yes, the Bolsheviks did shoot people against walls and in cellars.

Repeating the opposite to yourself in the corner of your room won't change history.

Hmmm...that's strange, I don't remember denying that Bolsheviks ever shot anybody. The funny thing is, their enemies had been doing the same long before the revolution, and in fact they continued to do so during the Civil War. And I'm not even going to get into the issue of friendly folks like Baron von Ungern-Sternberg.



Martov
Oh, and I'm still waiting on your statistics which prove that anarchists are equal to if not more autocratic than communists.

Your demand for statistics seems to suggest that you measure how "oppressive" something is based on numbers. Makhno's oppression was limited to the amount of control, people, and influence he had. That being said, once you get into statistics, we then have to disect them according to accuracy(for example, death tolls of the so-called Ukrainian famine), and then there is the issue of the historical context as well.

[Fodman]

And what happens when some people in the workers situation, by sheer nature of their work, industry, or whatever, realize that they can get far more power and influence via a restoration of capitalism, and use their greater resources to dominate the media? Keep in mind this is a serious threat because after you have overthrown the current ruling class, there is an opportunity for certain elements to come in and take their place, such as petit-bourgeois types.
if the press association in question was owned by one individual, then yes, the sitauation you described above would occur. However, when all of the workers have a say on what gets printed and distributed, and enjoy these new powers, do you really think they would want to go back on their progress by returning one individual to the echelon of power of their organisation? No, they wouldn't allow it.
One individual is far, far more likely to act in the way you described, than say a hundred workers.


I have never insisted that all information given out by capitalist countries are false. However, it is indeed odd that anarchists, along with Trotskyites, suddenly turn into neo-cons or Fascists in the propaganda department, when faced with Bolshevik success.
we're making sure you authoritarians stay in this world that we call reality, by reminding you of the imminent oppression that your desired system exercises


The matter here isn't so much fact, but rather perspectives. Granted, anarchists could claim that their society has no coercian whatsoever(more or less), and thus is morally beyond capitalism vs. Bolshevism, but since you can't really bring that society into being it's a moot point.
it wouldn't be a 'moot' point if the authoritarians stopped fucking things up for us would it?


Lastly, Barcelona was not a "success", sorry. The issue here isn't that "time=success", the issue here is whether a revolution or change can occur, and thereafter survive the inevitable counter-revolution for a significant amount of time.
so... time doesnt equal success then? lol hmmmm

workers had power, that is a success - much more of a success than having a new beaurocratic elite in power

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 02, 2007 03:55 pm
Your demand for statistics seems to suggest that you measure how "oppressive" something is based on numbers
how do you measure oppression then?
and why did you put marks around the word oppression?

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 02, 2007 03:46 pm
Yet you blame the victim, just like some conservative pundit would.

funny how you compare me with a conservative, when you're the one that supports a system of continuing oppression, with the philosophy that people cannot run their own lives, so must always have someone there to tell them what to do

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:21 am
funny how you compare me with a conservative
Conservative? Why not--there has not been ONE instance of anarchism in history that has not resulted in more oppression.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 02, 2007 04:28 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 02, 2007 04:28 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 11:21 am
funny how you compare me with a conservative
Conservative? Why not--there has not been ONE instance of anarchism in history that has not resulted in more oppression. [/b]
so the CNT were conservatives because they lost to Franco?

wow

[Marsella]

Really? http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?act...amine&Year=1921

:lol:

Did you even read the link you posted?!

I will quote it for you:



Famine of 1921-22

Nevertheless, an estimated five million people died as a result of the famine, succumbing to outbreaks of cholera and typhus that proved fatal owing to weakened resistance.

Where did the other five million go! I'm not a mathematician but 5,000,000 plus 5,000,000 = 10,000,000.

Because remember 10 million people died from the famine.

Oh that's right, it lasted from 1921 to 1923.

Next time read the sources you post, and most of all be critical about them.

Quoting a source which is either (a) plain wrong or (b) clearly refutes your argument, tends to make you look like c) a dipshit.



The White Guards were able to continue the fight due to military aid from the interventionalist powers. Otherwise they would have been defeated in much less time.

I fully understand it but am unable to comprehend its relevance in showing how anarchists are more autocratic.



Hmmm...that's strange, I don't remember denying that Bolsheviks ever shot anybody. The funny thing is, their enemies had been doing the same long before the revolution, and in fact they continued to do so during the Civil War. And I'm not even going to get into the issue of friendly folks like Baron von Ungern-Sternberg.

Relevance, if any?


Your demand for statistics seems to suggest that you measure how "oppressive" something is based on numbers. Makhno's oppression was limited to the amount of control, people, and influence he had. That being said, once you get into statistics, we then have to disect them according to accuracy(for example, death tolls of the so-called Ukrainian famine), and then there is the issue of the historical context as well.

1. Usually the amount of dead peasants is a good sign of how repressive a certain regime is.

2. You applied your statement to anarchism per se.

3. It isn't just the 'so-called Ukrainian famine' that is what it actually IS called. And as a matter of fact it is referred to the Ukrainian Genocide by some. So don't be such an arrogant ****. Or at least try to refrain from being one when talking on a public forum.

And if you are seemingly incapable of providing statistics, then perhaps you should provide an argument *gasp* of how anarchism is equally or more authoritarian than Bolshevism.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Fodman+November 02, 2007 11:31 am--> (Fodman @ November 02, 2007 11:31 am)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 04:28 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 11:21 am
funny how you compare me with a conservative
Conservative? Why not--there has not been ONE instance of anarchism in history that has not resulted in more oppression.
so the CNT were conservatives because they lost to Franco?

wow [/b]
NOT. The ideas of the anarchists are leftist, but their actions are not. Such actions include:
Fighting leftist movements for being 'authoritarian'.
Regarding Anarchism as the 'true' leftist movement. (Sectarianism)

Etc....

Another thing that makes Anarchism a reactionary movement are it's results. Since anarchism has only brought the world MORE oppression (even when anarchism was in effect) it deserves it's reputation as a misguided, unworkable ideology.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 04:42 pm
The ideas of the anarchists are leftist, but their actions are not. Such actions include:
[LIST]
Fighting leftist movements for being 'authoritarian'.


authoritarianism is counter-revolutionary

why did you put authoritarian in speech marks - are you denying that the presence of a dictator is in any way authoritarian?


Regarding Anarchism as the 'true' leftist movement. (Sectarianism)
oh please, we're not the only ones guilty of being proud of our differences

anarchism is certainly the freeist of the leftist philosophies so yes, i view it as superior to the other leftist philosophies


Another thing that makes Anarchism a reactionary movement are it's results. Since anarchism has only brought the world MORE oppression (even when anarchism was in effect) it deserves it's reputation as a misguided, unworkable ideology.
so the results of authoritarian socialism aren't themselves reactionary then? please...

authoritarian socialism is basically a small group of beaurocrats that try to legitimatise their dictatorial positions by saying that they know how to run others' lives better than they themselves can.

you call it unworkable, however it HAS worked before

[Fodman]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 04:42 pm
NOT. The ideas of the anarchists are leftist, but their actions are not. Such actions include:
[LIST]
Fighting leftist movements for being 'authoritarian'.

anarchists fight oppression, whether that oppression call itself capitalist, revolutionary, or whatever.

i noticed you totally glazed over the fact that authoritarians have taken anarchism by force on countless occasions

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Fodman+November 02, 2007 11:54 am--> (Fodman @ November 02, 2007 11:54 am)
Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 02, 2007 04:42 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 02, 2007 04:42 pm) The ideas of the anarchists are leftist, but their actions are not. Such actions include:
[LIST]
Fighting leftist movements for being 'authoritarian'.

[/b]
authoritarianism is counter-revolutionary

why did you put authoritarian in speech marks - are you denying that the presence of a dictator is in any way authoritarian?
[/b]
Authoritarianism is counter-revolutionary, ? :huh:

Only certain kinds of authoritarianism are counterrevolutionary. The DOTP is not counterrevolutionary.


Originally posted by Fodman


Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+ Yours Truly--> (COMRADE CRUM @ Yours Truly) Regarding Anarchism as the 'true' leftist movement. (Sectarianism)
oh please, we're not the only ones guilty of being proud of our differences
[/b]
I'm proud of my differences.

But I also am willing to talk to and work with anarchists. I wish more anarchists were open towards Communists.

Fodman
anarchism is certainly the freeist of the leftist philosophies so yes, i view it as superior to the other leftist philosophies

CRAPO! Anarchism, no matter how well intentioned, will boil down to the strong versus the weak.

Domination and submission, anyone?

Not to mention anarchism, especially the hardline or ecological version thereof, calls for an end to organized civilization. Where would that leave elderly and/or disabled people?

I'd rather have the Dictatorship of the Proletariat than the Dictatorship of Chaos!


Originally posted by Fodman
so the results of authoritarian socialism aren't themselves reactionary then? please...

No because during their Communist era, most former Com countries were modernized and industrialized.


[email protected]
authoritarian socialism is basically a small group of beaurocrats that try to legitimatise their dictatorial positions by saying that they know how to run others' lives better than they themselves can.

Considering what was accomplished, can you say they didn't?


Fodman
you call it unworkable, however it HAS worked before
WHERE??!!

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Fodman+November 02, 2007 11:58 am--> (Fodman @ November 02, 2007 11:58 am)
COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 04:42 pm
NOT. The ideas of the anarchists are leftist, but their actions are not. Such actions include:
[LIST]
Fighting leftist movements for being 'authoritarian'.

anarchists fight oppression, whether that oppression call itself capitalist, revolutionary, or whatever.

i noticed you totally glazed over the fact that authoritarians have taken anarchism by force on countless occasions [/b]
Sorry for the double post.


i noticed you totally glazed over the fact that authoritarians have taken anarchism by force on countless occasions
:huh:

My entire point was that anarchism unintentionally has paved the way for Fascist oppression in some areas.

Look at my above post for more info. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72223&hl=&showpost=1292406803&#entry1292406803)

Just so you know, I've gotta split in 12 minutes.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 02, 2007 05:09 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 02, 2007 05:09 pm) Authoritarianism is counter-revolutionary, ? [/b]
anything that goes against people having control of their own lives is counter-revolutionary


Only certain kinds of authoritarianism are counterrevolutionary. The DOTP is not counterrevolutionary.
hmm i'll have to disagree wiht you here


But I also am willing to talk to and work with anarchists. I wish more anarchists were open towards Communists.
hey i would work with you guys, just so long as you didn't try to re-educate me or any of that shit


CRAPO! Anarchism, no matter how well intentioned, will boil down to the strong versus the weak.
nope! cos unlike in leninist, maoist, stalinist etc theory, there are strands of anarchist theory that call for a system that cannot possibly be manipulated by leaders in the way that examples such as North Korea et al have undergone.


Not to mention anarchism, especially the hardline or ecological version thereof, calls for an end to organized civilization. Where would that leave elderly and/or disabled people?
well i'm not a primitivist so i couldn't answer that for you


I'd rather have the Dictatorship of the Proletariat than the Dictatorship of Chaos!
calling anarchism 'chaos' makes you sound like a conservative bigot

i'd rather flush anything with the word 'dictatorship' in, down the toilet


No because during their Communist era, most former Com countries were modernized and industrialized.
i'm talking reactionary in the sociological sense, not the economic




Fodman
authoritarian socialism is basically a small group of beaurocrats that try to legitimatise their dictatorial positions by saying that they know how to run others' lives better than they themselves can.

Considering what was accomplished, can you say they didn't?
so you would back any dictatorship that no doubt acts in its own interests (as all states do)

you're just an easily-manipulated pawn on a chessboard if you actually think that a dictatorship is alright


and once again, it worked in Barcelona

[Fodman]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 05:13 pm
My entire point was that anarchism unintentionally has paved the way for Fascist oppression in some areas.




well its a bit hard to fight Fascism and Stalinism at the same same on 2 different fronts!
don't know about you, but i hate both of the above mentioned ideologies, so yes - i'm gona fight them if they ever try to rear their ugly heads again


Just so you know, I've gotta split in 12 minutes.
oki doki ;)

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Fodman+November 02, 2007 12:22 pm--> (Fodman @ November 02, 2007 12:22 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 05:09 pm
Authoritarianism is counter-revolutionary, ?
anything that goes against people having control of their own lives is counter-revolutionary


Only certain kinds of authoritarianism are counterrevolutionary. The DOTP is not counterrevolutionary.
hmm i'll have to disagree wiht you here


But I also am willing to talk to and work with anarchists. I wish more anarchists were open towards Communists.
hey i would work with you guys, just so long as you didn't try to re-educate me or any of that shit


CRAPO! Anarchism, no matter how well intentioned, will boil down to the strong versus the weak.
nope! cos unlike in leninist, maoist, stalinist etc theory, there are strands of anarchist theory that call for a system that cannot possibly be manipulated by leaders in the way that examples such as North Korea et al have undergone.


Not to mention anarchism, especially the hardline or ecological version thereof, calls for an end to organized civilization. Where would that leave elderly and/or disabled people?
well i'm not a primitivist so i couldn't answer that for you


I'd rather have the Dictatorship of the Proletariat than the Dictatorship of Chaos!
calling anarchism 'chaos' makes you sound like a conservative bigot

i'd rather flush anything with the word 'dictatorship' in, down the toilet


No because during their Communist era, most former Com countries were modernized and industrialized.
i'm talking reactionary in the sociological sense, not the industrial




Fodman
authoritarian socialism is basically a small group of beaurocrats that try to legitimatise their dictatorial positions by saying that they know how to run others' lives better than they themselves can.

Considering what was accomplished, can you say they didn't?
so you would back any dictatorship that no doubt acts in its own interests (as all states do)

you're just an easily-manipulated pawn on a chessboard if you actually think that a dictatorship is alright


and once again, it worked in Barcelona [/b]
I've gotta go soon, I'll give you a more indepth analysis same time tomorrow.


hey i would work with you guys, just so long as you didn't try to re-educate me or any of that shit

Look who's the conservative bigot now!


and once again, it worked in Barcelona
Barcelona fell, whereas the Soviet Union won the fight against the fascists (that incarnation of them anyway).

See you tomorrow. Work has to be done.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 05:26 pm

hey i would work with you guys, just so long as you didn't try to re-educate me or any of that shit

Look who's the conservative bigot now!
are you denying the existence of re-education facilities?


Barcelona fell, whereas the Soviet Union won the fight against the fascists (that incarnation of them anyway).
Barcelona existed, therefore it worked

the Soviet Union collapsed from internal capitalist pressures - so using your argument, the Soviet Union could be described as a failure too!

everything has an ending


i would describe the Soviet Union as a failure as it did not liberate the people

[Fodman]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 02, 2007 05:26 pm
I've gotta go soon, I'll give you a more indepth analysis same time tomorrow
I'm looking forward to my re-education ;)

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Fodman+November 02, 2007 12:31 pm--> (Fodman @ November 02, 2007 12:31 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 02, 2007 05:26 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 02, 2007 05:26 pm)
hey i would work with you guys, just so long as you didn't try to re-educate me or any of that shit

Look who's the conservative bigot now! [/b]
are you denying the existence of re-education facilities? [/b]
No I don't deny the existence of said facilities, but bringing them up any time you get in an argument with a communist to make a point is sectarian. Do you ever condemn the betrayal of Communists by anarchists??



Originally posted by Fodman

Originally posted by CC
Barcelona fell, whereas the Soviet Union won the fight against the fascists (that incarnation of them anyway).
Barcelona existed, therefore it worked
And here I thought you wouldn't make overly simplistic arguments!! :lol: :rolleyes:
Barcelona fell. It left nothing to the future generations except 39 years of fascism and an interesting anecdote.

The Soviet Union has left future generations electricity and jobs to do. The USSR lifted people out of serfdom and into a modern lifestyle.


[email protected]
the Soviet Union collapsed from internal capitalist pressures - so using your argument, the Soviet Union could be described as a failure too!

everything has an ending


i would describe the Soviet Union as a failure as it did not liberate the people
As you said, the Soviet Union had failed as a result of internal pressures. That's more of a problem with the organizational structure of the USSR, rather than Communism itself. I don't think
anarchists have a solution to bourgeosie infestation in their ranks.

Because of our experiences as communists--we do.


Fodman
I'm looking forward to my re-education ;)
The time has come. ;)

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Fodman+November 02, 2007 12:32 pm--> (Fodman @ November 02, 2007 12:32 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 02, 2007 05:26 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 02, 2007 05:26 pm) I've gotta go soon, I'll give you a more indepth analysis same time tomorrow [/b]
I'm looking forward to my re-education ;) [/b]
And your re-education gets continued.


Originally posted by Fodman
well its a bit hard to fight Fascism and Stalinism at the same same on 2 different fronts!

I agree, but it is odd how you focus on Stalin ( :hammer: ), rather than Roosevelt ($), Chamberlain ($), Lebrun ($), or any other western 'democratic' leader.


Originally posted by Fodman
anything that goes against people having control of their own lives is counter-revolutionary

People not willing to work together for revolution because of their grredy concerns of their own lives are counter-revolutionary.

Criticizing Communists or the DotP or both because of bourgeosie notions of your own life is counter-revolutionary.


Originally posted by Fodman
nope! cos unlike in leninist, maoist, stalinist etc theory, there are strands of anarchist theory that call for a system that cannot possibly be manipulated by leaders in the way that examples such as North Korea et al have undergone.

Elaborate.


Originally posted by Fodman
well i'm not a primitivist so i couldn't answer that for you
But surely you are somewhat familiar with the primmie strain in anarchism embodied by Crimethinc and people like Zerzan.


Originally posted by Fodman
i'd rather flush anything with the word 'dictatorship' in, down the toilet
How would you fight the reactionaries then?



Originally posted by Fodman
so you would back any dictatorship that no doubt acts in its own interests (as all states do)
Just Socialist ones.


[email protected]
you're just an easily-manipulated pawn on a chessboard if you actually think that a dictatorship is alright

NOT! I just realize that in order to reach Communism we must attain Socialism, and that is impossible without the DotP since most people have been conditioned to expect capitalist excess: big cars, big TVs, other crap you don't need. We will need the DotP to condition the working class AWAY from such things.

Bourgeosie Democracy is NOT Democracy.
Actually, since the DotP's goal is to unify the people into a single class--the Proletariat--it is the most empowering of ALL ideologies.


Fodman
and once again, it worked in Barcelona
I'll give you the timeline:
Spanish Anarchism: 1936-1939.
Spanish Fascism: 1939-1975.

How exactly did it work?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:35 pm

Really? http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?act...amine&Year=1921

:lol:

Did you even read the link you posted?!

I will quote it for you:



Famine of 1921-22

Nevertheless, an estimated five million people died as a result of the famine, succumbing to outbreaks of cholera and typhus that proved fatal owing to weakened resistance.

Where did the other five million go! I'm not a mathematician but 5,000,000 plus 5,000,000 = 10,000,000.

Because remember 10 million people died from the famine.

Oh that's right, it lasted from 1921 to 1923.

Next time read the sources you post, and most of all be critical about them.

Quoting a source which is either (a) plain wrong or (b) clearly refutes your argument, tends to make you look like c) a dipshit.



The White Guards were able to continue the fight due to military aid from the interventionalist powers. Otherwise they would have been defeated in much less time.

I fully understand it but am unable to comprehend its relevance in showing how anarchists are more autocratic.



Hmmm...that's strange, I don't remember denying that Bolsheviks ever shot anybody. The funny thing is, their enemies had been doing the same long before the revolution, and in fact they continued to do so during the Civil War. And I'm not even going to get into the issue of friendly folks like Baron von Ungern-Sternberg.

Relevance, if any?


Your demand for statistics seems to suggest that you measure how "oppressive" something is based on numbers. Makhno's oppression was limited to the amount of control, people, and influence he had. That being said, once you get into statistics, we then have to disect them according to accuracy(for example, death tolls of the so-called Ukrainian famine), and then there is the issue of the historical context as well.

1. Usually the amount of dead peasants is a good sign of how repressive a certain regime is.

2. You applied your statement to anarchism per se.

3. It isn't just the 'so-called Ukrainian famine' that is what it actually IS called. And as a matter of fact it is referred to the Ukrainian Genocide by some. So don't be such an arrogant ****. Or at least try to refrain from being one when talking on a public forum.

And if you are seemingly incapable of providing statistics, then perhaps you should provide an argument *gasp* of how anarchism is equally or more authoritarian than Bolshevism.
Yeah Martov, 5 million people just died in one year. Again, you ignore everyone else's hand in the famine but those of the Bolsheviks. Plus if you are going to try to argue the "Ukrainian" famine with me you have already lost.

[Marsella]

Yeah Martov, 5 million people just died in one year.

http://fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/524.gif

You agreed that 10 million had died:


For once you said something correct: that the famine of 21-22 killed 10 million people.

The source you quoted dates from 1921-22 said that 5 million had died.

Do you see the contradiction here?


Again, you ignore everyone else's hand in the famine but those of the Bolsheviks.

For the third time I will quote what I said, since you seem almost incapable of comprehending quite a simple argument:


Whilst it would not be fair to blame this solely on the Bolsheviks, it may be argued that their 'War Communism' attributed to it.

You:

Plus if you are going to try to argue the "Ukrainian" famine with me you have already lost.

No, comments like:


The shortages weren't always as bad as people think.

When as many as 5.5 million people died Soviet-wide, suggest otherwise dick-brain.

[Fodman]

No I don't deny the existence of said facilities, but bringing them up any time you get in an argument with a communist to make a point is sectarian. Do you ever condemn the betrayal of Communists by anarchists??
example?

The Soviet Union has left future generations electricity and jobs to do.
fascist spain, despite how terrible it was, still had electricity and jobs, ass

The USSR lifted people out of serfdom and into a modern lifestyle.
you could say the exact same shit for Franco, but that doesn't mean that the system was right does it?


As you said, the Soviet Union had failed as a result of internal pressures. That's more of a problem with the organizational structure of the USSR, rather than Communism itself. I don't think anarchists have a solution to bourgeosie infestation in their ranks.
i know, thats why i was criticising the structure of the Soviet Union - not communism itself

Because of our experiences as communists--we do.
don't you think i know of the bourgeois infiltration into anarchist organisations? because i do

[Fodman]

I agree, but it is odd how you focus on Stalin ( :hammer: ), rather than Roosevelt ($), Chamberlain ($), Lebrun ($), or any other western 'democratic' leader.[/b]
may i point out now that the anarchists too had to deal with Chamberlain, Roosevelt and Lebrun AS WELL AS Stalin, Franco, Mussolini and Hitler in their struggles;
the US, UK and France all supplied Franco with oil
i dont think i need to tell you the shit that Mussolini and Hitler did

power is in numbers - can you not see that that was the reason for why Soviet Russia succeeded and anarchist Spain did not? hey if, say, the Durruti Column had a volunteer force of 5 million like the Red Army did during their civil war, then the anarchists would have won. agreed?

just a shame there weren't 5 million volunteers in the Durruti Column...


People not willing to work together for revolution because of their grredy concerns of their own lives are counter-revolutionary.
and people only working to cement their position at the top of the ladder in a beaurocratic class is counter-revolutionary ;)

Criticizing Communists or the DotP or both because of bourgeosie notions of your own life is counter-revolutionary.
bourgeois notions? go on........


Originally posted by Fodman
nope! cos unlike in leninist, maoist, stalinist etc theory, there are strands of anarchist theory that call for a system that cannot possibly be manipulated by leaders in the way that examples such as North Korea et al have undergone.

Elaborate.
Take away the position of leader and never let there be one, and the oppression will fall out the window.

all political leaders want the same thing - power. And they will hold onto it for as long as there hands can manage.

as an anarchist, i'm concerned by anybody who seeks power, and what they intend to do with it


But surely you are somewhat familiar with the primmie strain in anarchism embodied by Crimethinc and people like Zerzan.
i am familiar with it, but i don't endorse it

How would you fight the reactionaries then?
the anarchists in Spain and the Ukraine had very good fascist militias

We will need the DotP to condition the working class AWAY from such things.
see, here is where we disagree - when exactly do you see the ruling class (the beaurocrats) giving up their absolute power? ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN son


Bourgeosie Democracy is NOT Democracy.
erm.... i know :P what's your point?



I'll give you the timeline:
Spanish Anarchism: 1936-1939.
Spanish Fascism: 1939-1975.

How exactly did it work?
it worked because:

Spanish Anarchism: 1936-1939

*sigh*

Russian Capitalism could continue for another 200 years -
so the timeline in 200 years could be:

Russian Communism: 1917-1991
Russian Capitalism: 1991-2191

just because capitalism might last longer in Russia than communism did, would that mean it was better?

the answer: NO


absolutist leaders will NEVER give up their position

[Fodman]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 03, 2007 08:10 pm
I just realize that in order to reach Communism we must attain Socialism, and that is impossible without the DotP since most people have been conditioned to expect capitalist excess
i differ on this point with you -

i see the transition as not a product of DotP, but rather of entire federaitons of workers co-operatives; take away the oppressive boss and let the workers control their own lives, free of alienation - and the comradeship that they will enjoy with their fellow workers with nuture communistic attitudes.

i agree its a gradual process, but it will never be achieved via absolutist beaurocrats.

[Enragé]

The biggest question here is to define the DotP

[Comrade Rage]

I agree, but it is odd how you focus on Stalin ( :hammer: ), rather than Roosevelt ($), Chamberlain ($), Lebrun ($), or any other western 'democratic' leader.[/b]
may i point out now that the anarchists too had to deal with Chamberlain, Roosevelt and Lebrun AS WELL AS Stalin, Franco, Mussolini and Hitler in their struggles;
the US, UK and France all supplied Franco with oil
i dont think i need to tell you the shit that Mussolini and Hitler did

Which is why I have repeatedly stated that Stalin was wrong to not assist the anarchists. (In this thread too.) It's all well and good for us Communists to debate Anarchists, but when an anarchist is fighting a Fascist--it's pretty much a no-brainer that I would help the anarchist!! I'd like to think it's the same way for most communists.


power is in numbers - can you not see that that was the reason for why Soviet Russia succeeded and anarchist Spain did not? hey if, say, the Durruti Column had a volunteer force of 5 million like the Red Army did during their civil war, then the anarchists would have won. agreed?
I concur. I am, however, doubtful they could have expelled/killed the remaining capitalists in Spain to realize what I would call Communism/What you would call Anarchy.

If I did I would be :A:


just a shame there weren't 5 million volunteers in the Durruti Column...I concur. Vehemently.



People not willing to work together for revolution because of their grredy concerns of their own lives are counter-revolutionary.
and people only working to cement their position at the top of the ladder in a beaurocratic class is counter-revolutionary ;)
I can't say I disagree. It's our task to prevent such.


Criticizing Communists or the DotP or both because of bourgeosie notions of your own life is counter-revolutionary.
bourgeois notions? go on........
The desire to live a hyper-individualistic lifestyle-like what's prevalent in the US is bourgeosie and Counter-revolutionary.



nope! cos unlike in leninist, maoist, stalinist etc theory, there are strands of anarchist theory that call for a system that cannot possibly be manipulated by leaders in the way that examples such as North Korea et al have undergone.

Elaborate.
Take away the position of leader and never let there be one, and the oppression will fall out the window.
If you eliminate leadership without a transition--tyranny will result.

There can, BTW be leaderless oppression.

all political leaders want the same thing - power. And they will hold onto it for as long as there hands can manage.

as an anarchist, i'm concerned by anybody who seeks power, and what they intend to do with it
I'm no anarchist--but I'm always concerned with my leaders as well. Such concern is not limited to anarchists, but intelligent people of all political thought.


But surely you are somewhat familiar with the primmie strain in anarchism embodied by Crimethinc and people like Zerzan.
i am familiar with it, but i don't endorse it

How would you fight the reactionaries then?
the anarchists in Spain and the Ukraine had very good fascist militias
You're talking Antifa militias, I assume?


We will need the DotP to condition the working class AWAY from such things.
see, here is where we disagree - when exactly do you see the ruling class (the beaurocrats) giving up their absolute power? ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN son
I don't propose the standard 'withering away' theory.
What needs to happen, in my opinion, is worker self-management of industry through radical labor unions like the IWW of which I am a member--as well as the right to keep and bear arms, and the sustaining of Communist worker-militias.

That's how I think state-capitalism will be avoided-as the vehicle for it (state ownership of industry)will have been eliminated.

It will also gradually shift the responsibilities of governance more towards the workers themselves.


Bourgeosie Democracy is NOT Democracy.
erm.... i know :P what's your point?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, some people I run into don't realize that.




I'll give you the timeline:
Spanish Anarchism: 1936-1939.
Spanish Fascism: 1939-1975.

How exactly did it work?
it worked because:

Spanish Anarchism: 1936-1939

*sigh*

Russian Capitalism could continue for another 200 years -
so the timeline in 200 years could be:

Russian Communism: 1917-1991
Russian Capitalism: 1991-2191

just because capitalism might last longer in Russia than communism did, would that mean it was better?

the answer: NO


absolutist leaders will NEVER give up their position
My point was that Spanish Anarchism collapsed under the same Capitalist-Fascist pressure Anarchism would have to face in a post-revolutionary America.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:33 pm
The biggest question here is to define the DotP
Definition for benefit of all newer readers viewing this topic.
DotP- n The Dictatorship of the proletariat-a Socialist transitional period between Capitalism and Communism.

That's a good idea--I ought to start a thread in theory about how long it should last.

Thread Created. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72774&hl=)

[Invader Zim]

George Orwell pretty much sums up the fall of the Republic in an essay he wrote about his time in Spain.

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/lookingback1.htm

"The outcome of the Spanish war was settled in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin—at any rate not in Spain. After the summer of 1937 those with eyes in their heads realized that the Government could not win the war unless there were some profound change in the international set-up, and in deciding to fight on. Negrin and the others may have been partly influenced by the expectation that the world war which actually broke out in 1939 was coming in 1938. The much-publicized disunity on the Government side was not a main cause of defeat. The Government militias were hurriedly raised, ill-armed and unimaginative in their military outlook, but they would have been the same if complete political agreement had existed from the start. At the outbreak of war the average Spanish factory-worker did not even know how to fire a rifle (there had never been universal conscription in Spain), and the traditional pacifism of the Left was a great handicap. The thousands of foreigners who served in Spain made good infantry, but there were very few experts of any kind among them. The Trotskyist thesis that the war could have been won if the revolution had not been sabotaged was probably false. To nationalize factories, demolish churches, and issue revolutionary manifestoes would not have made the armies more efficient. The Fascists won because they were the stronger; they had modern arms and the others hadn’t. No political strategy could offset that."

That I think pretty much sums up the whole question.