anarchists

[bezdomni]

what would happen to marxist-leninists in an anarchist society or other non-anarchists? How would ideological dissent approached and dealt with if at all?

[RedAnarchist]

I'm sure it would depend on how different they were ideologically. For instance, a Fascist would be considered worse than a Marxist,whilst Marxistrs may not even be seen as enemies, unless they tried to gain power.

[Wanted Man]

Who would decide on who is "worse"? Who would determine who is "trying to gain power"? How would those people be punished?

[Rawthentic]

I honestly don't think they have an idea of how it would be dealt with.

For example, Marxists understand that under the dictatorship of the proletariat, hardcore fascists and counter-revolutionaries will have to be silenced. On the other hand, there will of course be all sorts of ideas and ideological questions that will go against the grain of the revolution and communism, but that nevertheless need to be expressed and dealt with in order to find the truth and the best way to advance forward in revolution. Communists will have to deal with all sorts of ideas like these, grapple and struggle with 'em with the purpose of pointing the way forward ( a bit redundant I know).

[YSR]

I dunno. They could run their communities according to Marxist-Leninist lines, I suppose.

But if they started repressing working class people (so, if history is a guide, right away) anarchists would probably get up in arms and fight them.

In general: an anarchist society is a society filled with anarchists. You can't have an anarchist society if its full of people who love capitalism. That society would just become a capitalist one. Likewise, you couldn't have an anarchist society if everyone wanted an authoritarian socialist system.

Anarchists will continue to propagandize during the course of "the revolution." (really, a series of revolutions of different scales and in different locations). We'll liberate our communities and encourage and participate in the liberation of others. "Permanent revolution" if you will :D .

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:49 pm
what would happen to marxist-leninists in an anarchist society or other non-anarchists? How would ideological dissent approached and dealt with if at all?
Marxism-leninism is a method for going from capitalism to socialism, via revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat.

An anarchist society can only be a post-socialist society. So the answer is simple: there would be no marxist-leninists in an anarchist society. I suppose people could bicker about whether the methods used to go from capitalism to anarchism were the best or not, but this would hardly constitute basis for a political division of society.

Luís Henrique

[Matty_UK]

*shrug*

Ultimately, when you really get it down to the boil, anarchism is a socialist society with federalism and direct rather than representative democracy; Anarchists tend to confuse Marxist-Leninism with Stalinist State-Capitalism, but it's not; the only significant difference is Marxist-Leninists have one hegemonic political party controlled by the mass of workers whilst Anarchists have one government controlled by the mass of workers; essentially, it's the same bloody thing. The difference is insignificant and the sooner both sides realise this and start working as one the better.

[IronColumn]

At some point Anarchists will act with the historical methods of the Leninists directed at the Leninists, and the world will be much happier because of it. I don't think anyone should shy away from this conclusion.

[MarxSchmarx]

So the answer is simple: there would be no marxist-leninists in an anarchist society. I suppose people could bicker about whether the methods used to go from capitalism to anarchism were the best or not, but this would hardly constitute basis for a political division of society.

Exactly. Why would anybody bother to be a marxist-leninist in an anarchist society?

How would MLs even

run their communities according to Marxist-Leninist lines ?

I guess there could be an authoritarian, hierarchical collective farm? But again the workers on these farms would leave in droves given other farms are run on anarchist principles. And if the "people's agricultural commissars" try to prevent "petty-bourgeois counter-revolutionaries" from leaving the farm to join the syndicalist farm with the barrel of a gun, well, this sounds a lot like feudalism to me, and other anarchists from other farms will help workers get out one way or the other.


"what would happen to marxist-leninism during the revolution"

Or other ideological dissenters for that matter. If they don't want to join the cause with brother and sister anarchists, they would be welcome to leave the regions under the red-and-black flag and try to do their own thing during the revolution as well.

I say good riddance, but do you all think m-lists can be counted on to not bolt if they don't get their way?

[KC]

Politics won't exist in a classless society so this entire thread is meaningless.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:49 pm
what would happen to marxist-leninists in an anarchist society or other non-anarchists? How would ideological dissent approached and dealt with if at all?
In experience Marxist-Leninists have attempted to destroy anarchist gains in the hope that they can assert their authority over a revolution. If this was to happen conflict would exist. If they didn't then, as Bakunin made clear, they could go and do whatever they wanted, providing that the freedom of no one is usurped.

[RGacky3]

They just would be able to tell anyone what to do, and if they do, with threat of force? We'd stop them, thats it.

[syndicat]

presumably the marxist-leninists would exist as a political tendency within the mass organizations in a period of revolution. if a self-managing society without class division or a statist hierarchy emerges, then presumably the MLs didn't win in the internal political debates and struggles within the movement. There would be conflicts with them to the degree some ML party tries to impose its hegemony over society. if they are defeated in these efforts, that suggests that there were left libertarian political organizations with sufficient coherence and skill, and the MLs didn't win sufficient popular support. as long as they behave themselves and don't try something like a coup, what's the problem?

if we assume that things like access to means of communication such as air time, print resources are distributed as the various individuals making up the society want, then we can expect that there would be a variety of broadcast collectives and publication collectives that reflect different viewpoints, and there might be, say, a monthly or a spot on the radio dial, where some collective with ML views exists. this would depend on whether the MLs have sufficient supporters to get the resources allocated. depends of course on how the media are run. if they are publically funded and everyone can allocate their personal share of the public media budget to whichever collective or collectives they like (that's what i'd favor), then MLs would be guaranteed freedom to publish or broadcast their views if they have sufficient backing in the populace.

politics would continue to exist within a classless society because there are many issuses that a society has to deal with, and there are likely to be different views about the way forward, ways of dealing with challenges. it's just that class politics wouldn't continue, except to the degree that there are still effects of the old system that survive, things like differences in expertise and knowledge due to differences in access to eduation and the like prior to the revolution.

[Rawthentic]

if a self-managing society without class division or a statist hierarchy emerges, then presumably the MLs didn't win in the internal political debates and struggles within the movement. There would be conflicts with them to the degree some ML party tries to impose its hegemony over society
lol I just laugh when you speak like this.

Either way, a revolution will never and has never been led by anarchists, so this is purely theoretical and fun. More suitable for shit-chat.

[syndicat]

Either way, a revolution will never and has never been led by anarchists,

the workers revolution in Spain was led by anarchists. the Communists had in mind a revolution, but not a revolution to empower the working class, a revolution to empower a bureaucratic class. that's why they recruited from, and most of their members were from, the middle classes.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 31, 2007 11:30 pm

if a self-managing society without class division or a statist hierarchy emerges, then presumably the MLs didn't win in the internal political debates and struggles within the movement. There would be conflicts with them to the degree some ML party tries to impose its hegemony over society
lol I just laugh when you speak like this.

Either way, a revolution will never and has never been led by anarchists, so this is purely theoretical and fun. More suitable for shit-chat.
What about the Makhnovschina?

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is obvious that most anarchists use the indispensable tool of Marxism whether they like it or not. They have came to understand that there is an intimate connection between theory and practice, that the question of political power is tied in a conflict between classes, and that the development of revolutionary strategy and tactics is of the utmost importance.

The more important question is, which side of the fence will the act on? Are they reformists, or are they revolutionaries? Are they acting like social democrats, or are they acting as communists?

Many 'anarchist' revolutions, such as the one in Shimmin or Makhnovischina, took on several 'statist' qualities as their revolutionary efforts progressed, because they were unable to safeguard their gains with 'anti-authoritarian' organizations.

[Rawthentic]

the workers revolution in Spain was led by anarchists. the Communists had in mind a revolution, but not a revolution to empower the working class, a revolution to empower a bureaucratic class. that's why they recruited from, and most of their members were from, the middle classes.
That was no revolution. The capitalist state was never dismantled, no small thanks to anarchist fear of what they deem as "state" and "power".

Stop with that "coordinatorist" crap.

I remember in a prior thread you called the Russian Revolution a "coordinatorist revolution." I think you're just hatin' cuz they were actually able to overthrow the capitalist class and aid in the development of the world's first proletarian state. Or maybe you're not being a hater, either way you're wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 01, 2007 05:04 am

the workers revolution in Spain was led by anarchists. the Communists had in mind a revolution, but not a revolution to empower the working class, a revolution to empower a bureaucratic class. that's why they recruited from, and most of their members were from, the middle classes.
That was no revolution. The capitalist state was never dismantled, no small thanks to anarchist fear of what they deem as "state" and "power".
What do anarchists "deem" as "state and power"?

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+November 01, 2007 12:43 pm--> (Labor Shall Rule @ November 01, 2007 12:43 pm)

[/b]

Labor shall something-o-rather
It is obvious that most anarchists use the indispensable tool of Marxism whether they like it or not. They have came to understand that there is an intimate connection between theory and practice, that the question of political power is tied in a conflict between classes, and that the development of revolutionary strategy and tactics is of the utmost importance.

Has this not always been the view of anarchists?



The more important question is, which side of the fence will the act on? Are they reformists, or are they revolutionaries? Are they acting like social democrats, or are they acting as communists?

I always find statements like this confusing.
How on earth can anarchist be a reformist?
Truly, it makes no sense. The only way an anarchist can be a reformist is by completely betraying their principles, and are therefor, not an anarchist.


Many 'anarchist' revolutions, such as the one in Shimmin or Makhnovischina, took on several 'statist' qualities as their revolutionary efforts progressed, because they were unable to safeguard their gains with 'anti-authoritarian' organizations.

I don't think this is a fair statement, and ignores what the anarchists were facing in these, and all, situations post-revolution, or during the revolution.
For example, the Mahknovists had the White army right next door to them, and were constantly at war with them, as well as constantly being jailed and murdered by the Red Army. Indeed, in times like this, the betrayal of anarchist principles is a likely hood for those trying to dictate the direction of a revolution by trying to protect it, and is a common assumption - baseless as it may be - that an authoritarian structure is a suitable, and more affective means of organizing. But this is nothing more than an assumption now, is it?

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 31, 2007 11:04 pm
I think you're just hatin' cuz they were actually able to overthrow the capitalist class and aid in the development of the world's first proletarian state.
I think I'll comment on this this statement by how you usually comment on things...

Wow, what a materialist understanding. You're nothing more than the camel that attempts to stomp on and crap on Marx's scientific socialist understanding and methods.


Hateration is now a tool of Marxism.

[RGacky3]

That was no revolution. The capitalist state was never dismantled, no small thanks to anarchist fear of what they deem as "state" and "power".

Well in the areas they controlled, the Capitalist state had no power, they collectivised farms (freely), they made the factories cooperative, and democratically run, the farms and factories were run directly by the workers, so I'd say they did an OK job.

So lets compare that to what the bolsheviks achieved.
The Factories were Nationalized (not put under direcy coopoerative worker control), The farms were forced into state collectives, that had state quotas (meaning really they wern't collectives, they were state controlled), the Capitalist State was overthrown yes, but it was replaced by a State just as oppressive as the one before it.

So, who got closer to achieving a real Socialist Society?


Many 'anarchist' revolutions, such as the one in Shimmin or Makhnovischina, took on several 'statist' qualities as their revolutionary efforts progressed, because they were unable to safeguard their gains with 'anti-authoritarian' organizations.

Also it could be that Leninists were always there to attack them along with the Capitalists.

BTW, the Zapatistas have done a decent job with anti-authoritarian organizations, considering what they are up against.

[syndicat]

Live for whatever:
That was no revolution. The capitalist state was never dismantled, no small thanks to anarchist fear of what they deem as "state" and "power".

A revolution is a process in which one mode of production is replaced by another. A proletarian revolution requires that the working class seize control of the means of production and manage the industries directly themselves. They went much farther in this aspect than in the Russian revolution. the working class also needs to replace the state with its own democratic militia that it controls directly. they did this initially in the Spanish revolution, went farther this way than in Russia, tho in Spain, as in Russia, the Communists were able to push this aside and replace it with a top-down, conventional army. The working class also needs to form its own political power, its own governance system, and as I've point out before, the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain were well aware of this and at one point their mass union organization did make moves in this direction. They wouldn't have done this if they had the idea that "power is bad" as you falsely allege.


Stop with that "coordinatorist" crap.

You need to try to answer the arguments against this theory. If you don't like it, i couldn't care less.


I remember in a prior thread you called the Russian Revolution a "coordinatorist revolution." I think you're just hatin' cuz they were actually able to overthrow the capitalist class and aid in the development of the world's first proletarian state. Or maybe you're not being a hater, either way you're wrong.

"proletarian state" is a contradiction in terms because the existence of a hierarchical state not directly controlled by the mass of the people -- and this separate state structure was what the Bolsheviks created -- is inevitably an instrument of a dominating class. the working class in Russia never created a political structure of power over the country directly controlled by them. In this respect, the Russian and Spanish revolutions both failed.

but the mode of production that was built out of the Russian revolution was dominated by a new, non-capitalist class based on their monopoly of decision-making control and expertise in a top-down hierarchy. it's the same form of class power that managers and top professionals in the state and corporations have in the USA, it's just that in Russia there were no capitalists above them, they were the ruling class. hence a coordinatorist mode of production.

[syndicat]

Live for whatever:
That was no revolution. The capitalist state was never dismantled, no small thanks to anarchist fear of what they deem as "state" and "power".

A revolution is a process in which one mode of production is replaced by another. A proletarian revolution requires that the working class seize control of the means of production and manage the industries directly themselves. They went much farther in this aspect than in the Russian revolution. the working class also needs to replace the state with its own democratic militia that it controls directly. they did this initially in the Spanish revolution, went farther this way than in Russia, tho in Spain, as in Russia, the Communists were able to push this aside and replace it with a top-down, conventional army. The working class also needs to form its own political power, its own governance system, and as I've point out before, the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain were well aware of this and at one point their mass union organization did make moves in this direction. They wouldn't have done this if they had the idea that "power is bad" as you falsely allege.


Stop with that "coordinatorist" crap.

You need to try to answer the arguments against this theory. If you don't like it, i couldn't care less.


I remember in a prior thread you called the Russian Revolution a "coordinatorist revolution." I think you're just hatin' cuz they were actually able to overthrow the capitalist class and aid in the development of the world's first proletarian state. Or maybe you're not being a hater, either way you're wrong.

"proletarian state" is a contradiction in terms because the existence of a hierarchical state not directly controlled by the mass of the people -- and this separate state structure was what the Bolsheviks created -- is inevitably an instrument of a dominating class. the working class in Russia never created a political structure of power over the country directly controlled by them. In this respect, the Russian and Spanish revolutions both failed.

but the mode of production that was built out of the Russian revolution was dominated by a new, non-capitalist class based on their monopoly of decision-making control and expertise in a top-down hierarchy. it's the same form of class power that managers and top professionals in the state and corporations have in the USA, it's just that in Russia there were no capitalists above them, they were the ruling class. hence a coordinatorist mode of production.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The problem of 'reformism' was present with the anarchists at different junctures of history. In practice, the anarchists have more than once ended up lending their support to the mainteince of a bourgeois government, especially in Spain, whether through abstention, or direct collaboration. In the terms of 'abstention,' I am refering to a crucial mistake made by the Bakuninist leadership made over a century ago over the election of a Constituent Assembly. Engels wrote:


"The labour masses felt this; they strove everywhere to participate in events, to take advantage of the opportunity for action, instead of leaving the propertied classes, as hitherto, a clear field for action and intrigues. The government announced that elections were to be held to the Constituent Cortes. [May 10, 1873] What was the attitude of the International to be? The leaders of the Bakuninists were in a predicament. Continued political inaction became more ridiculous and impossible with every passing day; the workers wanted "to see things done". [J. W. Goethe, Zueignung. -- Ed.] The members of the Alliance on the other hand had been preaching for years that no part should be taken in a revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class, that political action of any kind implied recognition of the State, which was the root of all evil, and that therefore participation in any form of elections was a crime worthy of death."

In other words, they wanted to participate in the political life of the country, and secure the Republic from hostile feudal forces. But the workers had no leadership, so they voted for a radical bourgeois party.

Lenin concluded:


“they trampled under foot the article of faith they had only just proclaimed— that the establishment of a revolutionary government is but a new deception and a new betrayal of the working class; they did this, sitting coolly in the government committees of the various towns, almost everywhere as an impotent minority outvoted and politically exploited by the bourgeois”. By their inability to lead the uprising, by splitting the revolutionary forces instead of centralising them, by leaving the leadership of the revolution to the bourgeois, and by dissolving the solid and strong organisation of the International, “the Bakuninists in Spain gave us an unsurpassable example of how not to make a revolution."

The anarchists have also engaged in individual terrorism, which has brought blacklashes to the labor movement in numerous occasions throughout history, with France and Italy being a perfect example.

So, they haven't 'always' recognized the importance of realizing that tactics are subordinated to a revolutionary strategy, the aim of which is the seizure of political power. The tactics used are dependent on the situation, rather than "an idea" that disrupts "the state." In many occasions in history, they stuck to their theory rather than how their theory connects with reality, and as so, they have came out as ill-conceived and ill-timed, bringing embarrassing repercussions.

As for Shimmin and Makhnovischina, I will provide quotes from articles I have read, you can respond if you have evidence that will contradict their claims.


"By August 1929 the anarchists had formed an administration in Shinmin (one of the three Manchurian provinces).... Organised [sic] as the Korean People's Association in Manchuria it declared its aim as "an independent self-governing cooperative system of the Korean people who assembled their full power to save our nation by struggling against Japan". The structure was federal going from village meetings to district and area conferences. The general association was composed of delegates from the districts and areas.

The general association set up executive departments to deal with agriculture, education, propaganda, finance, military affairs, social health, youth and general affairs. The staff of the departments received no more than the average wage."

The Korean Anarchist Movement (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/korea.html)


But left in control of territory that they wanted to secure, the Makhnovists ended up forming what most would call a state. The Makhnovists set monetary policy. They regulated the press. They redistributed land according to specific laws they passed. They organized regional legislative conferences. They controlled armed detachments to enforce their policies. To combat epidemics, they promulgated mandatory standards of cleanliness for the public health. Except for the Makhnovists, parties were banned from organizing for election to regional bodies. They banned authority with which they disagreed to “prevent those hostile to our political ideas from establishing themselves.” They delegated broad authority to a “Regional Military-Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents.” The Makhnovists used their military authority to suppress rival political ideas and organizations. The anarchist historian Paul Avrich notes, “the Military-Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Guliai-Pole.”

The Makhno Myth (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)

RGacky3, in Shimmin, the article that I linked claims that the People's Liberation Army played an active role in repressing the anarchists there, but they (the PLA) had a low level of influence in Manchuria, and simply did not have the military and material advantage to repel any force like that. As for Makhnovista, it is more complex then saying "the Leninists were witch-hunting us," it is more like they were witch hunting communists within their territory and actively encouraged desertion within the Red Army.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

For an anarchist revolution to suceed it need mass popular support, moreso than authoritarian revolutions. So Anarchists would hold a mojrity in any democratic institution, and also in terms of miltias the anarchists will be supported more widley. I think ML's will joi with the anarchists in a genuine proleterian revolution, and then would form a united front, in which the anarchists will form the majority and thus have most of the contrl over

[Rawthentic]

Wow, what a materialist understanding. You're nothing more than the camel that attempts to stomp on and crap on Marx's scientific socialist understanding and methods.
lol, you of all people are accusing me of not using a materialist method?

[Goatse]

Err, but since an anarchist society is ultimately what Marxists aim for, why would they be treated any different? Surely they'd only be interesting in preserving the status quo, just like the anarchists? Or am I being too simplistic?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:21 pm
Err, but since an anarchist society is ultimately what Marxists aim for, why would they be treated any different? Surely they'd only be interesting in preserving the status quo, just like the anarchists? Or am I being too simplistic?
They want a DotP (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) first, though.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+November 01, 2007 10:11 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ November 01, 2007 10:11 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 10:21 pm
Err, but since an anarchist society is ultimately what Marxists aim for, why would they be treated any different? Surely they'd only be interesting in preserving the status quo, just like the anarchists? Or am I being too simplistic?
They want a DotP (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) first, though. [/b]
I thought anarchists believe in a 'collectivist' period before ariving at a point of communism though? The definitions are not that contradictory, considering that we both realize there needs to be a transitional period in which the material and cultural level of the masses is raised, while former enemies are bashed into submission.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Nekhludoff+October 28, 2007 05:59 pm--> (Nekhludoff @ October 28, 2007 05:59 pm) I think this is not a good question/debate topic. Maybe it is better "what would happen to marxist-leninism during the revolution" ;) [/b]
Since anarchism would be at-best a temporary situation, that's probably a better question to ask! ;)


:hammer:


LSR
I thought anarchists believe in a 'collectivist' period before ariving at a point of communism though? The definitions are not that contradictory, considering that we both realize there needs to be a transitional period in which the material and cultural level of the masses is raised, while former enemies are bashed into submission.


Which is why anarchists going after communists will be counterproductive, and vice-versa.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:11 pm
I'm sure it would depend on how different they were ideologically. For instance, a Fascist would be considered worse than a Marxist,whilst Marxistrs may not even be seen as enemies, unless they tried to gain power.
That is basically unintelligible. What do you mean?

[RGacky3]

I thought anarchists believe in a 'collectivist' period before ariving at a point of communism though? The definitions are not that contradictory, considering that we both realize there needs to be a transitional period in which the material and cultural level of the masses is raised, while former enemies are bashed into submission.

Most Anarchists don't attempt to map out society in the same way Marxists do, and you can't really say "I thought anarchists believe in such-and-such." Because many Anarchists believe different things. Also Collectivist Anarchism is nothing at all like the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or Vanguard Party theories, nor does it have anything to do with bashing former enemies or being a transitional period or raising cultural and material levels, it simply has to do with different ideas about production and distributoin within Anarchist Thought.


Which is why anarchists going after communists will be counterproductive, and vice-versa.

Not if the Communists are trying to put the Anarchists under their authority.

[Comrade Rage]

Even if anarchists go after Communists after the revolution it will be counter productive, as it will unnecessarily lengthen any kind of fighting going on, as well as the DotP, ultimately working against the anarchist and Communist goal of a stateless society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 01, 2007 10:12 pm

Wow, what a materialist understanding. You're nothing more than the camel that attempts to stomp on and crap on Marx's scientific socialist understanding and methods.
lol, you of all people are accusing me of not using a materialist method?
You didn't answer my question?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:49 pm
what would happen to marxist-leninists in an anarchist society or other non-anarchists? How would ideological dissent approached and dealt with if at all?
As probably the most sectarian (anti-leninst anarchist) here. I would say that all leninists would be free to participate and argue within the workers assemblies on whatever postion they wish. They would be allowed to produce their own papers and publications and meet privately.

In fact, on numerous occasions Bolsheviks were also members of Makhnos army. And while bolsheviks banned Anarchist papers, the bolsheviks were allowed to distribute their stuff within free Ukraine, though it was incredibly upopular.

They wouldn't be allowed to physically try and take power away from the workers soviets, and form a state, no one would. It would be up to the local councils to establish laws on how to respond to theats to the community democracy. I, personally, am in favour of the death penalty - as, in a time of revolution, many factions will try and destroy the workers councils.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+November 01, 2007 11:08 pm--> (Pawn Power @ November 01, 2007 11:08 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 12:11 pm
I'm sure it would depend on how different they were ideologically. For instance, a Fascist would be considered worse than a Marxist,whilst Marxistrs may not even be seen as enemies, unless they tried to gain power.
That is basically unintelligible. What do you mean? [/b]
Anarchists will see Fascists as worse than authoritarian communists, although both have been threats to anarchism before.

[syndicat]

LSR:
The anarchist historian Paul Avrich notes, “the Military-Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Guliai-Pole.”

anarchists (or at least many of them) differentiate a government or self-governance system, from a state. this structure above was not a state.

[LeloucheOfTheBlackBloc]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 01, 2007 04:04 am

the workers revolution in Spain was led by anarchists. the Communists had in mind a revolution, but not a revolution to empower the working class, a revolution to empower a bureaucratic class. that's why they recruited from, and most of their members were from, the middle classes.
That was no revolution. The capitalist state was never dismantled, no small thanks to anarchist fear of what they deem as "state" and "power".

Stop with that "coordinatorist" crap.

I remember in a prior thread you called the Russian Revolution a "coordinatorist revolution." I think you're just hatin' cuz they were actually able to overthrow the capitalist class and aid in the development of the world's first proletarian state. Or maybe you're not being a hater, either way you're wrong.
Did you just tell me that the USSR was a proletarian state? Man you just broke the goofy meter.