Are you for or against the liberation of the proletariat?

[FireFry]

See, most communists are for the abolishment of the class apparatus of repression, at the least. However, what most of them fail to do is to completely smash the state apparatus of repression. And they claim, repeatedly, through the state-party propaganda, that they are protecting the proletariat from repression of the capitalist class. But is this true?

Sort of, it is true, except for the element that the state merely exists as a centralised economy. With the only difference being that the economy is less free, but there is still a ruling party-cadre that owns and runs everything.

Basically, this form of communism fails to acheive its objectives. It becomes corrupt and envious of other capitalist states within it's highest ranks and completely disintegrates. If they had spread revolution, as lenin posited, then maybe it would have been a success.

But that's not the way things happened.

So, as a communist, do you support a surviellance state? Do you support the liberation of the proletariat from any oppressors? Or just capitalist oppressors? Do you support a secret police force? Communists today are mostly failures in exporting revolution, turning off anybody who might closely be interested in communism through their elitist party tactics.

I'm not saying that everybody who wants to become a communist should read the whole collection of writings from Marx or Engels, only the super-intellectuals have time and the mental endurance to read that much boring old shit. But somebody has to read it before anybody talks about it, and I guess that's us.

At any rate, communists should not only be for the overthrow of their capitalist corporate overlord bosses and CEOs and the entire capitalist system, but should be for the liberation of the proletariat. The modern working class.

Lenin was a failure because he died and posited the idea of a vanguard party, the Paris Commune was a failure because they were never class conscious enough to completely understand their objectives as the proletariat, modern revolutions throughout Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia and South America because they simply weren't communist, they were counter-imperialist, under a communist banner to woo the sympathies of the poor.

Communism is only hypothetical at this point, and the best we can do is to deject our communist parties and converse with the working class, to make the idea of a popular communist revolution a feasible future.

So, are you for the liberation of the proletariat? Or are you against it?

[spartan]

Thank God someone posted something like this.

You actually raise an intresting question here.

Though for me it is easy to answer as i want the Proletariat to be liberated not only from Capitalism but also from other forms of oppression such as centralism and hierarchies.

History has shown us time and time again that Bureaucracies, parties and vanguards simply develop into a new form of ruling class elite who are actually more oppressive than the Bourgeoisie when someone threatens their power.

The Stalinist Bureaucracies were more like an Oligarchic caste than a seperate class from the workers.

They owned and controlled all productive forces in society whilst they went about saying good things about the workers but this was simply a case of Socialist in words, State Capitalist in actions.

[jake williams]

Short answer yes, long answer no. Or maybe it's the other way around.

Truth is I'm kind of conflicted. Obviously it's meaningless to replace one capitalist class with new state-capitalist class. But the question of "full liberation" is an important one.

The best answer I can give without three good thread-pages and a million self-contradictions is to say that there should be decentralized democratic regulation of the whole of society, albeit not necessarily "equal votes for all individuals", with the power laying in the hands of the "workers" simply because in this society the workers would be society, it would be basically meaningless to distinguish between workers and anyone else, you know, classless-stateless and all that.

I'm not going to lie though - I've seriously considered the possibility of/possibility of necessity of a global environmentalist dictatorship, if things don't buck up soon.

[Kitskits]

Everything in this thread is wrong. Communists ask for a socialist state in the period after the revolution that will realize the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' until class struggle is won and the bourgeoisie disappears. Then all communists agree that the state should 'wither away'.

If you don't want the dictatorship of the proletariat period and want to abolish the state immediately, even if the bourgeoisie still exists you are not a communist, you are an anarchist.

If you want the dictatorship of the proletariat period and don't say in the future you want the 'withering away of the state' you are not a communist, you are a socialist.

Communists, socialists, anarchists. Three different terms. Don't confuse.

[FireFry]

Everything in this thread is wrong.

*... a lot of leninist garbage here ...*

Communists, socialists, anarchists. Three different terms. Don't confuse.

Communism, in its most original form, is entirely hypothetical. Anarchy can only exist with communism, communism can only exist with political anarchy. That is it.

[FireFry]

Also, by "dictatorship of the proletariat", do you imply "dictatorship over the proletariat" or dictatorship for the proletariat", either way, it's bullshit. You could say that capitalism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" because of the fundamental way that the proletariat are repressed, yet somehow, their interests are always reflected in the houses of congress and parliament throughout nations in modern capitalism countries.

Huh, sounds alot like the soviet union in the latter half of this century, wait, oh shi-!! Better watch out, the leninists might find me and line me up and shoot me for being a counter-revolutionary.

[kromando33]

Communism, in its most original form, is entirely hypothetical. Anarchy can only exist with communism, communism can only exist with political anarchy. That is it.
Your ignoring Marx's theory of an economic transition phase of proletarianization of the means of production (socialism), Marx thoerized that only a working class transition to classness would work, because the proletariat is the only progressive revolutionary class, all other classes want to make time go backward and induce some previous material conditions, for anarchists it's a primitive form of agrarianism subsistenceism, going 'back to the forests', for the middle-lower classes it's going back to a religious-communal medieval/feudal stage, when family and nation meant everything. The bourgeoisization of the means of production means that 'internationalization' is inevitably because the bourgeois as Marx said 'must makes ties everywhere' in the world in order to feed the market with more human capital by pulling peasants off the land and into the cities. Marx also said that his 'proletarianization', making a universal urban industrial class (proletariat) would mean the divisions between the 'old classes' from feudalism (knights, aristocracy, serfs, peasants etc) would be replaced by a '2 camp' paradigm of proletariat vs bourgeois, making the class antagonisms more straight forward, more direct and more intense.

Marx observed that capitalism and communism are the only progressive means of production, the only modern ones, the only ones that harness the true power of the social forces of human production. But Marx said that communism was the only fair and just of these two, the other brutally exploited in order to produce.

[FireFry]

Blah blah blah.... class antagonism... blah blah ... Marx is a saint ... blah blah ... nothing marx says could ever be wrong because marx was a saint.. blah blah blah... marx first hypothesized communism... blah blah blah... any communist state would diefy marx... blah blah blah....


...

agrarianism subsistenceism, going 'back to the forests',

That's total bullshit, only loony anarchists like Abby Hoffman believe that fantastical Snow White crap.

I don't agree that socialism is neccesary for a communist revolution, it's helpful, but not neccesary. If they were conscious enough, at any point in the last 200 years, the proletariat could have overthrown their capitalist and fuedal oppressors. But they didn't. It took development and legal restructuring before that type of thing can happen.

Communism requires, at any rate, a period of socialism (for America this was between the '30s and up to '79) then a decline in the conditions of the proletariat ('80 to present). So that the proletariat have the taste of the good life before they have it taken back from them and before they are totally disenfranchised in our political structure. When the disenfranchisement turns to open communist revolt, we will see communism, probably within the next 50 years as social security fails and as states leave the union. The more conservative states will do it officially and have their own private capitalist states (Georgia, South Carolina, etc..). The more liberal advanced states (Michigan, Washington, etc..) will probably unofficially leave the union through direct overthrow of the state apparatus and will probably some time of communist union.

Socialism is a class society, communism isn't. That is the difference, what one is required for a class-less society? I think you know the answer.

[Marsella]

I support the self-liberation of the proletariat, which of course is the only liberation.


Communism requires, at any rate, a period of socialism (for America this was between the '30s and up to '79) then a decline in the conditions of the proletariat ('80 to present).

With respect, you're talking out of your ass there. :confused:

[Faux Real]

FF, when communists say DotP, they usually mean the proletariat as a class dictate over the bourgeoisie. Not a dysotpic, bureaucratic heirarchy of a one-man or one-party dictatorship.

I support the self-liberation of the proletariat, which of course is the only liberation.

Communism requires, at any rate, a period of socialism (for America this was between the '30s and up to '79) then a decline in the conditions of the proletariat ('80 to present).With respect, you're talking out of your ass there. :confused:
Oh shit, I want my socialism back!

[kromando33]

FireFly, you can think whatever you like, but what I said is straight from the Communist Manifesto and Marxist theory in Das Kapital, you don't have to agree with that but don't pretend your a Marxist or anything, your nothing but another reactionary. Your nothing but an anti-Marxist you revise and repudiate everything Marx said for your own politically opportunistic reasons.

' I don't agree that socialism is neccesary for a communist revolution, it's helpful, but not neccesary.'

That comment pretty much says it all, plus your angry signature. You can't even classify yourself as a socialist really, I mean seriously here is what you think:

1. The liberal bourgeois American period of the 60's and 70's was 'socialist' even though the means of production then were controlled by the bourgeois, that's a fact.

2. Liberal bourgeois states like Michigan, Washington are 'more socialist' when in fact the relations are production are still in private hands.

I think your views speak for themselves FireFly, they are massively revisionist and not even remotely Marxist. You support bourgeois liberal regimes even though you think they are 'progressive' when in fact they are controlled by the bourgeois. I think you epitomize the confused liberal with naive ultra-idealistic silly 'anti-authoritarianism'.

Please FireFly, keep conforming to the wishes of your bourgeois master.

Seriously people, why is every no-good n00b with his dog on this forum content to make up their own version of 'Socialism' to conform with their ego and ignorant and limited view of the world. Seriously we are getting an influx of know-it-all 13-yr old 'socialists' (in fact angry self-righteous liberals) who have never read Marx and think they understand the sum of all human knowledge and that their own silly idealistic 'anti-authoritarianism' hasn't be debunked so many times in the past it's not funny.

Seriously guys, we need a 'silly Hegelian-idealist liberal' filter for this board, or at least a test to see that people have at least read the Manifesto. No more wiki education bourgeois apologists.

[manic expression]

I don't agree that socialism is neccesary for a communist revolution, it's helpful, but not neccesary. If they were conscious enough, at any point in the last 200 years, the proletariat could have overthrown their capitalist and fuedal oppressors. But they didn't. It took development and legal restructuring before that type of thing can happen.

The reason it didn't happen in the last 200 years is because all efforts have largely been suppressed by the bourgeoisie. That's about it. Your explanations border on the mythical, when the world was already ready for socialism in the 20's.


Communism requires, at any rate, a period of socialism (for America this was between the '30s and up to '79) then a decline in the conditions of the proletariat ('80 to present). So that the proletariat have the taste of the good life before they have it taken back from them and before they are totally disenfranchised in our political structure.

Your analysis is painfully incorrect. There was no socialism in America. There were liberal reforms which preserved capitalist social relations and the market; the working class never destroyed these institutions. Thus, there was no socialism. Period.


When the disenfranchisement turns to open communist revolt, we will see communism, probably within the next 50 years as social security fails and as states leave the union. The more conservative states will do it officially and have their own private capitalist states (Georgia, South Carolina, etc..). The more liberal advanced states (Michigan, Washington, etc..) will probably unofficially leave the union through direct overthrow of the state apparatus and will probably some time of communist union.

Put away the tarot cards and your crystal ball and concentrate on the present. Cursory predictions get us nowhere.


Socialism is a class society, communism isn't. That is the difference, what one is required for a class-less society? I think you know the answer.

For communism to develop, the working class must defeat the bourgeoisie and establish socialism. You can't abolish the state by clicking your heels three times, you do it by ending class distinctions gradually. For this, socialism is needed.

[Kitskits]

The thread starter's eagerness to flame, the fully surreal analysis, the zero knowledge on the definitions of socialism and communism that I volunteered to explain in my post, show that this thread is garbage.

Trying to debate you is like dropping LSD and trying to explain with logic the train of thought that Salvador Dali made when he painted his most bizarre painting.

Seriously, go study something, you are food for the most authoritarians to start blaming your lack of knowledge to you being an anarchist, you discredit anarchy.

[kromando33]

It seems that FireFly has fled, I still want him to prove that 'America was socialist from 1930 to 1970', lol...

[Coggeh]

Socialism is a class society, communism isn't. That is the difference, what one is required for a class-less society? I think you know the answer.

My friend , here you are making a very common mistake , socialism is never an end goal , if thats the case it will just subvert and then return to capitalism .

Socialism is a transitional phase led by the vanguard as a step towards communism .

Your reference to America being socialist is a not so common mistake .That was symbolic to the gains and losses of capitalism , that represents that fact that you can make little gains here and there but will taken back by the bourgeoisie sooner or later .

Which basically has sweet fuck all to do with socialism in all honesty:confused: ... But this is the learning forum i suppose . :p

[Coggeh]

FireFly, you can think whatever you like, but what I said is straight from the Communist Manifesto and Marxist theory in Das Kapital, you don't have to agree with that but don't pretend your a Marxist or anything, your nothing but another reactionary. Your nothing but an anti-Marxist you revise and repudiate everything Marx said for your own politically opportunistic reasons.

' I don't agree that socialism is neccesary for a communist revolution, it's helpful, but not neccesary.'

That comment pretty much says it all, plus your angry signature.
Maybe he's just an anarchist ? :p

[Dros]

If you don't want the dictatorship of the proletariat period and want to abolish the state immediately, even if the bourgeoisie still exists you are not a communist, you are an anarchist.

And if you are an anarchist, you are wrong.:)

[Dros]

Also, by "dictatorship of the proletariat", do you imply "dictatorship over the proletariat" or dictatorship for the proletariat", either way, it's bullshit. You could say that capitalism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" because of the fundamental way that the proletariat are repressed, yet somehow, their interests are always reflected in the houses of congress and parliament throughout nations in modern capitalism countries.

No. We mean "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Not "for" or "over". It's very clear. We currently live in a Bourgeoisie dictatorship. The Communists seek to set up a state (although a temporary one) that is run by the proletariat in order to achieve total liberation and emancipate the masses by achieving Communism.

And NO!!! The interests of the Proletariat are NOT represented by Parliament! Just no!


Huh, sounds alot like the soviet union in the latter half of this century, wait, oh shi-!! Better watch out, the leninists might find me and line me up and shoot me for being a counter-revolutionary.

Hahahahahaha. You're an idiot.:) No Leninist gives a flying fuck what you say about Krushchev and his lot.

[Kitskits]

And if you are an anarchist, you are wrong.:)

In our opinion as leninists, yes :p. But I respect true anarchists even if I don't agree with them.

However, after the revolution we and them will probably fight to death :eek:

[Cryotank Screams]

You could say that capitalism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat"

No you fucking can't. Capitalism is the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois' which is where the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' came from due to Marxist interpretation of the 'state'. Your problem is that you think that 'hyper-states' like the former USSR, China and so forth equal and are a legitimate model/example of a Socialist transitional state-which they're not. Not before, not now, not ever.

[Ol' Dirty]

I support the liberation of everyone, with no exceptions. The reason I support a revolution of the 'proletariat' is the destruction of the class system entirely. The only people that have that kind of power are workers, the proletariat. The revolution against the bourgoisie is a means to an end, not the end itself.

[Dros]

I respect true anarchists even if I don't agree with them.

I respect true anarchists. The problem is, I find that most anarchists now'a'days are rich little white kids who want to act radical and play revolutionary. They are not serious. But I will respect true anarchists up until the day when we have to start fighting each other:D.

[spartan]

And NO!!! The interests of the Proletariat are NOT represented by Parliament! Just no!

So as a Leninist what makes you think that the Proletarians intrests are best represented and served by an unelected Bureaucracy and party?

[Luís Henrique]

I respect true anarchists. The problem is, I find that most anarchists now'a'days are rich little white kids who want to act radical and play revolutionary. They are not serious..

Yeah, but the same is true of most Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, as well. And probably is true of most Stalinists even more.

Luís Henrique

[Psy]

So as a Leninist what makes you think that the Proletarians intrests are best represented and served by an unelected Bureaucracy and party?
Lenin and Trotsky was a result of the failures of the Paris Commune, the 1905 Russian revolution and the initial events in Russia in 1917 (read "October to Brest-Litovsk" By Leon D. Trotsky for some in-site of what they were thinking).

They thought it was more in the interest of the interest of people to defend the revolution then lose the revolution to endless bickering like in the Paris Commune.

[supernaltempest]

I support the self-liberation of the proletariat. There shall be no transitional workers' state. It might be useful but hardly necessary.

[spartan]

I support the self-liberation of the proletariat. There shall be no transitional workers' state. It might be useful but hardly necessary.

Especially when you consider the form that most self described "transitional workers states" have taken so far.

[Psy]

Especially when you consider the form that most self described "transitional workers states" have taken so far.
Well if you look at pre-stalin Russia the Bolsheviks were able to defend the revolution militarily against improbable odds, if the German revolution had been one successful instead of many failed revolutions then the actions of the Bolsheviks would have been justified as Russia would have lasted long enough to join up with revolutions in the west.

[Kitskits]

I support the self-liberation of the proletariat. There shall be no transitional workers' state. It might be useful but hardly necessary.

And how will the proletariat be liberated then? If there is no state to suppress the remaining bourgeoisie?

They will use magic that will launch the bourgeoisie to the universe with telekinesis?

[coda]

Good posts, Firefly!!

The proletariat will suppress the bourgeoisie---- By sheer numbers and taking away their means of being bourgeoisie.

[Dros]

Good posts, Firefly!!

The proletariat will suppress the bourgeoisie---- By sheer numbers and taking away their means of being bourgeoisie.

Yeah right. In case you didn't notice, the Bourgeoisie are freakin' rich and control a shit ton of things and will continue to do so without a state! And who will prevent other states from invading and either reestablishing the national bourgeoisie or colonizing?

[coda]

<<Yeah right. In case you didn't notice, the Bourgeoisie are freakin' rich and control a shit ton of things and will continue to do so without a state! And who will prevent other states from invading and either reestablishing the national bourgeoisie or colonizing?>>

isn't that the purpose of revolution to disarm and deflate the Bourgeoisie. the bourgeoisie won't be rich after revolution and after the mean of production and resources are seized. The state's purpose, if you don't happen to know, is to protect the Bourgeois interests at all costs. The state will be crushed by the proletariat during revolution and will never be needed again.

[Dros]

Yeah, but the same is true of most Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, as well. And probably is true of most Stalinists even more.

Luís Henrique

I don't think so. I haven't noticed any Maoist tee-shirts being worn by adolescents. I do see a lot of black tee-shirts with big anarchist symbols on them. I asked this kid if he knew what it meant. He didn't. Said it was just a "fashion statement" or whatever...


So as a Leninist what makes you think that the Proletarians intrests are best represented and served by an unelected Bureaucracy and party?

There will be elections in Socialist society both within and outside the party. In fact, socialism will be a radically more democratic state and a radically more ideologically diverse state then the Dictatorship of the Bougeoisie. The Vanguard is necessary to resolve the contradiction between the interests of the Proletariat as a class (and humanity as a whole) and the reactionary/backwards nature of the masses of people. For a more thorough answere to your question, I suggest you read What is to be Done by V.I. Lenin.

[kromando33]

Oh god, the damn bureaucracy myth again, the myth that a pretty small and underfunded administration wing of the public service under Stalin, mostly concerned with paperwork, controlled the entire Union, omg pen-pushers of the world, unite!

I love a good Trotskyist conspiracy theory for a laugh.

[Dros]

isn't that the purpose of revolution to disarm and deflate the Bourgeoisie. the bourgeoisie won't be rich after revolution and after the mean of production and resources are seized. The state's purpose, if you don't happen to know, is to protect the Bourgeois interests at all costs. The state will be crushed by the proletariat during revolution and will never be needed again.

That is the purpose of the Bourgeois state, not the only purpose a state can serve. So let's say you have your revolution and the Bourgeoisie are crushed. But some of them leave with their capital. And then they come back. Your still dead. Let's say you manage to prevent that. Imperialists come in, kill your revolution and you're still dead. Let's say you decide to have a simultaneous global revolution (which is totally impossible). Then, you've removed the state and the entirety of the Bourgeoisie. Great! Except you haven't transformed the ideology of the people. People still think capitalist. People want more for there goods. A market economy develops. A new Bourgeoisie develop. You're still skrewed. Let's say you manage to convince everyone after this global revolution to become good socialists over night. But you didn't get rid of religion. They still hate gays and forbid abortion. Firstly, you ain't liberated shit and secondly, they're going to return to hierarchy and eventually capitalism. If you are serious about having a revolution, the state is a necessary evil. Welcome to reality people! You can't wish social transformation into existance! Something needs to be there to actually do it!

[coda]

That's nonsense! look everything you talk about here can also be handled in the same regard as an anarchist society. The anarchist society will defend itself in the same means and with the same weapons that the old state left behind. Without a state abortions will be free and accessible.. who will stop them? religious institutions, hierarchy and market economies as well as money will not exist having been abolished along with capitalism and the State. in what way do you think the state can transform the "ideology of the people" that anarchism cannot do in the same respect? (Answer: ever hear of class consciousness? information & education, ).. otherwise, if you really think that as a State you can micro-manage people's thoughts----- then even more reason why the state should be slaughtered.

[kromando33]

Wow more anarchist 'we will create heaven overnight' nonsense, and that's why anarchism fails, because it fails to realize that bourgeois society at this time is highly reactionary, so with those reactionary tendencies even if the anarchists abolish everything you mentioned, the next day the reactionary bourgeois will simply remake these institutions. Socialism is about a transition period (class struggle) so that classes can be destroyed in a praxis(process) of class struggle in society.

The anarcho-liberal rejection of socialism is the rejection of class struggle and Marxist theory itself. It's that kinda anarchist 'we will magically create utopia overnight' that robs the revolutionary working class of power.

We are not for your 'radical democracies', 'primitive communalism', 'anarchism' or whatever, we are for the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat is the only progressive revolutionary class, all 'anarchism', 'democracy' or whatever come from either the lumpenproletariat (anarchist social scum), middle-lowers classes, all reactionary as Marx says. We are not turning to clock back to some primitive 'anarchist' form of 'communism' that exist in tribal years, we are progressive and we foward with the times, and the times is taking us to the empowerment of a industrial urban socialist society - the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We never look back, only forward.

[Axel1917]

Wow more anarchist 'we will create heaven overnight' nonsense, and that's why anarchism fails, because it fails to realize that bourgeois society at this time is highly reactionary, so with those reactionary tendencies even if the anarchists abolish everything you mentioned, the next day the reactionary bourgeois will simply remake these institutions. Socialism is about a transition period (class struggle) so that classes can be destroyed in a praxis(process) of class struggle in society.

The anarcho-liberal rejection of socialism is the rejection of class struggle and Marxist theory itself. It's that kinda anarchist 'we will magically create utopia overnight' that robs the revolutionary working class of power.

We are not for your 'radical democracies', 'primitive communalism', 'anarchism' or whatever, we are for the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat is the only progressive revolutionary class, all 'anarchism', 'democracy' or whatever come from either the lumpenproletariat (anarchist social scum), middle-lowers classes, all reactionary as Marx says. We are not turning to clock back to some primitive 'anarchist' form of 'communism' that exist in tribal years, we are progressive and we foward with the times, and the times is taking us to the empowerment of a industrial urban socialist society - the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We never look back, only forward.

I think anarchism ultimately fails to realize that the purpose of a state is to be an instrument for one class to defend its interests against others, and since classes still exist after the bourgeois dictatorship is overthrown, the proletariat needs its own state to protect its interests from the bourgeoisie, who will have international capital as aid, and as history has shown, will violently try to take their privilege back, privilege that they thought would last forever.

Just look at the way the USSR was attacked by nearly two dozen foreign armies. If it were not for a democratic proletarian state defending the interests of the working class, Soviet power would have fallen very quickly.

[coda]

it will go down the same way, buddy.. Don't kid yourself. It will take the same amount of time, the same amount of effort. who the fuck said anything about overnight? and who the fuck said anything about primitivism?

Sorry if you can't fathom the concept of not having a state. apparently it requires a couple more brain cells than you have.

[kromando33]

It's not about you not wanting a 'state', it's about you not wanting a proletarian state as a necessary economic transition to communism(life in common), the conclusion Marx made is that socialized relations of production breeds socialized relations in life, so that socialism builds communism.

Apparently it's you with the lack of brain cells if you can't comprehend the fact that your 'stateless' regime wouldn't last a week without the apparatus of the state (controlled by the proletarian) to repress the inevitable counter-revolution of the bourgeois. We want our proletarian revolution to last, not to be repressed like the Paris Commune etc and other anarchist-like regimes.

Anarchism is fascism, it's fascist because it thinks that everyone would willingly support their 'equal' society and not resist, in fact this kinda rhetoric is very similar to the 'class collaborationism' of fascism, that the interests of both the bourgeois and proletarians can be reconciled. How do anarchists pose to stop counter-revolution and reaction? Because as Marx says no class has ever given up their state willingly and without the use of force.

Anarchism has a 'truce' with the bourgeois in theory, it wouldn't actively repress them and wouldn't make them become proletarians, this individualist conception of 'rights' would in practise be a 'green light' from the anarchists to the bourgeois to repress the proletariat and establish their own state within a state.

Question, anarchists overthrow the state etc, but the next day the bourgeois establish their own state and use force to repress the proletariat, what can the anarchists do? They can either A) ignore it and comprimise on their support for the proletariat, or B) comprimise on their anarchist principles and use force to disband the bourgeois state.

Anarchism is completely incompatible with proletarian socialism because it will not harm the bourgeois or engage in class struggle because of it's belief in 'equality' (in reality fascist forced class 'collaboration').

[coda]

Your main error is that you think I am not familiar with marx, while in actuality I have been reading marx for as long as you are old! the real problem here is that you don't have any real concept of anarchism and how it would work and you are expecting that your ignorance misfired arrogance will be accomodated.

you better go re-read marx,specifically the 18th Brumaire and the Critique of the Gotha programme, because as far as the state is concerned you are confusing him with Lenin.

what marx said about socialized production was that there would be a rapid development in production that would transcend the former Capitalist productive outputs and thus create conditions for surplus production forces that would create abundance and then would make way to the higher state of Communism i.e. each according to their ability, each to their need, and lastly the withering away of the state, (by which he meant the dictatorship of the proletariat.) The State referred to by Marx is not an executive office, with a president, etc.

OOOPS!!! what is that i hear? TICK... TICK.. TICK... TICK . I'll give you a clue ---it's not a bomb.

[kromando33]

You haven't answered the fundamental question of what anarchy in definition is, and have avoided my point that without the state apparatus to protect the proletarian state after the revolution, it would be easily overthrown by the bourgeois. You essentially answered nothing in my post.

[coda]

you're gonna have to read up on anarchism yourself for a good definition. it's late.. 4:25 am. here.

This much i will give you: the proletarians don't need a state apparatus to protect the proletariat state. they will have the former state's weapon's, both nuclear and military, having gained them through a brutal bloody class war along with all the other state spoils. the ruling class will be literally put under arrest, along with the rest of bourgeoise who don't immediately surrender and expropriate their assets.

[kromando33]

you're gonna have to read up on anarchism yourself for a good definition. it's late.. 4:25 am. here.

This much i will give you: the proletarians don't need a state apparatus to protect the proletariat state. they will have the former state's weapon's, both nuclear and military, having gained them through a brutal bloody class war along with all the other state spoils. the ruling class will be literally put under arrest, along with the rest of bourgeoise who don't immediately surrender and expropriate their assets.
Your not making sense, you talk about weapons etc, but that will only help in the case of a direct bourgeois uprising or foreign invasion, which is pretty rare these days, and even so the apparatus of the state will be needed to coordinate military units in order to combat those of bourgeois states. Without a coordination of said military assets, the proletarian state would easily be crushed. Also, 'put the entire ruling class under arrest', I think this spoils your argument of me as an authoritarian, although I support active repression etc of any bourgeois who tries counter-revolutionary activities etc. And again your say 'under arrest' but don't you anarchists want to go way with the state (and thus the police force), what body and under what authority would you arrest the bourgeois, and who would run the prisons that house them? (not the state I assume).

And class struggle doesn't end when the revolution is over and the bourgeois expropriated, Marx is pretty right in his analysis that no class has given up power without bloodshed, but even after their overthrow they will organize to infiltrate the movement and bring about capitalist restoration. I can tell you right now that the Whites would have taken over Russian in the civil war if the Reds didn't have a good organizational structure.


I support the self-liberation of the proletariat. There shall be no transitional workers' state. It might be useful but hardly necessary.
'Self-liberation' sounds alot to me like individualism.

[coda]

<<Your not making sense, you talk about weapons etc, but that will only help in the case of a direct bourgeois uprising or foreign invasion, which is pretty rare these daysYour not making sense, you talk about weapons etc, but that will only help in the case of a direct bourgeois uprising or foreign invasion, which is pretty rare these days>>

No, YOU are not making sense.. you explicitely asked what would happen "without the state apparatus to protect the proletarian state after the revolution, it would be easily overthrown by the bourgeois." (cut and pasted quotation)

I gave you an answer.

in my theory, they will have a hard time being able to regroup because they won't have the means to regroup with. They may have the inclination, but they will be stripped of all vestiges of the means to do it. Power and resources and every thing that counts will be in the hands of the Proletarians and the Bourgeois and ruling class will be powerless. That too, my friend, will be how it will happen under a Marxist revolution, a Leninist revolution, a Trot revolution. The power will be with the proles.

I am done here. it matters not to me whether you think it can be done or not. I do know the anarchists get plenty of action coming up against the State and it's Police forces on a regular basis. The Communists are busy endorsing the democrats in Bougeoise elections.