Anarchism Vs. Marxism...Is it really necessary?

[ArabRASH]

Why do alot of people here waste their time about whether anarchism or marxism is the right way to go? Is it REALLY worth the effort to argue with a fellow leftist? Don't we both agree on over throwing the capitalist machine?
Some people go as far as dissing the other. What are you people trying to accomplish? Instead of arguing with each other, argue with the REAL enemy, cause the only people that benefit with disagreements in the revolutionary left is the capitalists.

If i'm missing something please let me know.

[elijahcraignumbatwo]

In theory, this argument is REAL and has been demonstrated throughout history (explicitly, as I recall, by Lenin's little "tiff" with Berkman and Goldman); that is: it is an obvious difference whether one overthrows a state and sets up an interim socialist state, or wheter one does not. The first of which is, in my yay yay yay opinion, is practical and operable in the real world; the second of which is not. Simple as that.

I think both sides (and any other) should, obviously, come together as anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, etc. But this point is extraordinarly important, and should be held in mind.

(Why not? You recall that 2+2=4, do you not?)

[apathy maybe]

I remember you. You should have chosen a better name, else you are likely to get banned again. Oh well, hopefully you don't spam, troll and whatever else you did last time, and you might not get the boot.


As to the topic, Marxism is an attempt at looking at history, economics and so on. Anarchism is a super-set of ideologies that oppose hierarchy and oppression.

They are two different things. There are anarchists that agree with Marxian class analysis, and Marxists that agree with anarchist arguments about the oppressive nature of the state.

Of course, when people talk about Marxism, much of the time they are talking about Leninism, which is incompatible with anarchism.

[Holden Caulfield]

i think that anarachism is merely the highest form of the "marxist" theory of class progression,
i think that a party is needed to take hold of and colsolidate the rule of the workers, and to deal with any problems left over from the old system, then and only when true a marxist (in the way that Trotsky states not in the way the bolsheviks acted) system is in place should anarchism be implemented to remove the system when it is no longer needed or when it enevitably becomes corrupt be that in 50 or 200 years down the line

[Dros]

Having a correct line and a correct method is crucially important. After the revolution, are we going to have a socialist state? This is NOT A SMALL ISSUE!

In my opinion, anarchism is naive and idealistic on this issue. So I will argue with anarchists and we will struggle through different orginizations. BUT we will cooperate on issues like Capitalism, Imperialism, and Fascism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Why do alot of people here waste their time about whether anarchism or marxism is the right way to go?

Because they're stupid


Is it REALLY worth the effort to argue with a fellow leftist?

No


Don't we both agree on over throwing the capitalist machine?

yes


Having a correct line and a correct method is crucially important. After the revolution, are we going to have a socialist state? This is NOT A SMALL ISSUE!

so instead of united on a set of central revolutionary principles, instead we split up into factions of three or four so that a point at which where this question actually matters will never come about??

Anyway the point is to have as little of one as material conditions allow. Which theory is better suited, having a strong socialist state or going straight to communism all depends on what the material conditions are after the revolution so why should we be buggin about it now"??




If i'm missing something please let me know.

you're not

[gilhyle]

Unfortunately, I think the debate is fundamental. Anarchists were kicked out of/left the first two Internationals and events in the twentieth century show (particularly Spain) anarchism as a very unclear and unstable ideology which tends to succumb to backing bourgeois liberalism or to walking off the pitch (wishing they could take the ball with them, but since no one will ever pass to them that doesnt happen).

Revolutionary politics asks people to risk life limb and family for a better world. The sacrifices it asks are enormous. Revolutionary politics needs to be objective and methodical in its pursuit of the revolutionary state to justify that. Anarchists just cant do that from within anarchist organisations (there has really only been one exception to this - one small anarchist organisation within the spanish revolution).

Anarchists can be some of the best militants and should always be welcome in times of political crisis into the revolutionary party. If they work under discipline for the immediate goal, questions of ideology can wait. But anarchists organisations are seedbeds of moralising criticism and bourgeois
ideologies. Unfortunately, they cant be trusted.

[coda]

they can't be trusted?! Anarchists have always stuck with the workers, the oppressed and downtrodden. The other ideologies have always abandoned the workers and oppressed and at every turn created elitist escape routes for themselves.

[Colonello Buendia]

Anarchists were much better organised than one might think. many Anarchist liberated villages formed communes which worked fantastically but which were destroyed by the Stalinists. The anarchists have always defended the workers. the Anarchism Vs Marxism debate is ridiculous we all want to bring down the capitalists so we should get on with that and we can sort out the differences later.

[Bilan]

In my opinion, anarchism is naive and idealistic on this issue.

That's because you, like many M-L's on this board, haven't got a clue on what it is, or what it means (Resorting to pathetic arguments like its "bourgeois", or "individualism", both of which have no basis in reality).

Please view Ismail on anarchism, (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mrdie-anarchism-anarchists-t69801/index6.html) I provided some useful links on what anarchism is, what it aims to achieve etc, written by anarchists themselves, rather than incorrect, and certainly outdated critiques.

As to the initial question,


Why do alot of people here waste their time about whether anarchism or marxism is the right way to go?well, because that's the idea of this board, to discuss, and argue for and against ideas.
In practice, this is certainly an issue which, in certain circumstances, can and needs to be over looked.


Don't we both agree on over throwing the capitalist machine?Indeed, but what do we want after?

[Herman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArabRASH http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1070492#post1070492)
Why do alot of people here waste their time about whether anarchism or marxism is the right way to go?

Because they're stupid

Quote:
Is it REALLY worth the effort to argue with a fellow leftist?
No

Quote:
Don't we both agree on over throwing the capitalist machine?
yes

Quote:
Having a correct line and a correct method is crucially important. After the revolution, are we going to have a socialist state? This is NOT A SMALL ISSUE!
so instead of united on a set of central revolutionary principles, instead we split up into factions of three or four so that a point at which where this question actually matters will never come about??

Anyway the point is to have as little of one as material conditions allow. Which theory is better suited, having a strong socialist state or going straight to communism all depends on what the material conditions are after the revolution so why should we be buggin about it now"??



Quote:
If i'm missing something please let me know.
you're not

This is pretty much how I see it.

[FireFry]

capitalism can't have it's niche anywhere, because it is too hostile to other communities. Look at Sparta for chrissake's, look at how they treated the Athenians and the Persians, they essentially took them over. Like the old man in Catch-22 said, Italy will always exist no matter who invades it, but the United States will not.

[Holden Caulfield]

the Spartans took over Persia?:rolleyes:

[Herman]

capitalism can't have it's niche anywhere, because it is too hostile to other communities. Look at Sparta for chrissake's, look at how they treated the Athenians and the Persians, they essentially took them over. Like the old man in Catch-22 said, Italy will always exist no matter who invades it, but the United States will not.

What are you talking about????

[ArabRASH]

Look for me I started out as being an anarchist. At first i started out as one of those wannabe little kids drawing A signs everywhere. But that poser-ism caused me to READ UP on actual anarchism. Then i decided i was an actual anarchist. That caused me to read up about other things, other leftist movements, and i ultimately became a marxist and am no longer an anarchist. I'm just saying, eventually we'll all agree. We have common ground moreso than other movements. Let's just join together...arguing about theory is okay, but are the hostile comments really necessary?

[manic expression]

It is a necessary argument, and avoiding it only postpones it. There is common ground, yes, but only on certain issues. When it comes to organization, immediate goals and other central concepts, anarchists and Marxists are very divided.

(By the way ArabRASH, your avatar is great)

[Bilan]

Unfortunately, I think the debate is fundamental. Anarchists were kicked out of/left the first two Internationals and events in the twentieth century show (particularly Spain) anarchism as a very unclear and unstable ideology which tends to succumb to backing bourgeois liberalism or to walking off the pitch (wishing they could take the ball with them, but since no one will ever pass to them that doesn't happen).

Oh ffs! The bullshit never ends with fucking pseudo-Marxists.

First of all, you clearly don't understand why anarchists were kicked out of the first international (Actually, personally, I think Bakunin was a twat anyway), or even the second, (and have naturally missed the crux of what this guy was saying).

Spain did not prove anarchism was unstable.
What a bogus, and misleading analysis!
If you don't understand why anarchism failed in Spain, and blame it on the theory, rather than the conditions surrounding the revolt -such as, I dont know, maybe the rise to power of Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Franco attempting to seize power; not to mention the betrayal of Stalinists to the revolution in Spain - you're just dishonest.

Second of all, bourgeois liberalism? What bullshit. That infuriates me with its utter stupidity.



Anarchists just cant do that from within anarchist organisations (there has really only been one exception to this - one small anarchist organisation within the spanish revolution).

I'm sorry?
Would you please provide some evidence for your bullshit claim.



Anarchists can be some of the best militants and should always be welcome in times of political crisis into the revolutionary party. If they work under discipline for the immediate goal, questions of ideology can wait. But anarchists organisations are seedbeds of moralising criticism and bourgeois
ideologies. Unfortunately, they cant be trusted.

Says a fucking Leninist! Don't even start on betrayal of revolutions.
What's next? Stalinist calling anarchists authoritarian! :lol:

[coda]

<<Says a fucking Leninist! Don't even start on betrayal of revolutions.
What's next? Stalinist calling anarchists authoritarian>>

yeah, they all have selective amnesia when it comes to Lenin and the Russian Revolution collaborating with imperial Germany with the signing off on the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

[Herman]

yeah, they all have selective amnesia when it comes to Lenin and the Russian Revolution collaborating with imperial Germany with the signing off on the Brest-Litovsk treaty.Yes, you'd have preferred that the war continue on, killing more thousands and thousands of soldiers (most of them conscripted during the Tsar's/provisional government time) and eventually losing it, as the infant Soviet Republic did not have the means to defeat Germany in combat.


Unfortunately, I think the debate is fundamental. Anarchists were kicked out of/left the first two Internationals and events in the twentieth century show (particularly Spain) anarchism as a very unclear and unstable ideology which tends to succumb to backing bourgeois liberalism or to walking off the pitch (wishing they could take the ball with them, but since no one will ever pass to them that doesnt happen).

Revolutionary politics asks people to risk life limb and family for a better world. The sacrifices it asks are enormous. Revolutionary politics needs to be objective and methodical in its pursuit of the revolutionary state to justify that. Anarchists just cant do that from within anarchist organisations (there has really only been one exception to this - one small anarchist organisation within the spanish revolution).

Anarchists can be some of the best militants and should always be welcome in times of political crisis into the revolutionary party. If they work under discipline for the immediate goal, questions of ideology can wait. But anarchists organisations are seedbeds of moralising criticism and bourgeois
ideologies. Unfortunately, they cant be trusted.Wow... I have never heard such drivel. Anarchists are as capable as marxists, and in some cases, more so.

[manic expression]

Oh ffs! The bullshit never ends with fucking pseudo-Marxists.

First of all, you clearly don't understand why anarchists were kicked out of the first international (Actually, personally, I think Bakunin was a twat anyway), or even the second, (and have naturally missed the crux of what this guy was saying).

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to us why the anarchist were kicked out of the First International. The fact is that Bakunin was being a childish brat, but there were much deeper differences between the two factions. A split was inevitable.


Spain did not prove anarchism was unstable.This is getting off topic, but I think that it did. The experiences of the Spanish anarchists showed that their model brings nothing but continued capitalist property relations. Their utter incompetence to displace capitalism is not a coincidence, it has everything to do with their theoretical shortcomings IMO.


What a bogus, and misleading analysis!
If you don't understand why anarchism failed in Spain, and blame it on the theory, rather than the conditions surrounding the revolt -such as, I dont know, maybe the rise to power of Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Franco attempting to seize power; not to mention the betrayal of Stalinists to the revolution in Spain - you're just dishonest.Again, off topic, but groups work with the conditions they are given. The Cuban communists overcame multiple attacks from the most powerful imperialist country on earth 90 miles away (and thwarted their interests in Africa and Latin America for good measure), the Russian communists fought off tens of invading armies and defeated the Nazis. What have the anarchists done? I'll let you answer that yourself.


Says a fucking Leninist! Don't even start on betrayal of revolutions.
What's next? Stalinist calling anarchists authoritarian! :lol:What, exactly, are you trying to say? Leninists "betray" revolutions? Leninists MAKE revolutions, and anarchists oppose them for inexplicable reasons.

solidarity forever

yeah, they all have selective amnesia when it comes to Lenin and the Russian Revolution collaborating with imperial Germany with the signing off on the Brest-Litovsk treaty.Crack open a history book once in awhile. Lenin was more than adamant that he would end Russian involvement in World War I, and thus Imperial Germany gave him the opportunity to do so. Not taking Russia out of the war only fit the interests of the French, British and American capitalists; anarchists, in their eternal confusion, miss this fact. Lenin made a working class revolution in Russia and inspired the workers of all countries in the process, while anarchists oppose these achievements. If you ask me, anarchists are concerned with enjoying the innocence inherent in impotence.

[coda]

Just pointing out the usual outrageous hypocrisy.

1.) So, let's see... It's a-okay that the Russian Revolution negotiated with the Germans, ceded vast amounts of land, and betrayed a great number of it's working class by doing so, but as for the Spanish anarchists; the CNT, ALONG with the Communists / other left revolutionaries participating with the Republican government-- whom the Soviet's supported.--- that shows failure of anarchist theory-to-practice.

2.) So, the infant Soviet State couldn’t fend off the Germans, as “they didn’t have the means to defeat Germany in combat” but were strong enough to continually crush and kill their own worker’s collectives when the workers attempted to resist suppression and Bolshevik party consolidation, but the CNT, rank and file trade unionists had the means to defeat the Fascists and Republican’s in combat -- and all by themselves?


<<Crack open a history book once in awhile. Lenin was more than adamant that he would end Russian involvement in World War I, and thus Imperial Germany gave him the opportunity to do so. Not taking Russia out of the war only fit the interests of the French, British and American capitalists;>>

3.) Ho. Ho. Ho. That’s the best revisionst gobbely gook I’ve heard yet, manic expression. Why don’t you crack open the truth once in awhile. They bowed out and betrayed their ceded worker’s and their ceded land because they would have been German’s pit and shit stop if they hadn’t.

[manic expression]

Just pointing out the usual outrageous hypocrisy.

You succeeded in showing your misconceptions.


1.) So, let's see... It's a-okay that the Russian Revolution negotiated with the Germans, ceded vast amounts of land, and betrayed a great number of it's working class by doing so, but as for the Spanish anarchists; the CNT, ALONG with the Communists / other left revolutionaries getting absorbed into the Republican army, whom the Soviet's supported.--- that shows failure of anarchist theory-to-practice.

It was completely necessary at the time to cede that land. The alternative was losing the land anyway, getting a lot of people killed in the process and having the revolution fall to the Germans. As it happened, the revolution continued, people's lives were saved, the ceded land was not kept by Germany and Germany almost fell to revolution itself. And yet here you are, badmouthing this accomplishment.

The CNT's faults were not in getting absorbed, but in refusing to target capitalist relations when they had the chance. The May Days neutralized the anarchists' policies, and that was extremely light resistance. The impotence of the Spanish anarchists shows failure of anarchist theory AND practice.


2.) So, the infant Soviet State couldn’t fend off the Germans, as “they didn’t have the means to defeat Germany in combat” but were strong enough to continually crush and kill their own worker’s collectives when the workers attempted to resist suppression and Bolshevik party consolidation, but the CNT, rank and file trade unionists had the means to defeat the Fascists and Republican’s in combat -- and all by themselves?

No, the Soviet State could not, because they were fighting the Whites, French, British and American expeditions and other counterrevolutionary forces. The Soviet State did not crush workers' collectives, the Soviet State was formed from workers' collectives. The Soviets practiced worker democracy and established the worker state. The inability of anarchists to grasp these elementary concepts betrays their ignorance.

The CNT hadn't the capacity to do anything significant, apparently, because they didn't. That's the point.


3.) Ho. Ho. Ho. That’s the best revisionst gobbely gook I’ve heard yet, manic expression. Why don’t you crack open the truth once in awhile. They bowed out and betrayed their ceded worker’s and their ceded land because they would have been German’s pit and shit stop if they hadn’t.

Let me just point out that you utterly failed to address a single point I made. Lenin made a working class revolution; that the Germans were willing to facilitate this only shows the contradictions within the existence of the bourgeoisie. Again, staying in the war only helped the fat pocketbooks of the French, British and American capitalists; what was wrong with accepting German aid in making a revolution? And no, they didn't bow out, they did what they had to do to end the bloodshed, make good on their promises to the workers and peasants of Russia and protect the revolution. You, in your infinite naivete, think that the Bolsheviks should have just fought a self-defeating war against a power that was about to collapse anyway. Fortunately for the workers of the world, the Bolsheviks were smart enough to dismiss your ideas as the fallacies that they are.

[coda]

<<The CNT's faults were not in getting absorbed, but in refusing to target capitalist relations when they had the chance. The May Days neutralized the anarchists' policies, and that was extremely light resistance. The impotence of the Spanish anarchists shows failure of anarchist theory AND practice.>>

What a crock of misleading shit!! It had nothing to do with refusing to counter capitalism -- an outright lie, (see links below) but more to do with Stalin arming the Communists [who were aligned with the status quo] to fight against the worker's revolution.

http://www.trivia-library.com/a/attempted-utopias-society-spanish-anarchist-collectives-part-2.htm (http://www.trivia-library.com/a/attempted-utopias-society-spanish-anarchist-collectives-part-2.htm)

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:lG8Dgr-nnJYJ:struggle.ws/ws99/ws56_spain.html+anarchist+collectives+during+spani sh+civil+war&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/spain.html

<<The Soviet State did not crush workers' collectives, the Soviet State was formed from workers' collectives. The Soviets practiced worker democracy and established the worker state. The inability of anarchists to grasp these elementary concepts betrays their ignorance.>>

You are ignorant if you think the Russian Revolution, at any time, was ever a proletarian revolution. You people don't give a fuck about working class revolution.

[manic expression]

What a crock of misleading shit!! It had nothing to do with refusing to counter capitalism -- an outright lie, (see links below) but more to do with Stalin arming the Communists [who were aligned with the status quo] to fight against the worker's revolution.


You can't argue with history. The anarchist organizations did not create socialism, they did not create a worker state, they were unable to displace capitalism. Their collectives were beyond fragile, and their structure was even more brittle.

The communists were not aligned with the status quo, they were a large part of the initial defeat of the right wing. They also provided most of the material and effort against the fascists. When they asked the anarchists to work with the wider cause, they were met with suspicion and resistance, which partially caused the May Days. In the mind of an anarchist, any state is the "status quo", which is at the center of your mistaken ideology.

Your first link is amateur at best. Your second link deals only with the ideal structure of collectives and not with the vast shortcomings of the anarchist effort. Your third link is incredibly biased and anti-historical. You'll have to do better than that.


You are ignorant if you think the Russian Revolution, at any time, was ever a proletarian revolution. You people don't give a fuck about working class revolution.I didn't know anarchists hated "evidence" as much as they hated "authority". The Russian Revolution was a fully proletarian revolution. Why? Power was put directly in the hands of the working class with the establishment of the Soviet state and capitalist social relations were abolished in favor of socialism. The working classes wanted nothing to do with World War I, and so the Bolsheviks, as the vanguard of the working class, ended Russian participation promptly. That's what worker control means. That's what anarchists are plainly incapable of achieving.

[coda]

:reda: Is this good enough for ya--- from Marx.org itself. haha!!! :tt2:


However, following the triumph of fascism in Germany, Stalin and the Spanish Communist Party were more interested in avoiding revolution in Spain than in defeating fascism, so as to appease “democratic imperialism”. As a result, the Soviet Union used its forces to split the revolution, and Franco faced Stalinists, Trotskyists, “Centrists” and Anarchists who were unable to form a United Front

http://www.marx.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm

[manic expression]

Is this good enough for ya--- from Marx.org itself. haha!!!


Good to know you can nitpick. Is it hard to ignore an issue when you don't have an argument or does it just come naturally?

Anyway, the source is fine, and I would agree in some places, but nevertheless it's a cursory analysis at best. Anyone can see that the Comintern put a lot into the Civil War, which included forming the International Brigades and sending advisors and material to the cause. So no, it's certainly unfair to say that Moscow was uninterested in defeating fascism.

Furthermore, IIRC, the liquidation of the POUM happened in part because the anarchists reconciled with the government after the May Days, which singled out the POUM, and so I think it's questionable to say that it was part of one big conspiracy. Had it been some sort of plan to split the Trotskyists and anarchists and everyone else, why would the government have reconciled with the anarchists and targeted the mostly non-Trotskyist POUM? Plus, the Fourth International (Bolshevik-Leninist Section) had around 50 people in Barcelona, so while the pro-Moscow communists used Trotsky as an excuse for different actions, there was no Trotskyist presence to "split" from anyone else.

You can chalk up the defeat of the Republic to military factors as much as political divisions. If you ask me, the former were far more important; Franco had the Army of Africa, the best-trained troops of Spain, along with support from Germany and Italy. It was always going to be a long-shot for the Republican side.

Lastly, the conflicts between the anarchists and the Popular Front had more to do with tension on the ground than it did with Stalin's intentions.

And by the way, after all of this, you are ignoring one big blemish on your view: the anarchists were unable to mount any real resistance to those who opposed them. The May Days neutralized their position completely. All I get is the common anarchist excuse: "anarchism can't be expected to work if anyone actually opposes it".

The moral of the story is that conclusions drawn from two-sentence-long histories are usually quite shallow.

[coda]

<<The moral of the story is that conclusions drawn from two-sentence-long histories are usually quite shallow.>>

You'll have to take that up with Marx.org. it's the only non-anarchist link available that mentions the CNT in the Spanish War besides that ameteur one. :D

Nope, The moral of the story is ---just as the CNT collaborated with the government, so also did the POUM, the Left Socialists, Stalin/Russia, and 20 years earlier, Lenin, head of All-Russia, collaborated big concessions to the German war machine.

And the CNT did demonstrate anarchist society on large scale; replacing capitalist economy effectively without State apparatus. and more quickly, efficiently and humanely than did the Russian Revolution's first couple of years which was a disaster of food shortages, errors and worker repression.

[manic expression]

You'll have to take that up with Marx.org. it's the only non-anarchist link available that mentions the CNT in the Spanish War besides that ameteur one.

Marxists.org had no intention for that blurb to be used as a centerpiece in a historical argument; they probably thought people would be smart enough to use it as an opinionated summary, not a serious source from which larger conclusions could be made. Unfortunately, they didn't anticipate someone as desperate as you.

The fact that precious few sources actually mention the CNT should give you an idea of how significant their presence was.


Nope, The moral of the story is ---just as the CNT collaborated with the government, so also did the POUM, the Left Socialists, Stalin/Russia, and 20 years earlier, Lenin, head of All-Russia, collaborated big concessions to the German war machine.

Are you even conscious of the amount of idiocy contained in your words? Stop embarrassing yourself and get to the facts. Stalin was not "collaborating" with Germany, the USSR was actively supporting the Republican cause; I'm saying this not because I support Stalin (I'm a Trotskyist), but because it's simply the truth. 50,000 volunteers were organized by the Comintern, countless amounts of weapons and ammunition were provided to the Republican side, and you're claiming this counts as making concessions to Germany? Let go of your childish and anti-historical bias and face facts.


And the CNT did demonstrate anarchist society on large scale; replacing capitalist economy effectively without State apparatus. and more quickly, efficiently and humanely than did the Russian Revolution's first couple of years which was a disaster of food shortages, errors and worker repression.

The CNT did not demonstrate anarchist society on a large scale, it demonstrated a complete failure on a fittingly insignificant scale. Its collectives were paper-thin, its structure cracked under the smallest amount of pressure, it could not even adequately train the "soldiers" it sent on futile and ill-advised missions (unfortunately, I don't have my book on the Spanish Civil War, but if I find it I'll cite sources). Marx, Engels, Lenin and the communists were and are correct: a worker state is necessary to displace capitalism and create socialism. The disaster of the CNT only further proves their conclusions. Whereas the Russian Revolution withstood almost every challenge possible and increased living standards in the process, the CNT's "revolution" (which did not bring socialism at all) was over after mere days of resistance. The Bolsheviks established worker control and socialism; the CNT established, once again, that anarchism is a failure.

[coda]

Can’t follow or just copping out?
I’ve been consistent. See posts #18 & #23 respectively, i.e. Lenin collaborating with Germany and Stalin collaborating with Spain’s Republican government.

<<The CNT did not demonstrate anarchist society on a large scale, it demonstrated a complete failure on a fittingly insignificant scale. Its collectives were paper-thin, its structure cracked under the smallest amount of pressure, it could not even adequately train the "soldiers" it sent on futile and ill-advised missions.>>

You fail to see the significant acheivement of the CNT over those three years because you have zero proletarian class consciousness.

[Bilan]

This is getting off topic, but I think that it did. The experiences of the Spanish anarchists showed that their model brings nothing but continued capitalist property relations.

The sheer stupidity of that statement fills me with rage. I am appalled at the ignorance, and blatant misleading statements "Marxists" make on this forum, sometimes ( I use the quotations, because I'm filled with doubt).

What the Spanish anarchists experience proved was not that anarchism "continues capitalist property relations" (Any dolt who'd done 20 minutes of history would be able to tell you that), but that there were fundamental errors with the present anarchist organization at the time, and as addressed in the Friends of Durruti text, Towards a Fresh Revolution, "the CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. (They) did not have a concrete programme."
Thus, the problem was not a fault of anarchist theory, but the failure of the CNT to adequately apply it in the situation, for it "was devoid of it".

On top of this, to defend the gains of the revolution, in this context - with the surrounding rise of fascism in Italy, Germany, and Spain itself (which, as you should know, is what the initial reaction was too - a fascist revolt), - was an extremely difficult task, of which the CNT/FAI failed at.
But the Friends of Durruti, as well as others, have learnt from the errors of past anarchist organizations.

So, do your history, or shut up.




Their utter incompetence to displace capitalism is not a coincidence, it has everything to do with their theoretical shortcomings IMO.

What, you mean like all those other bourgeois socialist states which have done exactly that?
The fucking hypocracy!



Again, off topic, but groups work with the conditions they are given. The Cuban communists overcame multiple attacks from the most powerful imperialist country on earth 90 miles away (and thwarted their interests in Africa and Latin America for good measure), the Russian communists fought off tens of invading armies and defeated the Nazis. What have the anarchists done? I'll let you answer that yourself.

In Ukraine, Makhnovist armies managed to defend themselves against both the Whites and the Reds for sometime, despite it being largely made up of under-equipped peasants.
In Spain, the anarchists, despite their poor organization, managed to push back the fascist revolt to some great degree (although, eventually, being overwhelmed by it - with no thanks to the betrayal of the revolution by Stalinists [shocking, I know!] and pseudo-Marxists).

Those two examples shall suffice for the present.



What, exactly, are you trying to say? Leninists "betray" revolutions? Leninists MAKE revolutions, and anarchists oppose them for inexplicable reasons.

No, the people make revolutions. Social change comes from within the masses, not from bourgeois intellectuals masturbating over early 20th century propaganda.
And Leninists have betrayed revolutions: they have, on more than one occasion, betrayed the principles of the revolution.
To deny this is blatantly misleading.

[manic expression]

Can’t follow or just copping out?
I’ve been consistent. See posts #18 & #23 respectively, i.e. Lenin collaborating with Germany and Stalin collaborating with Spain’s Republican government.


Copping out? That's rich, coming from someone who's flagrantly ignored the majority of my arguments. While you have continually avoided my points, I've seen your posts and refuted them. Referencing those same debunked points doesn't help your position whatsoever.


You fail to see the significant acheivement of the CNT over those three years because you have zero proletarian class consciousness.

And your desperation reaches new heights. I "fail" to see the nonexistent "achievements" of the anarchists because I have zero immature delusions. Class consciousness is what builds worker states, it's what abolishes capitalism and establishes socialism. That is precisely what the CNT DIDN'T do, and that is precisely what no anarchist will EVER do, because they have no conception of class conflict.

[manic expression]

The sheer stupidity of that statement fills me with rage. I am appalled at the ignorance, and blatant misleading statements "Marxists" make on this forum, sometimes ( I use the quotations, because I'm filled with doubt).

Are you referring to my own point?


What the Spanish anarchists experience proved was not that anarchism "continues capitalist property relations" (Any dolt who'd done 20 minutes of history would be able to tell you that), but that there were fundamental errors with the present anarchist organization at the time, and as addressed in the Friends of Durruti text, Towards a Fresh Revolution, "the CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. (They) did not have a concrete programme."
Thus, the problem was not a fault of anarchist theory, but the failure of the CNT to adequately apply it in the situation, for it "was devoid of it".

The Spanish anarchists proved that anarchist systems simply don't work. The CNT's theoretical shortcomings were not mere trifles but problems at the center of anarchist thought. Without a worker state, the bourgeoisie will reestablish capitalism; without repression of capitalist elements, capitalism will remain. The experience in Spain shows these realities. So no, it was a fault in anarchist theory and not just a mistake in application.


On top of this, to defend the gains of the revolution, in this context - with the surrounding rise of fascism in Italy, Germany, and Spain itself (which, as you should know, is what the initial reaction was too - a fascist revolt), - was an extremely difficult task, of which the CNT/FAI failed at.
But the Friends of Durruti, as well as others, have learnt from the errors of past anarchist organizations.

So, do your history, or shut up.

First of all, the anarchists were not defending a revolution, for they had not established socialism. All they were able to do was wave black flags in the chaos of the Civil War. After the May Days, their entire system was neutralized, and so your excuse of rising fascism has very little to do with what actually happened in anarchist Catalunya (in other words, follow your own advice). The collectives fell at the slightest breeze, exposing the anarchist project for the failure it was.


What, you mean like all those other bourgeois socialist states which have done exactly that?
The fucking hypocracy!

Bourgeois socialist states? Good one. Now it's quite clear that you can't comprehend the meaning of either socialist or bourgeois (or state, for that matter). Riddle me this, how can a society without capitalist social relations be bourgeois? Have fun wrestling with facts.


In Ukraine, Makhnovist armies managed to defend themselves against both the Whites and the Reds for sometime, despite it being largely made up of under-equipped peasants.

As has been established before on this forum, the Makhnovists were a glorified cossack host, able only to ride around in the power vacuum of Ukraine before the Red Army scattered them to the winds. The only reason the Makhnovists were able to exist for as long as they did was because the revolutionary forces were more concerned with far more ominous threats to the Soviets. In essence, Makhno's brigands were not nearly as significant as you would like to believe, and it was this insignificance that kept them from being swept aside by the Soviets until a real effort was made.


In Spain, the anarchists, despite their poor organization, managed to push back the fascist revolt to some great degree (although, eventually, being overwhelmed by it - with no thanks to the betrayal of the revolution by Stalinists [shocking, I know!] and pseudo-Marxists).

Those two examples shall suffice for the present.

The anarchists contributed far less to the Republican cause than the communist forces did. They were badly organized and their training was appallingly inadequate. The May Days, which consisted of relatively light opposition, succeeded in effectively ending the autonomy of the anarchists from the Republican government. That, alone, speaks for itself.


No, the people make revolutions. Social change comes from within the masses, not from bourgeois intellectuals masturbating over early 20th century propaganda.
And Leninists have betrayed revolutions: they have, on more than one occasion, betrayed the principles of the revolution.
To deny this is blatantly misleading.

The vanguard, the most advanced section of the working class, makes revolutions. That vanguard must be disciplined in order to further the interests of the entire working class. This is how almost every revolution has played out. Anarchists fail to grasp the basics of class struggle, and thus miss the practicalities of revolution. Indeed, they do not grasp the practicalities of making a revolution because they never have and never will.

Leninists have not betrayed revolutions but defended them from counterrevolutionaries. Anarchists, on the other hand, have mindlessly tried to undermine working class control of society. Any state is evil in the mind of an anarchist, but in the real world, the state is an institution which must be utilized by the working class to establish and maintain socialism. While anarchists have opposed revolutions, Leninists have led them to victory.

[Bilan]

Are you referring to my own point?


What do you think?




The Spanish anarchists proved that anarchist systems simply don't work. The CNT's theoretical shortcomings were not mere trifles but problems at the center of anarchist thought. Without a worker state, the bourgeoisie will reestablish capitalism; without repression of capitalist elements, capitalism will remain. The experience in Spain shows these realities. So no, it was a fault in anarchist theory and not just a mistake in application.No.
Here's a recomendation for you,
Towards a Fresh Revolution.
Try an analysis from comrades who actually struggled (in the streets, not in parliaments), and who learnt from mistakes.




First of all, the anarchists were not defending a revolution, for they had not established socialism. All they were able to do was wave black flags in the chaos of the Civil War.You're an idiot.



After the May Days, their entire system was neutralized, and so your excuse of rising fascism has very little to do with what actually happened in anarchist Catalunya (in other words, follow your own advice). The collectives fell at the slightest breeze, exposing the anarchist project for the failure it was.My excuse? My excuse? Are you serious?





Bourgeois socialist states? Good one. Now it's quite clear that you can't comprehend the meaning of either socialist or bourgeois (or state, for that matter). Riddle me this, how can a society without capitalist social relations be bourgeois? Have fun wrestling with facts.

Actually, that was a slip on my part. But to clarify what I meant, I was referring to bourgeois socialists as head of states, post revolution.
Not to mention upholding bourgeois ideals (That is, Leninists).



"What makes Marxism-Leninism a bourgeois movement? Many factors, but basically they can be reduced to three:
1/ Acceptance of the State - a bourgeois institution - as vehicle of social transformation (note: obviously, not in the sense Marx used the state, as Marxist-Leninists have clearly [as history so eloquently proves] merely taken the reigns of the old capitalist - or in some cases, feudalist - of which Marx clearly was against: "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." Marx, On the Paris Commune - and which Lenin even admitted to, We have painted the tsarist state in red)
2/ emphasis on centralization at all possible levels: economic political and social and
3/ related to the first and second, the hierarchical mode of organization and its preservation as a social reality"
Clear?
Good.



As has been established before on this forum, the Makhnovists were a glorified cossack host, able only to ride around in the power vacuum of Ukraine before the Red Army scattered them to the winds.Amazing, how such a thing could've happened? Who would've thought that one of the biggest nations on earth, could crush - after sometime - a peasant army which was being attacked on both sides?
Who would've thought!
And if thats what your understanding of the Makhnovists, you just prove how much of an absolute dolt you are.
Needless to say, the Makhnovists certainly had their flaws, and issues, but "glorified cossacks"?
Just shut up.



The only reason the Makhnovists were able to exist for as long as they did was because the revolutionary forces were more concerned with far more ominous threats to the Soviets. In essence, Makhno's brigands were not nearly as significant as you would like to believe, and it was this insignificance that kept them from being swept aside by the Soviets until a real effort was made.Actually, the Makhnovists are alot more important than you are portraying, as they managed to fight off the White armies more than once to defend the Ukrainian revolution, and even to keep them from getting to Russia through Ukraine.
Of course, being the pompous arse that you are, you, like most "socialists" who clasify all that disagrees with Lenin, and the Bolsheviks as "bourgeois" (articulate lot, you are), will be, of course, unable to comprehend that.
Shocking.




The anarchists contributed far less to the Republican cause than the communist forces did.:lol:



They were badly organized and their training was appallingly inadequate. The May Days, which consisted of relatively light opposition, succeeded in effectively ending the autonomy of the anarchists from the Republican government. That, alone, speaks for itself.No, it doesn't. It just shows that you've no fucking clue on what the conditions surrounding the uprising (anarchist) were, and continually ignore the realities of history.




The vanguard, the most advanced section of the working class, makes revolutions. That vanguard must be disciplined in order to further the interests of the entire working class. This is how almost every revolution has played out. Anarchists fail to grasp the basics of class struggle, and thus miss the practicalities of revolution. Indeed, they do not grasp the practicalities of making a revolution because they never have and never will.So, read up on your anarchist theory, or are you just talking out of your arse?
Do you even know what the anarchist alternative to the vanguard is?



Leninists have not betrayed revolutions but defended them from counterrevolutionaries. Anarchists, on the other hand, have mindlessly tried to undermine working class control of society. Any state is evil in the mind of an anarchist, but in the real world, the state is an institution which must be utilized by the working class to establish and maintain socialism. While anarchists have opposed revolutions, Leninists have led them to victory.You're an appalling liar.

[manic expression]

What do you think?

I think that you should tell me.



No.
Here's a recomendation for you,
Towards a Fresh Revolution.
Try an analysis from comrades who actually struggled (in the streets, not in parliaments), and who learnt from mistakes.

Here's a recommendation for you:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2

The Spanish anarchists' problems were not in mere application, but in the basis of their thought process. A revolution that does not establish a worker state does nothing for the working classes, and can scarcely be called a revolution.


You're an idiot.

You can't defend socialism if you don't establish it. Likewise, you can't criticize my argument if you don't make one yourself.


My excuse? My excuse? Are you serious?

That's what you said. Rising fascism destroyed the anarchist project. Right? In reality, it was the efforts of the government to bring anarchist-dominated areas into the wider struggle.


Actually, that was a slip on my part. But to clarify what I meant, I was referring to bourgeois socialists as head of states, post revolution.
Not to mention upholding bourgeois ideals (That is, Leninists).

That's fine. However, you're still incorrect. Leninists are the head of revolutionary states because they are part of the working class; working-class revolutionaries will inevitably lead worker states. Anarchists don't do this because, well, they aren't working-class revolutionaries.


Clear?
Good.

What nonsense. The state is not a bourgeois invention but a tool of one class to rule over another. Just as the bourgeoisie establishes a capitalist state to suppress the workers, so too must the workers establish a worker state to maintain socialism from counterrevolutionaries. The idea that the working class can wield power and establish socialism without a state is just as ridiculous as the idea that the state is exclusively bourgeois. Both common sense and history prove your concepts to be silly fantasies (by the way, the fact that you utter the words "tsarist state" contradicts your point entirely, rendering your argument even more pathetically misled).


Amazing, how such a thing could've happened? Who would've thought that one of the biggest nations on earth, could crush - after sometime - a peasant army which was being attacked on both sides?
Who would've thought!
And if thats what your understanding of the Makhnovists, you just prove how much of an absolute dolt you are.
Needless to say, the Makhnovists certainly had their flaws, and issues, but "glorified cossacks"?
Just shut up.

The Soviets were a body made of the majority of toilers in Russia and beyond, this is why they could call upon greater numbers. The Makhnovists had no sway in the cities or barely any with the peasants beyond the range of their weapons. The Makhnovists were swept aside so easily because they were insignificant and destined to become a curious footnote in history.

And they were glorified cossacks, quite similar to the Zaporozhian Host (oh dear, are anarchists going to start glorifying them, too?).


Actually, the Makhnovists are alot more important than you are portraying, as they managed to fight off the White armies more than once to defend the Ukrainian revolution, and even to keep them from getting to Russia through Ukraine.

First of all, the Makhnovists made no revolution, they made a band of brigands that anarchists are gullible enough to idolize. Secondly, the White Armies were far more powerful in other areas (the Crimean and Baltic Fronts). Again, the Makhnovists were insignificant. If they were omitted from history books, who would care? Anarchists who have nothing else to do but slavishly praise their favorite cossack.


Of course, being the pompous arse that you are, you, like most "socialists" who clasify all that disagrees with Lenin, and the Bolsheviks as "bourgeois" (articulate lot, you are), will be, of course, unable to comprehend that.
Shocking.

Where did I classify you as bourgeois?



:lol:

Your ignorance knows no ends. The anarchists were a bunch of ill-trained, ill-led, ill-equipped fighters who were dwarfed by the contributions of communists and other socialists. That much is undeniable.


No, it doesn't. It just shows that you've no fucking clue on what the conditions surrounding the uprising (anarchist) were, and continually ignore the realities of history.

And yet you have continually refused to provide a real counter-argument. I expected as much.


So, read up on your anarchist theory, or are you just talking out of your arse?

I'm quite familiar with your arguments. You can be sure of that.


Do you even know what the anarchist alternative to the vanguard is?

Trick question.


You're an appalling liar.

Stunning wit.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i disagree with the idea of anarchists and marxists arguing , cant we all put that shit aside until we actually abolish the state. i understand if you compare and contrast the two, or discuss the advantages, and disadvanteges, but the arguing should stop if you ask me.

so my answer to this thread is NO it is not neccesary.

[Bilan]

Here's a recommendation for you:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2

The Spanish anarchists' problems were not in mere application, but in the basis of their thought process. A revolution that does not establish a worker state does nothing for the working classes, and can scarcely be called a revolution.

Firstly, you recommended me something that has a completely different understanding of how to get to Libertarian Communism than what anarchists, especially the CNT, etc, upheld. Furthermore, that was written long before the Spanish uprising. So, Lenin's 'beef' with anarchists, apart from often being unfounded (though, in some cases, it certainly was), is obviously irrelevant, because new theories, and actions were applied in Spain, the situation was vastly different (evidently, more industrial, fascist uprising, etc, etc.), so the critique presented by Lenin, is evidently void, especially now, seeing as though, much more theory has been added to anarchism, more practical ways of abolishing capitalism and defending the revolution.
So please, make yourself familiar with those texts.

And no, the problem was with application, and of educating enough comrades in the CNT on the application of anarchist theory.




That's what you said. Rising fascism destroyed the anarchist project. Right? In reality, it was the efforts of the government to bring anarchist-dominated areas into the wider struggle.

No, it wasn't just that, just like it wasn't just the imperialists surrounding Russia after the revolution which caused problems for the Russian Revolution: it was a whole series of other issues, such as the rise of fascism, such as the poor application of theory, such as the lack of theory being used at that time, such as the betrayal by Stalinists.
The situation was far more complex than you're giving it credit for.

Again, read the text.



That's fine. However, you're still incorrect. Leninists are the head of revolutionary states because they are part of the working class; working-class revolutionaries will inevitably lead worker states. Anarchists don't do this because, well, they aren't working-class revolutionaries.

Um...yes, yes they are.
What a completely unfounded statement.



What nonsense. The state is not a bourgeois invention but a tool of one class to rule over another. Just as the bourgeoisie establishes a capitalist state to suppress the workers, so too must the workers establish a worker state to maintain socialism from counterrevolutionaries. The idea that the working class can wield power and establish socialism without a state is just as ridiculous as the idea that the state is exclusively bourgeois. Both common sense and history prove your concepts to be silly fantasies (by the way, the fact that you utter the words "tsarist state" contradicts your point entirely, rendering your argument even more pathetically misled).

The "tsarist state" was a quote from Lenin, so...
The State is a tool of bourgeois society. Yeah, it's a means of class rule, but also, as evidently proved by history, a creater of class rule, and the re establishment of classes.
And it's not at all ridiculous. Contrary to the belief of Leninists, the working class are capable of total self management of the means of production. And its through education and action that this will be applied, both before, and after the revolution.



The Soviets were a body made of the majority of toilers in Russia and beyond, this is why they could call upon greater numbers. The Makhnovists had no sway in the cities or barely any with the peasants beyond the range of their weapons. The Makhnovists were swept aside so easily because they were insignificant and destined to become a curious footnote in history.

Southern Ukraine was an anarchist dominated area, but clearly, the Bolsheviks, being much wealthier than Makhno, and the peasants of Ukraine, certainly had better means of spreading information and propaganda througout Russia, and so on.
And what a fucking bullshit lie.



And they were glorified cossacks, quite similar to the Zaporozhian Host (oh dear, are anarchists going to start glorifying them, too?).

Bullshit they were.
Ha, we hardly glorify, you guys name yourself after your idols! :lol:



First of all, the Makhnovists made no revolution, they made a band of brigands that anarchists are gullible enough to idolize. Secondly, the White Armies were far more powerful in other areas (the Crimean and Baltic Fronts). Again, the Makhnovists were insignificant. If they were omitted from history books, who would care? Anarchists who have nothing else to do but slavishly praise their favorite cossack.

:lol:



Where did I classify you as bourgeois?


It's a typical argument of "Leninists".



Your ignorance knows no ends. The anarchists were a bunch of ill-trained, ill-led, ill-equipped fighters who were dwarfed by the contributions of communists and other socialists. That much is undeniable.


In Spain? or in Russia? Certainly in Russia! Certainly ill-equipped in Spain, too! Which of course, could not be attributed to the government denying arming the people to resist the fascist revolts (No, of course not!), of which anarchists had to seize weapons themselves.
But as far as contributions go? I'd certainly say in Spain anarchists were far more important than communists (unless we're referring to the betrayal!)



Trick question.

Can haz no answer?
Not quite as educated on anarchist theory as one perhaps thought? :O




Stunning wit.

:blushing:

[elijahcraignumbatwo]

I remember you. You should have chosen a better name, else you are likely to get banned again. Oh well, hopefully you don't spam, troll and whatever else you did last time, and you might not get the boot.

I didn’t choose the name thinking it would result in anonymity.



As to the topic, Marxism is an attempt at looking at history, economics and so on. Anarchism is a super-set of ideologies that oppose hierarchy and oppression.

They are two different things. There are anarchists that agree with Marxian class analysis, and Marxists that agree with anarchist arguments about the oppressive nature of the state.

Of course, when people talk about Marxism, much of the time they are talking about Leninism, which is incompatible with anarchism.

So the argument between Marx and Bakunin has NOTHING to do with this does it?

Right.

[Bilan]

So the argument between Marx and Bakunin has NOTHING to do with this does it?

Right.

Yep. Jack shit.
Well, at least for anarchists. Leninists seem to think anarchists haven't changed since Bakunin (Primarily because they haven't changed their politics since Lenin :lol:)

[elijahcraignumbatwo]

Give me some examples.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yep. Jack shit.
Well, at least for anarchists. Leninists seem to think anarchists haven't changed since Bakunin (Primarily because they haven't changed their politics since Lenin :lol:)

That stuff in brackets is wrong - "they haven't changed their politics since Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin" sounds more appropriate. :)

[Which is a big "traditional schematist" shame, anyways :( ]

As a proper "Leninist" (read: revolutionary Marxist), I can say that anarchist politics have changed; the serious anarchists, while not the street hooligans, are less serious about class struggle and revolutionary activity than their forebearers. :(

[Bilan]

That stuff in brackets is wrong - "they haven't changed their politics since Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin" sounds more appropriate. :)

[Which is a big "traditional schematist" shame, anyways :( ]

Hey, I was just taking a stab at you. It was just revving you up.
but seeing as though its you, I take it back. Didn't mean no harm. :)



As a proper "Leninist" (read: revolutionary Marxist), I can say that anarchist politics have changed; the serious anarchists, while not the street hooligans, are less serious about class struggle and revolutionary activity than their forebearers. :(


Less serious? Why do you say that? and who?
check, for example, the A-Fs Aims and Principles opener:

" The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of class struggle anarchists (based in Britain and Ireland, but with many contacts overseas) which aims to abolish Capitalism and all oppression to create a free and equal society. This is Anarchist Communism."

source (http://afed.org.uk/aims.html)

[Kropotesta]

In my opinion, anarchism is naive and idealistic on this issue. So I will argue with anarchists and we will struggle through different orginizations. BUT we will cooperate on issues like Capitalism, Imperialism, and Fascism.
it's funny that. I consider marxism, well socialism in general, or actually or statist ideologies to be naive and idealistic.
I mean the state wither away? that's like asking will the bourgeoise willingnly give up their power and wealth? I think not. Once a socialist state is set up, it will inevitably become corrupt and won't fulfil its origional purpose, same can go for all states. Therefore I percieve anarchism as the only way to liberation.
Demand the impossible and all that!
however I do see that the revoultionary left needs to organise to overcome the capitalists initially.

[Kropotesta]

" The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of class struggle anarchists (based in Britain and Ireland, but with many contacts overseas) which aims to abolish Capitalism and all oppression to create a free and equal society. This is Anarchist Communism."




yeah but it's important to note that the Anarchist Federation doesn't actually take part in any action but is made up of members from other groups thus acting as a umbrella group. Well from what I've heard. Which is ashame really as there is a need for a mass anarchist group to gain exposure for anarchism.

[The Feral Underclass]

yeah but it's important to note that the Anarchist Federation doesn't actually take part in any action but is made up of members from other groups thus acting as a umbrella group.

That neither makes sense nor is true. Firstly, what would be the point of such an organisation? Secondly, the AF is an organisation specific to its aims and principles and acts according to them through federal system of groups. Of which a member of one. We do lots of political activity and are not an umbrella of any sort.

[Kropotesta]

That neither makes sense nor is true. Firstly, what would be the point of such an organisation? Secondly, the AF is an organisation specific to its aims and principles and acts according to them through federal system of groups. Of which a member of one. We do lots of political activity and are not an umbrella of any sort.
sorry mate, just saying what I've heard and read, as I did state.
Yes I know that the AF has some federal groups, however not all members are part of one and are members of other groups, thus it is an umbrella for people from various groups.
by saying that the AF does nothing, i was not referring to the federal groups but I was speaking of mass action that the members take part in etc.
Sorry for the confusion and I'm sure that you will point out any mistakes I have made in this post regarding the AF of which I am not a member of, so therefore don't know very much about it.
You said you where a member? Do you know if there is a AF group in East Anglia? Thanks.

[The Feral Underclass]

sorry mate, just saying what I've heard and read, as I did state.

But you have no had experience that this is true?


Yes I know that the AF has some federal groups, however not all members are part of one and are members of other groups, thus it is an umbrella for people from various groups.

It isn't an umbrella organisation. If people are isolated and the only person in a locale who is a member of the AF then it makes sense that they join other anarchist groups, but that does not make the AF and "umbrella organisation".


by saying that the AF does nothing, i was not referring to the federal groups but I was speaking of mass action that the members take part in etc.

What do you mean "mass action"?


You said you where a member? Do you know if there is a AF group in East Anglia? Thanks.

I don't know where East Anglia is? Name a city...

[Kropotesta]

But you have no had experience that this is true?

by quoting the bit you did answered your question. So why was it really necessary to put that? or do you like to try and attempt to patronise people?
just incase you weren't actually clear on what I said, NO I haven't however I have spoken to members etc.
mass action is action taken by the organisation as awhole.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not patronising you, I just find it frustrating that people judge political situations on hearsay and then present it as a fact.

[INDK]

Leninists "betray" revolutions? Leninists MAKE revolutions, and anarchists oppose them for inexplicable reasons.

First of all, Anarchists have taken part in Marxist revolutions and committees since the contemporary Revolutionary-Left began, and vice-versa. Secondly, if a group of Revolutionaries decides to oppose a second group of Revolutionaries' own Revolutionary movement, there obviously must be a ideological flaw that would make the end result of such a revolution utter shit that the Anarchists in question most likely could not bare to live in.

See, when Left opposes Left there's something wrong with someone who's involved, and it's usually not the opposing Left since they had to opposed for some goddamn reason. Now, I'm not particularly educated or well-read on the subject, but I can definitely add two and two: if one group opposes another, both being Revolutionary, there is some thing wrong with their revolution.

[manic expression]

Firstly, you recommended me something that has a completely different understanding of how to get to Libertarian Communism than what anarchists, especially the CNT, etc, upheld. Furthermore, that was written long before the Spanish uprising. So, Lenin's 'beef' with anarchists, apart from often being unfounded (though, in some cases, it certainly was), is obviously irrelevant, because new theories, and actions were applied in Spain, the situation was vastly different (evidently, more industrial, fascist uprising, etc, etc.), so the critique presented by Lenin, is evidently void, especially now, seeing as though, much more theory has been added to anarchism, more practical ways of abolishing capitalism and defending the revolution.
So please, make yourself familiar with those texts.

So now the Spanish anarchists weren't even following anarchism? Don't make me laugh. Lenin points out the fundamental fallacies of anarchist thought, which was fully exposed by the abject failure of every anarchist movement ever (including Makhno, the anti-semitic cossack).


And no, the problem was with application, and of educating enough comrades in the CNT on the application of anarchist theory.

You could apply it any way you want, but it will still fail, for a revolution without a worker state is no revolution.



No, it wasn't just that, just like it wasn't just the imperialists surrounding Russia after the revolution which caused problems for the Russian Revolution: it was a whole series of other issues, such as the rise of fascism, such as the poor application of theory, such as the lack of theory being used at that time, such as the betrayal by Stalinists.
The situation was far more complex than you're giving it credit for.

Those were your words, not mine. Clarify your position.

The Republican government basically neutralized the anarchists after light fighting in Catalunya (what you naively call "betrayal by Stalinists"; over-exaggerate much?), which happened because the anarchists didn't want to join the wider struggle.


Um...yes, yes they are.
What a completely unfounded statement.

No, they aren't, or else they would create and lead worker states.


The "tsarist state" was a quote from Lenin, so...

The point was that you said the state was excusively bourgeois. Then, you said that there was a "tsarist state", which is not a bourgeois state but one of feudal autocracy. Your statement was riddled with this contradiction.


The State is a tool of bourgeois society. Yeah, it's a means of class rule, but also, as evidently proved by history, a creater of class rule, and the re establishment of classes.

What you're ignoring, however, is that the working class must use the state to enforce ITS class rule. The anarchist delusion misses the fact that the state is necessary in times of class struggle; socialism is one of those times. Anarchists have not, cannot and will not establish socialism because of this. Leninists, on the other hand, have done so and will do so in the future. It all comes down to a materialist analysis of society.


And it's not at all ridiculous. Contrary to the belief of Leninists, the working class are capable of total self management of the means of production. And its through education and action that this will be applied, both before, and after the revolution.

Leninists promote and defend working class self-management. What do you think the Soviets are? Singing the same song of "self-management" while neglecting the fact that the worker state IS working class self-management is quite ridiculous.


Southern Ukraine was an anarchist dominated area, but clearly, the Bolsheviks, being much wealthier than Makhno, and the peasants of Ukraine, certainly had better means of spreading information and propaganda througout Russia, and so on.

The Bolsheviks had the support of the working class, unlike Makhno's cossack army. When you have the support of the working class (and the peasantry), you have more people. Makhno was always going to be swept to the side because he was just a brigand and nothing more. Revolutionaries who establish worker states can mobilize more resources more effectively; remember Makhno's demise as further proof of my arguments.


And what a fucking bullshit lie.

Explain. Makhno was no different than a cossack.


Bullshit they were.

Go read some history, the similarities are more than apparent to people without biases.


Ha, we hardly glorify, you guys name yourself after your idols!

Good thing the Makhnovists never did such a thing.... Oh, wait.

By the way if that were true, I'd be a Sankaraist, Castroist, Cheist, Reedist, Connollyist, Dzerzhinskyist.... So no, you're completely wrong. I am a Leninist because I apply the program of Lenin. Anarchists have no effective program, and so one word catagorizes them: impotent.



:lol:

No answer? I expected as much.


It's a typical argument of "Leninists".

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Thanks.


In Spain? or in Russia? Certainly in Russia! Certainly ill-equipped in Spain, too! Which of course, could not be attributed to the government denying arming the people to resist the fascist revolts (No, of course not!), of which anarchists had to seize weapons themselves.
But as far as contributions go? I'd certainly say in Spain anarchists were far more important than communists (unless we're referring to the betrayal!)

I was talking about Spain, but that could apply to the cossacks in Russia, too. The government was far better trained and armed and disciplined; they had no interest in throwing militias against the Army of Africa. Why can't anarchists understand this?

The Spanish anarchists were not as important as the communists, and the arrival of the International Brigades ALONE proves this.


Can haz no answer?
Not quite as educated on anarchist theory as one perhaps thought?

I did give you an answer, except you couldn't figure it out. There is no anarchist alternative to the vanguard (thus, "trick question"). Good to know you're on the ball.

[Kropotesta]

So now the Spanish anarchists weren't even following anarchism? Don't make me laugh. Lenin points out the fundamental fallacies of anarchist thought, which was fully exposed by the abject failure of every anarchist movement ever (including Makhno, the anti-semitic cossack).


the irony as bakunin pointed out the fallicies of marxist thought, which was fully exposed by the abject failure of every communist movement ever.

[jaffe]

(including Makhno, the anti-semitic cossack).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/makhno-and-anti-t64539/index.html?&highlight=Makhno

[F9]

in my oppinion anarchy will come after some years of communism!That i think would set anarchy for good!:star:

[Kropotesta]

the reason I don't advocate the communist approach, and most anarchists, is that I don't see the 'dictatorship of the proletrait' if in place, ever withering away. as has happened numerous times.

[manic expression]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/makhno-and-anti-t64539/index.html?&highlight=Makhno

[the Jewish masses] were driven reluctantly into the hands of the Bolsheviks by the pogroms mounted by just about every other armed group in the country: the White armies...., and others; the anarchists under Nestor Makhno...

From "A Century of Ambivalence: The Jews of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the Present" by Zvi Gitelman


the irony as bakunin pointed out the fallicies of marxist thought, which was fully exposed by the abject failure of every communist movement ever.

Bakunin pointed out nothing but his own immaturity and ignorance.

What fallacies of Marxist thought? What "abject failure" do you speak of? Then again, to the anarchist, a successful working class revolution is an "abject failure".

[Kropotesta]

[What fallacies of Marxist thought? What "abject failure" do you speak of? Then again, to the anarchist, a successful working class revolution is an "abject failure".
i don't know.....maybe the dictatorships they turned into for a start?
Bakunins very critque of power is exactly what happened in the USSR.

[manic expression]

i don't know.....maybe the dictatorships they turned into for a start?
Bakunins very critque of power is exactly what happened in the USSR.

Bakunin thought that ANY state was inherently bad. Marx thought that states were tools of one class to rule over another. One is simplistic and myopic, the other is materialist and accurate.

And no, Bakunin did not predict what happened in the USSR, and even more importantly, anarchists today can't even wrap their heads around what actually happened. The bureaucratic deformations of the USSR were a Bonapartist development, which has nothing to do with Bakunin's ideas. Furthermore, the USSR was still a socialist society with socialist property relations, making it far better for the working class than capitalism ever could be (and the fall of the USSR proved this outright).

Lastly, the fate of the USSR is not what we have seen in Cuba. The bureaucracy has no real political power in Cuba (unlike in the USSR), and worker democracy is alive and well. This alone shows that your assumptions are incorrect.

[Kropotesta]

no Marx's idea is idealistic.
Bakunin's is realistic.