Anarchism v. Marxism

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

I started this because I noticed there were no real debates between Anarchists and Marxists. This is a place for the two groups to slug it out.:)

I'll start I guess. Marxists: Why do you feel there is a need for the state to continue existing after the revolution? Shouldn't the state be eliminated as soon as possible?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I started this because I noticed there were no real debates between Anarchists and Marxists.

LOLZ!

[RedAnarchist]

*dives behind the couch*

This is so going to turn into a flame war

[Dystisis]

I'll start I guess. Marxists: Why do you feel there is a need for the state to continue existing after the revolution? Shouldn't the state be eliminated as soon as possible?
Define "state".

The state "should be eliminated" (sic) when it can, not before and not after.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

LOLZ! I don't see what's so funny about that. I am new here, though.


This is so going to turn into a flame war I think that might be the reason why there aren't that many anarchist-marxist debates. People are too afraid.

[The Feral Underclass]

I started this because I noticed there were no real debates between Anarchists and Marxists. This is a place for the two groups to slug it out.:)

This whole forum is a debate between anarchists and Marxists. All you have to do is look at each forum and you will see this to be the case. There are loads of threads in Theory that involve debates between anarchists and Marxists.


I'll start I guess. Marxists: Why do you feel there is a need for the state to continue existing after the revolution? Shouldn't the state be eliminated as soon as possible?

:lol:

This debate must be the oldest of them all. Of course people are free to debate this - again - but if you do a little search in this forum you will find hundreds of threads addressing this issue throughout the years.

[The Feral Underclass]

Define "state".

The centralisation of political power organised by one class to suppress another.


The state "should be eliminated" (sic) when it can, not before and not after.

That implies that the state is necessary, which it isn't.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

What is the difference between libertarian marxists and anarchists who advocate direct democracy? I'm not sure there is a difference, just that the libertarian marxists call it a dictatorship of the proletariat and the anarchists call it anarchy.

[Cryotank Screams]

I started this because I noticed there were no real debates between Anarchists and Marxists.

Probably for good reason too; though this could possibly be interesting.

[Tower of Bebel]

How can we succesfuly go from a (free market) money economy to a planned gift economy?

[Dystisis]

The centralisation of political power organised by one class to suppress another.

That implies that the state is necessary, which it isn't.
In the system we got right now it by all means is necessary. Under a capitalist mode of production, the stronger the welfare state the better, for the people (generalization).

I haven't said or implied that the state will forever be necessary. As you said, it is a centralisation of political power organized by one class to suppress another. Note that it requires classes to exist.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

How can we succesfuly go from a (free market) money economy to a planned gift economy?Why, with a revolution of course. Why does there need to be a transition period?


In the system we got right now it by all means is necessary I agree. However, we can abolish this system and the state in one stroke.

The Marxists may put the burden of proof on the anarchists to prove communism can work without a transition period. However, I think if authority is advocated, there should be a reason for it. If marxists accept this principle then the burden of proof is on them to show that the transition is needed, not on the anarchists to show it's not needed.

[Orange Revolution]

How can we succesfuly go from a (free market) money economy to a planned gift economy?

Anarchy my friend, Anarchy... the Transition question has been well served, some people advocate a marxist state transtition with an anarchist gift economy emerging, others don't see the substitution of one state for another a good halfway house. Some would say we are always in transition.

The trouble with a halfway house marxist state is you've still got to wrest power from the marxists after the 1st revolution! So why bother, go for a true anarchist revolution 1st time round, kill 'em all and be done with it!:D

[Tower of Bebel]

Why, with a revolution of course. Why does there need to be a transition period?

'The revolution'? It replaces bourgeois democracy with soviet democracy, but does this change the production relations (from a free market money economy to a planned gift economy) completely?

A (post-)revolutionary society is stil capitalist (or semi-feudal when situated outside the heavily industialised countries), yet without bourgeois rule. Transition is needed to develop a capitalist society to a communist society. Because: Capitalist production relations don't garantee "to each according to his needs". Productions isn't developed to accomplish communism; it will take years, maybe decades to adjust all industry.

How would anarchists do that?

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

it will take years, maybe decades to adjust all industry I don't see what 'adjusting' would have to take place.


'The revolution'? It replaces bourgeois democracy with soviet democracy, but does this change the production relations (from a free market money economy to a planned gift economy) completely? You can revolt against the state and capitalism. It's not like the revolution is only against the state.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't see what's so funny about that. I am new here, though.

I just thought that it was amusing, because many times this entire forum seems to me to be one giant, running battle of ideas between Marxists and anarchists. The Anarchist Tension is right.

[Os Cangaceiros]

How can we succesfuly go from a (free market) money economy to a planned gift economy?

We don't currently live in a free market economy.

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't see what 'adjusting' would have to take place.

No? Capitalism creates the necessaity conditions for socialism, but it doesn't suffice to take control over the capitalist means of production to make it soviety go communist. If you don't adjust then you'll have no 'luxury' for the 7 billion people walking the earth today (don't even speak of the billions who will walk the earth years later when death amongst small children deminishes and many poor can live in welfare). We would have to chare what we can produce today.

You can't even imagine a communist Africa if you don't create the necessairy conditions over there (otherwise it would be rather pol-potist don't you think?)


You can revolt against the state and capitalism. It's not like the revolution is only against the state.Of course we must fight capitalism (or call it imperialism), but removing the bourgeoisie from power isn't going to end capitalism. A revolution is nothing more than one class taking power by removing the other. What follows is evolution (transition, adjustment to new necessaities).


We don't currently live in a free market economy.

That's why I used brackets. It was only meant to oppose rather chaotic capitalist production to (carefuly) planned communism.

[AGITprop]

Theres not much of anything going on around here, just CC members posting in Chit Chat all. I don't think I've ever seen a full out debate between the Commies and Anarchists.

OH NOES! what did i start....

i guess this will be fun if we keep it strictly theoretical. no BS

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

No? Capitalism creates the necessaity conditions for socialism, but it doesn't suffice to take control over the capitalist means of production to make it soviety go communist. If you don't adjust then you'll have no 'luxury' for the 7 billion people walking the earth today (don't even speak of the billions who will walk the earth years later when death amongst small children deminishes and many poor can live in welfare). We would have to chare what we can produce today.

You can't even imagine a communist Africa if you don't create the necessairy conditions over there (otherwise it would be rather pol-potist don't you think?)
So your objection is that there is not enough being produced to switch over to communism yet? (correct me if I'm wrong) In that case I would object that our society is perfectly capable of meeting the needs of the world. A study in the 1930's showed that the needs of the world could be met if every one only worked 3 hours a day. This is because capitalists don't use all the technology they have because in capitalism overproduction is a crisis. Also, in capitalism, mush of the production is unnecessary and wasteful. So in communism we could produce much less working much less and still meet the needs of the world.


A revolution is nothing more than one class taking power by removing the other I don't think it has to be. It can be one class overthrowing the other but not taking power.

[AGITprop]

I don't think it has to be. It can be one class overthrowing the other but not taking power.
Then you create a vacuum that will be filled, and not necessarily by someone friendly. The proletariat must take power.

[AGITprop]

I don't think it has to be. It can be one class overthrowing the other but not taking power.
You cannot leave the vacuum unfilled. If you do it will be filled by someone else. The proletariat must take power.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

Then you create a vacuum that will be filled, and not necessarily by someone friendly. The proletariat must take power.Why will this "vacuum" necessarily be filled? I don't see why. Please provide justification for this claim.

[AGITprop]

Why will this "vacuum" necessarily be filled? I don't see why. Please provide justification for this claim.
Because it's a vacuum. If the workers are not in power who will be? How do we function with no power.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

If the workers are not in power who will be? Everyone will be in power over themselves. That's the thing about capitalism, no one has power over themself because they are slaves to the market. Everyone will have power over themselves but not over other people. This functions better I think than when people have power over people but not themself.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Everyone will be in power over themselves. That's the thing about capitalism, no one has power over themself because they are slaves to the market. Everyone will have power over themselves but not over other people. This functions better I think than when people have power over people but not themself.

Let me add, the people will make sure they destroy any remains of bourgeois stuff to prevent another counter-revolution.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The state "should be eliminated" (sic) when it can, not before and not after.
That implies that the state is necessary, which it isn't.

I think you contradict yourself. When you provided your own definition of state as : "The centralisation of political power organised by one class to suppress another." (a fine definition if I do say so), you acknowledged the existence of the state so long as classes and the class struggle exist, which is indeed true. So long as there is class struggle, the ruling class will form the state to keep this struggle in check.

Anarchists however propose the destruction of the state as an action of the revolution. How can this be possible, if by your own definition, the state will exist so long as classes do? Are all class distinctions abolished with the success of the revolution? If so how can this be, how can we jump from a class society into a classless one only from the action of revolution?

[Tower of Bebel]

So your objection is that there is not enough being produced to switch over to communism yet? (correct me if I'm wrong) In that case I would object that our society is perfectly capable of meeting the needs of the world. A study in the 1930's showed that the needs of the world could be met if every one only worked 3 hours a day. This is because capitalists don't use all the technology they have because in capitalism overproduction is a crisis. Also, in capitalism, mush of the production is unnecessary and wasteful. So in communism we could produce much less working much less and still meet the needs of the world.

Can you link me to a certain study; since indeed capitalism can produce enough food to feed everyone who's walking the earth today, but do capitalist industry and agriculture sufice to give everyone the luxury that some among us can enjoy?


I don't think it has to be. It can be one class overthrowing the other but not taking power.

During and just after the revolution classes still exist. They will be abolished, but as long as the bourgeoisie (and petit-bourgeoisie) is capable of fighting back you'll need power to repel them (from the outside as well as from the inside).
You can't get around the fact that there will be power: soviets (councils). They will automaticly wage a war against both (petit-)bourgeois ideology and external enemies as long as the revolution hasn't made an end to bourgeois rule over the world.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

I can't find where I read 3 hours a day in the 1930's but in the late 1800s Kropotkin argued that people could work 5 hours a day for 25 years of their life. Source:h t t p : / / w w w . s p u n k . o r g / t e x t s / w r i t e r s / k r o p o t k i / s p 0 0 0 0 6 5 . t x t

Also there is a video on youtube called capitalism and other kids stuff by the socialist party of GB which says with our current technology we could be producing 12 times what the world needs.


but as long as the bourgeoisie (and petit-bourgeoisie) is capable of fighting back you'll need power to repel them I agree with the world socialist movement that we should wait for the revolution until we have a large majority so the Bourgeoisie will give up. Then there will probably not be a need to be a very bloody revolution and they won't fight back because they are hopelessly outnumbered. I don't think most anarchists agree with that method, though, and they would probably say that we can fight the Bourgeoisie without a state. It is a common misconception that centralized government without participation from much of the people is stronger than decentralized government with more participation. I disagree, though. There is strength in numbers.

Why is there a rule of no posting links until you have 25 posts?

[Tower of Bebel]

Why is there a rule of no posting links until you have 25 posts?

Against spammers.

[Trenches Full of Poets]

I started this because I noticed there were no real debates between Anarchists and Marxists. This is a place for the two groups to slug it out.:)

I'll start I guess. Marxists: Why do you feel there is a need for the state to continue existing after the revolution? Shouldn't the state be eliminated as soon as possible?

No, it shouldn't. It's impossible to go from a capitalist economy, government, and society to the lack of all of those immediately. There are certain measures that must be taken to prepare and secure for the elimination of the state.

[Trenches Full of Poets]

Why will this "vacuum" necessarily be filled? I don't see why. Please provide justification for this claim.

It is inevitable that without a established state, army, etc, counter-revolutionary factions will take power. You don't want to take power. But somebody else does. A lot of people.

[Holden Caulfield]

It is inevitable that without a established state, army, etc, counter-revolutionary factions will take power. You don't want to take power. But somebody else does. A lot of people.

exactly, anarchists are just impatient and somewhat impractical marxists,

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

It is inevitable that without a established state, army, etc, counter-revolutionary factions will take power. I think this problem has already been addressed here:
Let me add, the people will make sure they destroy any remains of bourgeois stuff to prevent another counter-revolution. and here:
I agree with the world socialist movement that we should wait for the revolution until we have a large majority so the Bourgeoisie will give up. Then there will probably not be a need to be a very bloody revolution and they won't fight back because they are hopelessly outnumbered. I don't think most anarchists agree with that method, though, and they would probably say that we can fight the Bourgeoisie without a state. It is a common misconception that centralized government without participation from much of the people is stronger than decentralized government with more participation. I disagree, though. There is strength in numbers.

[BobKKKindle$]

Anarchists do not generally understand what Marxists mean when hey talk the need for a "state". Marxists define the state as an apparatus of class oppression, and the state can assume many different forms, depending on the needs of the class that is in power, and the strength of the different classes that comprise society - as evidenced by the fact that liberal democracy and fascism are both "forms" of state which can exist under Capitalism. All states, however, have in common a legal monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (Weber) and a definite class character ("The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without" etc)

The proletarian state, therefore, is an apparatus that exists in order to ensure that the power of a class, the proletariat, is not threatened, by the hostile forces that aim to restore capitalism. However, unlike the bourgeois state that precedes it, the class which commands state power (the proletariat) comprises a numerical majority, and so there is no need for a system of "armed bodies of men" (Engels, Lenin) that are separate from the general population, or a highly centralized apparatus, because the power of the state is expressed through proletarian democracy, in the form of Soviets. Lenin, SaR:


Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state. It is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word; for the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of the wage slaves of yesterday is comparatively so easy, simple and natural a task that it will entail far less bloodshed than the suppression of the risings of slaves, serfs or wage-laborers, and it will cost mankind far less. And it is compatible with the extension of democracy to such an overwhelming majority of the population that the need for a special machine of suppression will begin to disappear. Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple “machine”, almost without a “machine”, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, we would remark, running ahead).Emphasis mine. Thus, Marxists are not authoritarians, we support proletarian democracy, the soviets were an expression of the proletariat's will, and served as the basis of the state until the bureaucratic degeneration. Soviets combined political and economic power.

The popular support for the Bolshevik party, expressed through the composition of the urban soviets, showed that the Bolsheviks were the genuine vanguard of the masses.


The trouble with a halfway house marxist state is you've still got to wrest power from the marxists after the 1st revolution! No, the workers state is required to suppress the remnants of the bourgeoisie, the "marxists" do not comprise a new ruling class, and so there would be no need for a new revolution, the state will cease to have a political role (and will thus "whither away") when class antagonisms have been eliminated.

The state is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms - it's the title of the first chapter of SaR. How can you participate in a discussion on the Marxist theory of the state if you haven't read the most important work on the subject?


Everyone will be in power over themselves. That's the thing about capitalism, no one has power over themself because they are slaves to the market. Everyone will have power over themselves but not over other people. This functions better I think than when people have power over people but not themself.Enough sloganeering. When the Russian proletariat seized power, they were faced with civil war; the capitalist nations of the world sent military detachments, as they were afraid that the workers in their own countries would be inspired by the revolution, and the remnants of the Russian bourgeoisie organized military forces and received aid; given these conditions, how would it have been possible to give power to each individual, to let each individual do whatever they want, and still avoid counter-revolution? How would the revolution have been saved, had it not been for the use of state power, and the adoption of certain repressive measures (justified, given the conditions) by the proletarian vanguard?

Your comment is utterly idealistic.

Revolution will always be met with violence, and we must respond in kind, with our own violence. Every revolution will needs its Cheka.


Let me add, the people will make sure they destroy any remains of bourgeois stuff to prevent another counter-revolution.How will "the people" "make sure"? They will need to use power to prevent counter-revolution, they will deny the remnants of the bourgeoisie access to arms, they will use force against remnants which try to organise military forces, with the objective of attacking workers - and for these tasks they will require a state.

[Hit The North]

It seems to me that the Anarchist objection to a post-revolutionary state was only coherent when they argued that the State was an interest in itself and the source of all oppression. As soon as they adopt a Marxist position that the State is an instrument of class rule (like TAT does) then their objections break down.

Given that the State is shaped by the requirements of the ruling class, there is no necessary reason as to why the proletarian state would be as hierarchical and centralized as the one that serves the interests of capital.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

bobkindles: Using the marxist definition of state, many anarchists probably could be classified actually as Marxists. However, that does not, IMHO, apply to me, because I think that there does not need to be a bloody revolution or suppression of the Bourgeoisie if we wait until there is a large majority around the world of people who support our movement. Then it would be futile for the Bourgeoisie to resist, and we don't have to suppress them.

Also you didn't say why there should be a socialist instead of a communist economy.

[BobKKKindle$]

there does not need to be a bloody revolution or suppression of the Bourgeoisie if we wait until there is a large majority around the world of people who support our movement. Then it would be futile for the Bourgeoisie to resist, and we don't have to suppress them.The bourgeoisie will always try and prevent revolution, they will not be willing to give up control of their property (and the power they are able to derive from their property) without some form of violent struggle, even if most of the population supports the revolution, and it is probable that a section of the bourgeois state apparatus (the "armed bodies of men") will continue to support the bourgeoisie, which will give them the means to strike against the revolution. Even if, within one country, the bourgeoisie is unable to resist, because the entire state apparatus defects to the revolution and supports the workers as comrades, a state will still be required, because it is unlikely that revolution will occur in every country at the same time, and so the imperialists will also try and defeat the revolution, to safeguard their interests (for example, the debts owned by the Tsarist government to Britain and France, which were canceled when the proletariat seized power) and to maintain class rule in their own countries.

A state will always be needed, because the danger of counter-revolution will always exist, and so the working class will always create a state (the institutions of which will emerge before the revolution takes place, through strikes, occupations etc) to defend workers power.

The record of history shows that you are idealistic - learn from the experience of the Russian revolution, instead of relying on idealism.


Also you didn't say why there should be a socialist instead of a communist economy.Some Anarchists also support a transitional system between capitalism and a full gift economy, for example, the use of LTVs, this is not directly connected with the need for a state, because the state is a political structure, which arises from class antagonisms.

[Tower of Bebel]

The problem with the capitalist money economy is that it creates (petit-)bourgeosie. Especially small production in third world countries gives birth to petit-bourgeois elements who don't support a communist society. You must transform the economy, and to do that you must have a superstructure guarding the whole proces.

[BobKKKindle$]

You must transform the economy, and to do that you must have a superstructure guarding the whole proces.

We can link this with PR. In the developing world, the bourgeoisie is closely tied to foreign capital, and so is not capable of fulfilling its historic tasks of developing an industrial base, breaking up the feudal system of land ownership. and therefore these tasks (which, together, comprise the bourgeois-democratic revolution) must be completed by the proletariat, which will, at the same time, or immediately after these tasks have been completed, go on to create a socialist revolution, which must be international in scope. The development of an industrial base (the forces of production) requires a state apparatus to take control of all available capital and direct the resources that are available, through a democratic central planning structure.

[chris_strange]

the real difference between these two are after a anarchist revolution revolution there inst a true state or government but after a Marxist's revolution there is a true government that controls the whole of the country.
i cant decide which would be better but you cant compare the two because there extremely different in there after revolution polices.
with anarchism the government is dissolved for a new to be formed naturally
but with Marxism a new government is thrust upon the country
that is my opinion anyway

[BobKKKindle$]

but with Marxism a new government is thrust upon the country

Marxists do not argue for a government that is "thrust" upon the country, as the proletariat can only be liberated through its own efforts, not through the imposition of socialism by an external force. Trotsky wrote at length about the danger of a party "substituting" itself for a mass movement. The October revolution (which could be classified as a "Marxist" revolution as the party which led it was guided by a Marxist theoretical framework) was based on the power of the working class, expressed through the Soviets, and so was not something that was "thrust" upon the masses of Russia.

On another point, to contrast "Anarchist" and "Marxist" revolution is to construct a false dichotomy, because many Anarchists would accept part of Marx's analysis, even if they do not support Lenin's concept of the vanguard, or the need for a workers state.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

The bourgeoisie will always try and prevent revolution, they will not be willing to give up control of their property (and the power they are able to derive from their property) without some form of violent struggle, even if most of the population supports the revolution Why? Why would they if the large majority of people are against them? It is obvious that they would lose.


it is unlikely that revolution will occur in every country at the same time If the people agree iwth the method of revolution I described, they will wait until they have the majority in the whole world and then revolt.


A state will always be needed, because the danger of counter-revolution will always exist Not if we have the large majority.


Some Anarchists also support a transitional system between capitalism and a full gift economy, for example, the use of LTVs, this is not directly connected with the need for a state, because the state is a political structure, which arises from class antagonisms. That did not answer why you should have a socialist economy before a communist one, as Marxists advocate.

[AGITprop]

If the people agree iwth the method of revolution I described, they will wait until they have the majority in the whole world and then revolt.
This is idealism. The entire world cannot wait for each other an then coherently decide when to revolt. This is not a game. Grow up.

And anyway, the material condition in different countries, will not be the same. Some proletarians will com to revolutionary conclusions before others.

[Tower of Bebel]

The proletariat isn't as conscious as people might think. There can never be a situation in which the proletariat as a whole waits for the right moment to revolt all over the world. The proletarians have many ideas of society and revolt, and you will always have the pioneers while some don't even move one finger during a revolutionary situation.

A revolution usualy doesn't start because all workers support socialism. A revolution can take months before the leaders of the proletariat see which way to go. Some revolutions don't even last long enough to give the workers the necessairy experience for them to make the right conclusions.


That said, the bourgeoisie will use the proletarians who are not persuaded by socialism to supress those who struggle for the emancipation of the working class. To be more concrete: the bourgeoisie will send its loyal troops to shoot at striking workers and it will use the reserve army of labour to fill in the gaps when workers go on strike. It will take months of practice, experience and good leadership if we want the proletariat to end bourgeois rule, and it will take years (maybe decades) to make the world go revolutionary.

[Black Cross]

Why? Why would they if the large majority of people are against them? It is obvious that they would lose.

Doesn't mean they won't try keeping their wealth. I see no reason they would willfully give away their riches. Capitalism isn't about democracy. They don't give a shit about popular will, only their riches (since that's really all they've got).

[F9]

In my oppinion anarchy will come only after marxism-communism come and it will be under the best cirguamstances.It could ,anarchy, come straight after a revolution but i think it wouldnt be so stable.

Fuserg9:star:

[Tower of Bebel]

On the social revolution and what is to be done shortly there after: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/index.htm

[moltocrescenzo]

the idea that the state is a necessary. The concept of a "vanguard" of the people seems to imply a certain cynicism about the nature of the people and of the revolution in question. If the revolution is truely 'of the people' and the abolition of capitalism and heirarchy and oppression and the state (whether this goal is immediate or eventual) is truely the collective will of the people, then there is no need for a vanguard or state machinery because any counter-revolution would be doomed to defeat at the hands of the people as a collective (or free association) who would immediately rise up to block backslide into oppression.* A similar principle would apply to the scenario involving foreign invasion by states fearing the export of revolution. That an invasion would be futile because (and, again, this is if the revolution is truely the collective will of the people) any imposed power structure would be similarly overthrown if not repelled at the 'border'. In the possible (scratch that, likely) event of some sort of attempt to do away with the revolution, the people, as lovers of freedom, etc., would once again rise up in the defense of their glorious revolution. in this way the state is rendered totally obscolete and completely unecessary. if the revolution is truely the people's revolution then there is no need for a state (whose primary function under any circumstances, communist, socialist, capitalist, or whatever; for good or for bad; and especially in the sense that those advocating the use of a state on this thread use the term, is coercive power). Some may think this statement to be unfair to Marxist states, but i mean in the sense of power over others. undeniably, this power can be used to the end of some good, but it is still coercive power. AND THE POINT OF ALL THIS IS: if the people are truely behind the revolution, they will need no coercing; and those who might require coercing (counter-revolutionaries, imperialists) they will be effectively dealt with by the collective power of the people (this coercion is part of revolution, anyway). ergo a revolution of the people does not require a state and, indeed, should refuse it. and if the revolution is not thusly of the people, then, in the words of Emma Goldman, "I don't want to be part of your revolution."

* On the topic of counter-revolution I would also put forth that in any well thought out revolution, the ruling elites would not only be toppled from power but also stripped of the means that define their class - in other words: you wouldn't just overthrow them, you would also take their vast sums of wealth. depriving them of these means would preemptively cripple any counter-revolution as well as aid the eventual goal of class homogenization and peace by making the ruling class proletarian (albeit involuntarily, but, oh well, thats what they get).

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

idealist Okay, I get it. I know when I'm beaten.:( So there would have to be a state in the sense of one class dominating another. Just not the state in the sense of how anarchists use it. I do not, however, support a socialist "to each according to his contribution" economy. I guess that makes me an anarcho-marxist?

[MarxSchmarx]

There can never be a situation in which the proletariat as a whole waits for the right moment to revolt all over the world. The proletarians have many ideas of society and revolt, and you will always have the pioneers while some don't even move one finger during a revolutionary situation.

Rakunin has a point. Homogeneity, in terms of preparedness for revolution, is impractical and undesirable.

Indeed, each struggle will vary considerably based on its local conditions across geographic and temporal scales. Expecting uniformity is the worst thing we can do. We end up suffocating locally promising experiments and alternatives.

On this "vanguardists" and "anarchists" should be able to agree. Indeed, leadership and experience is crucial for anarchists as well. Many of the skills individuals within the "vanguard party" acquire prior to the dawn of socialism will be useful even if largely anarchistic models towards communism are followed.

I even suspect that in some circumstances, a more statist approach would be more appropriate than in others. For instance, states will vary in the effectiveness of their repression (think Singapore versus Somalia), and so the importance of capturing the state machinery will vary from place to place.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On the social revolution and what is to be done shortly there after: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/index.htm

Nice to see that you've warmed up to Kautsky, comrade! ;)

[BobKKKindle$]

Nice to see that you've warmed up to KautskyDo you accept Kautsky's theory of Ultra-imperialism, which, arguably, is his most important "contribution" to Marxism? This theory has been throughly rebutted, empirically, as there has been a renewed tendency towards inter-imperial conflict since the end of the Cold War, and was the theory also rebutted shortly after publication by the advent of WW1. Inter-imperial conflict is a key part of Lenin's theory, and so it would appear that if one accepts Ultra-Imperialism, one cannot be classified as a Leninist.

If one does not accept Ultra-imperialism, then surely one could not be considered to have "warmed up to" Kautsky? What other "contributions" did he make that would enable one to adopt him as a theoretical inspiration?

[Hit The North]

Okay, I get it. I know when I'm beaten.:(

Comrade, you're not alone. There's a good deal of idealism on display in this discussion.

The problem is when both factions begin to argue from a point of theoretical principle as if the revolution will be resolved theoretically.

Revolutions are unremittingly practical affairs and the revolutionary class will organize itself to meet its practical needs - irrespective of the doctrinaire views of Marxists and anarchists This may entail a more or less centralized state or it might not. What is important is how far the post revolutionary society is an expression of the direct democratic activity of the proletariat.

Thus, the speculation of pre-revolutionary Marxists and anarchists is rather meaningless.

On this side of the revolution, our main task is working out how we best continue to agitate, educate and organize our class and this is where the most fruitful debate between anarchists and Marxist lies.

[moltocrescenzo]

Revolutions are unremittingly practical affairs and the revolutionary class will organize itself to meet its practical needs - irrespective of the doctrinaire views of Marxists and anarchists This may entail a more or less centralized state or it might not. What is important is how far the post revolutionary society is an expression of the direct democratic activity of the proletariat.

i agree, i suppose. no one NO ONE can argue against organization. the need for organization is a given. the argument that i think would put forth the anarchist perspective (and this difference does not have to create antagonism) is that organization can be acheived without a coercive state. of course an organized revolutionary force would be necessary to establish and maintain, but what i would tend to shy away from is a government that felt it had the authority to suppress dissenters (i dont mean bourgeoisie - i mean dissenters within) and create more enemies to the revolution through oppression of minorities. i think THAT would be contrary to revolutionary interest.

comments?

[Tower of Bebel]

AND THE POINT OF ALL THIS IS: if the people are truely behind the revolution, they will need no coercing; and those who might require coercing (counter-revolutionaries, imperialists) they will be effectively dealt with by the collective power of the people (this coercion is part of revolution, anyway). ergo a revolution of the people does not require a state and, indeed, should refuse it.


Indeed. This might be the truth, if it wasn't a fact that the working class as a whole (and the poor farmers) is never that conscious of its goal. A revolution will no do away with al prejudice, religion and idiocy at once. People will always have different views of what is to be done and only a few will know which way to go exactly.

While milions join the revolution milions wont move at all, and milions will rise against the revolution. Not al proles will be won for the revolutionary cause, and especially the petit-bourgeois elements will be very devided over the social question. Hence, an external counter-revolutionary force or one within the revolution can always start from a basis of support to crush the revolution. And as long as the capitalist mode of production isn't gone some farmers, workers or shop keepers will become part of the (dangerous?) petit-bourgeois elements in society, because capitalism and semi-feudalism create such people.

It will already be hard enough for revolutionaries to persuade the most of the working class to support the socialist revolution. Let alone the fact that many non-proletarian masses are even harder to persuade.

[moltocrescenzo]

yeah i see where you're coming from, but like you said the main cause of non-revolutionary proles is the capitalist mode of production, which will be done away with in the event of revolution. now i dont pretend to think that it will all work as easily and cut-and-dry as a light switch, but the best way, i would say, that the best way to counter the phenomenon or reluctant proletarians is to demonstrate by domestic action, not by national defense, that the revolution is in their interest. doing stuff like the nicaraguan sandinistas did like making literacy and health care and providing for the poor the utmost priority instead of defense because if the people are thusly won, then the people will serve for the voluntary defense of the revolution that is now their revolution.

[Tower of Bebel]

yeah i see where you're coming from, but like you said the main cause of non-revolutionary proles is the capitalist mode of production, which will be done away with in the event of revolution.

What is doing away with capitalism?

Next: how would it be possible for third world countries (semi-capitalis/semi-feudal societies) to achieve communism when we have to do away with the capitalist mode of production? Would this 'bombard' the countries back to a completely agrarian society?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Do you accept Kautsky's theory of Ultra-imperialism, which, arguably, is his most important "contribution" to Marxism? This theory has been throughly rebutted, empirically, as there has been a renewed tendency towards inter-imperial conflict since the end of the Cold War, and was the theory also rebutted shortly after publication by the advent of WW1. Inter-imperial conflict is a key part of Lenin's theory, and so it would appear that if one accepts Ultra-Imperialism, one cannot be classified as a Leninist.

If one does not accept Ultra-imperialism, then surely one could not be considered to have "warmed up to" Kautsky? What other "contributions" did he make that would enable one to adopt him as a theoretical inspiration?

The merger formula between Marxism and the workers' movement ("the union of the labour movement and socialism"):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm

And you're right about the BS of ultra-imperialism, but the theoretical contributions of the FOUNDER of "Marxism" came much earlier.

[Trenches Full of Poets]

A state cannot go immediately from capitalism to the lack of a state in general without facing huge economic problems.

The loss of a controlled currency would make internal trade and relations between industries and agricultures extremely ineffective at best, as there would be no standard for transitional economy.

Lack of a controlled economy would make relations impossible as well, as industries and agriculture would not have any cooperation towards a certain goal necessary to secure the interests of the workers.