Bilan
30th April 2008, 13:13
This is an on going debate I've been having with some "Marxist" student group in Australia, and alas, started over myspace. I h aven't responded to their last message after being totally infuriated by the ignorance of the statements, but I am curious to the thoughts of comrades on here of it.
To read in the correct order, start at the bottom and read upward.
Please PM me if any personal information is contained here.
Hello
Once again i know its been a while, but this is my response to your last email.
The biggest qualm i have with your prior argument, is that you insist that "there are no evils inherent in humans which are independent of their socioeconomic systems in which they are born into". It seems that this view is pious to the point of slapping simple logic in the face. A socioeconomic system is not a condition capable of self perpetuation or of creation. It is not a circumstance that springs up out of the idleness of matter. In order for a socioeconomic system to come into being, it must be established by humanity. And addmittedly it is not a creation of human concious planning (in its primitvie stages that is) but it is a condition created by the existence of a multitude of humans in the physical world. And in the way it is possible for a socioeconomic system to be sinsister or derogatory in nature, it is not possible for it to attain its own personality or cognition. It does not shape itself, but is fashioned by those it services i.e. humans. Therefore it is apparent, (perhaps not inherent) that human nature is quite often naturally sinister. How else does a sinister, popular system come into existence or power?
Furthermore, i put it to you that capitalism in itself, is anarchy. When the shackles of feudal society were thrown off in somewhat of a revolution. The world was given to absolute freedom for some time. Every man was free to pursue and continue his existence as pleased him. In essence, very close to anarchy. However as generations passed the world has turned its anarchic state to a state, still of anarchy in that all man is supposedly free to do as he wills. However class has still sprung up.
It seems to me that a society reverting to anarchy, is simply reverting to primitive capitalism. If the system were refreshed every generation. Then this would be an almost ideal form of fair human continuance. However given that humans inevitably hand their property to their offspring this system evolves into capitalism. For example, the freed labourer who would under anarchic conditions produce simply for himself will no doubt naively aquire capital of his own. Then passing this capital onto future generations he will pass on a difference between the amount of capital he has produced and the amount of capital another father has produced. As such capital is accumulated between generations, until such a time that this disparity in capital can be manipulated. Once this happens a labour market is inevitably established. And those with more capital become capitalists and are subsequently buyers of the labour comodity. Thus the anarchic conditions naturally and necessarily evolve themselves so far as they perpetuate capitalism, class struggle and subsequently a form of state.
cheers
Pan
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Removed.
Date: 29 Mar 2008, 10:56 PM
Hello,
that's quite alright, I assure you.
In response, no, I completely disagree. Not all forms of organization are 'a state'. A state is an organ of class rule, the existence of a state only necessitates itself under class society. But the goal of me, and I assume you, is not for the continuation of class society, but for a classless society. And in any case, a classless society must also be stateless, in the same way a stateless society must be classless, for the latter requires the existence of the former to perpetuate the existence of the latter, and vice versa. Essentially, capitalism, like all socioeconomic systems, perpetuates its own existence through its own political, social and economic systems. Revolution must abolish them all.
No, organized workers would not lead to that. What would lead us to *this* state we're in now is a betrayal of our principles, Libertarian Communism, and the reinstatement of classless - something that is bound to happen with a state (See every state socialist system in human history).
Anarchists are not against organization, don't be fooled. But organization does not mean 'state'. I think I've made clear why.
I think, through whats been said, you also see why "working class interests can not be upheld by a government".
No, the revolution is not purely physical, but it is, none the less, physical. We do not shy away from resistance and revolutionary violence, and we should have no intention of doing so, lest to disconnect ourselves from the struggle for emancipation, and from our roots in the working class - the fact is, we must defend ourselves, and fight for our liberation. It will not be won in the ballot boxes, it will be won in the streets.
I say once more, that there are no evils inherent in humans which are independent of their socioeconomic systems in which they are born into. A state will not rid the people of these, but merely perpetuate them.
They key is not to be opportunistic, not defeatist, but optimistic, and continual fighting, organizing, propagating and struggling.
Cheers,
X.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: United Students Democratic Socialist Party
Date: 27 Mar 2008, 11:30 PM
Hello,
Sorry for the late response, i've been pretty busy lately so i hadn't gotten round to replying to everything.
In response to your concern about a controlling state, i put it to you that whatever loose form of organisation you propose as an ideal, would still in essence be a state of control, and subsequently hierarchy. Would the ideal of many groups of organised workers not naturally deliver us to an existence very similar to that we already live in? The idea of a state is something that cannot be destroyed, as long as humans co operate there will be organisation and subsequently some controlling form of state. Would it not be preferrable to use the "state" concept as a unifying factor?
Under a governments control it is still possible to uphold working class values and interests. Although corruption is (as history has shown us) synonymous with all controlling power. A democratic government and election system would ultimately limit the capacity for the evils inherent in human nature to influence such a system. The revolution that must be won is not simply one of physical control. It is the need to educate the masses and show the general public freedom from capitalism.
It is obvious to you and i both that capitalism and bureaucracy is destructive to humanity and society, but unfortunately it is an ideal embraced by the masses. This is not due to its benefits, capitalism promotes capitalism with shiny lights and superstars. And no one sees this as propaganda? The true revolution necessary is an enlightenment of the worlds minds. Violent action is not a practical solution given current socialist means. Instead the fight can be won with words. When the people of the world stand up and think for themselves and see they are being fleeced by the system then you will have revolution my friend.
I hope to hear some sort of response
Please excuse the lateness again
In confidence
USDSP
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Removed.
Date: 18 Mar 2008, 08:29 AM
Hello,
Indeed, it's beyond an irrational concern, though, is it not?
The concept of a more controlling state, realizing the present state of the world is not something we should be working toward - as its the direction we are heading in. The difference being that, states are having less control over "economic" issues, pushing those to the hands of the capitalists - largely TNCs,e tc - but still are exerting more and more power over social and political issues, and leading towards a more, all powerful state.
So, from a personal perspective, this seems like a backward step.
Indeed, I don't call for a "state of anarchy", but think its more important to struggle toward workers self management of the means of production which is what anarchist communism is.
And indeed, socialists dont. In most cases, the existing socialist groups just piss people off by hampering them and harassing them. This, to me, is not suprising, as none of them offer any real on the group alternatives to capitalism, and means of confronting the state every day. IT's an attitude of "Sign the petition and we'll stop this".
It's impractical and uninspiring nonsense.
Thus, to get political sway requires not forming another tiny sect of a similar tendency, but instead, practical, on the ground, organizing in working class communities to strengthen the working class against the state: to make real gains in the struggle against capitalism, and to be able to defend those gains against the repression of the state.
This means defending arresstees.
This means organizing in workplaces.
This means organizing in working class communities, not "alternative" subculture communities, like Newtowns punk scene and hippy scene.
You want sway?
"EDUCATE! AGITATE! ORGANIZE"
As the IWW used to say.
This can be achieved through a party, but I am of course, skeptical, not just because of history, but largely because of it,and because of the way 'leftist' parties organize now, and make small term concessions which take one step forward and two steps back (if you catch my drift).
Like the bureaucratic nature of the unions, the parties share this tendency.
And how can we have socialism without revolution?
I'd like to hear how you can advocate that.
With solidarity,
X.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: United Students Democratic Socialist Party
Date: 17 Mar 2008, 12:42 AM
Comrade
we understand that our political views differ slightly from your own.
We understand your concern at the ideal of a controlling state. However as a party we feel that referring to a state of anarchy would be counter-productive in the evolution of humanity. Instead we see that an all encompassing body can help to unite humanity. In short we want all humans to work for each other. From our point of view some of the ideals you see as being over indulgent are more reasonable.
At this point in time it is also clear to us that we do not have enough political sway to force a real revolution. So for short term purposes it seems better to look at socialism as a philosophy rather than a practical application. As people we can grow from changing our perspectives of the world and we see socialism as an enlightening concept. Before a practical revolution is possible, a revolution of the mind is necessary. We have no interest in debating the past and picking apart the prior pitfalls of democratic socialism (although we do concede it is important to recognise and learn from the past).
Despite our obvious differing in opinions we share some common ideals. Given that you sympathise with our party's position to an extent and we share the brotherly principle of the abolition of capitalism, we still feel an alliance would be beneficial. However if you do not feel inclined to associate with us, we shall not be offended.
Yours Comradely
USDSP
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Removed
Date: 17 Mar 2008, 06:08 PM
Hi comrades,
before I add you, I want to, first and foremost, discuss some things with you.
Namely, your politics.
Firstly, I am an anarchist communist.
I assume you have some vague idea of what that is: Essentially, one who struggles for "a stateless classless social organization, and the absence of all social and economic hierarchies. "
That means a total social revolution.
From looking at your page, I don't see shared politics in this sense.
You say, this:
"he Party stands for the ideals of equality and freedom through unbiased treatment. "
and then this:
"USDSP functions around the concept of a centralised democratic political system. "
As if such a position was possible, despite the inextricable contradictions in a statement.
Even as Lenin, whom I'm no sympathizer said, "While there is a state, there is no freedom"(State and Revolution).
States are juxtaposed to the concept of freedom because they are an organized body of class rule.
Total freedom is the absence of class, and naturally, the absence of a state.
So how do you uphold such a position?
You say this,
"However the government controls the economy so as to avoid the corruption and inequality involved in a capitalist system. "
But this is just patently false.
Governments, even if social democratic governments, are not inherently good at governing - as if the concept made any sense.
Take Germany in the period between 1918-1933. Social democracy completely fell flat on its face - and furthermore, used methods of suppression and militaristic violence to suppress rebellion.
Now, I know you're probably not sympathisers of the SPD, or even similar in tendency, but it's a perfect example of what happens in such a situation.
Furthermore, Chile, when Salvador Allende was elected, who was a Marxist, and so on.
The situation is somewhat impossible.
You can not remove the power from the current ruling class - the rich - and hand it to the working class and assume they'll sit back and do nothing about it.
"Society is a naturally corrupt entity and as such it is necessary for us as humans to regulate the way in which society develops"
And what do you mean by this?
Humans are not 'naturally' corrupt. What is 'natural' for humans, or, as in human nature, is totally defined by their relationship to the means of production, and the existing social and economic relationships.
I've got a recommendation for you on that one, The German Ideology by Karm Marx.
Plus, I'm somwehwat perplexed as to why you want to meet Lenin and Marx, who were both extremely critical of social-democratic tendencies (for Marx, see Critique of the Gotha Programme for Lenin, see State and Revolution).
I await your response,
X
To read in the correct order, start at the bottom and read upward.
Please PM me if any personal information is contained here.
Hello
Once again i know its been a while, but this is my response to your last email.
The biggest qualm i have with your prior argument, is that you insist that "there are no evils inherent in humans which are independent of their socioeconomic systems in which they are born into". It seems that this view is pious to the point of slapping simple logic in the face. A socioeconomic system is not a condition capable of self perpetuation or of creation. It is not a circumstance that springs up out of the idleness of matter. In order for a socioeconomic system to come into being, it must be established by humanity. And addmittedly it is not a creation of human concious planning (in its primitvie stages that is) but it is a condition created by the existence of a multitude of humans in the physical world. And in the way it is possible for a socioeconomic system to be sinsister or derogatory in nature, it is not possible for it to attain its own personality or cognition. It does not shape itself, but is fashioned by those it services i.e. humans. Therefore it is apparent, (perhaps not inherent) that human nature is quite often naturally sinister. How else does a sinister, popular system come into existence or power?
Furthermore, i put it to you that capitalism in itself, is anarchy. When the shackles of feudal society were thrown off in somewhat of a revolution. The world was given to absolute freedom for some time. Every man was free to pursue and continue his existence as pleased him. In essence, very close to anarchy. However as generations passed the world has turned its anarchic state to a state, still of anarchy in that all man is supposedly free to do as he wills. However class has still sprung up.
It seems to me that a society reverting to anarchy, is simply reverting to primitive capitalism. If the system were refreshed every generation. Then this would be an almost ideal form of fair human continuance. However given that humans inevitably hand their property to their offspring this system evolves into capitalism. For example, the freed labourer who would under anarchic conditions produce simply for himself will no doubt naively aquire capital of his own. Then passing this capital onto future generations he will pass on a difference between the amount of capital he has produced and the amount of capital another father has produced. As such capital is accumulated between generations, until such a time that this disparity in capital can be manipulated. Once this happens a labour market is inevitably established. And those with more capital become capitalists and are subsequently buyers of the labour comodity. Thus the anarchic conditions naturally and necessarily evolve themselves so far as they perpetuate capitalism, class struggle and subsequently a form of state.
cheers
Pan
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Removed.
Date: 29 Mar 2008, 10:56 PM
Hello,
that's quite alright, I assure you.
In response, no, I completely disagree. Not all forms of organization are 'a state'. A state is an organ of class rule, the existence of a state only necessitates itself under class society. But the goal of me, and I assume you, is not for the continuation of class society, but for a classless society. And in any case, a classless society must also be stateless, in the same way a stateless society must be classless, for the latter requires the existence of the former to perpetuate the existence of the latter, and vice versa. Essentially, capitalism, like all socioeconomic systems, perpetuates its own existence through its own political, social and economic systems. Revolution must abolish them all.
No, organized workers would not lead to that. What would lead us to *this* state we're in now is a betrayal of our principles, Libertarian Communism, and the reinstatement of classless - something that is bound to happen with a state (See every state socialist system in human history).
Anarchists are not against organization, don't be fooled. But organization does not mean 'state'. I think I've made clear why.
I think, through whats been said, you also see why "working class interests can not be upheld by a government".
No, the revolution is not purely physical, but it is, none the less, physical. We do not shy away from resistance and revolutionary violence, and we should have no intention of doing so, lest to disconnect ourselves from the struggle for emancipation, and from our roots in the working class - the fact is, we must defend ourselves, and fight for our liberation. It will not be won in the ballot boxes, it will be won in the streets.
I say once more, that there are no evils inherent in humans which are independent of their socioeconomic systems in which they are born into. A state will not rid the people of these, but merely perpetuate them.
They key is not to be opportunistic, not defeatist, but optimistic, and continual fighting, organizing, propagating and struggling.
Cheers,
X.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: United Students Democratic Socialist Party
Date: 27 Mar 2008, 11:30 PM
Hello,
Sorry for the late response, i've been pretty busy lately so i hadn't gotten round to replying to everything.
In response to your concern about a controlling state, i put it to you that whatever loose form of organisation you propose as an ideal, would still in essence be a state of control, and subsequently hierarchy. Would the ideal of many groups of organised workers not naturally deliver us to an existence very similar to that we already live in? The idea of a state is something that cannot be destroyed, as long as humans co operate there will be organisation and subsequently some controlling form of state. Would it not be preferrable to use the "state" concept as a unifying factor?
Under a governments control it is still possible to uphold working class values and interests. Although corruption is (as history has shown us) synonymous with all controlling power. A democratic government and election system would ultimately limit the capacity for the evils inherent in human nature to influence such a system. The revolution that must be won is not simply one of physical control. It is the need to educate the masses and show the general public freedom from capitalism.
It is obvious to you and i both that capitalism and bureaucracy is destructive to humanity and society, but unfortunately it is an ideal embraced by the masses. This is not due to its benefits, capitalism promotes capitalism with shiny lights and superstars. And no one sees this as propaganda? The true revolution necessary is an enlightenment of the worlds minds. Violent action is not a practical solution given current socialist means. Instead the fight can be won with words. When the people of the world stand up and think for themselves and see they are being fleeced by the system then you will have revolution my friend.
I hope to hear some sort of response
Please excuse the lateness again
In confidence
USDSP
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Removed.
Date: 18 Mar 2008, 08:29 AM
Hello,
Indeed, it's beyond an irrational concern, though, is it not?
The concept of a more controlling state, realizing the present state of the world is not something we should be working toward - as its the direction we are heading in. The difference being that, states are having less control over "economic" issues, pushing those to the hands of the capitalists - largely TNCs,e tc - but still are exerting more and more power over social and political issues, and leading towards a more, all powerful state.
So, from a personal perspective, this seems like a backward step.
Indeed, I don't call for a "state of anarchy", but think its more important to struggle toward workers self management of the means of production which is what anarchist communism is.
And indeed, socialists dont. In most cases, the existing socialist groups just piss people off by hampering them and harassing them. This, to me, is not suprising, as none of them offer any real on the group alternatives to capitalism, and means of confronting the state every day. IT's an attitude of "Sign the petition and we'll stop this".
It's impractical and uninspiring nonsense.
Thus, to get political sway requires not forming another tiny sect of a similar tendency, but instead, practical, on the ground, organizing in working class communities to strengthen the working class against the state: to make real gains in the struggle against capitalism, and to be able to defend those gains against the repression of the state.
This means defending arresstees.
This means organizing in workplaces.
This means organizing in working class communities, not "alternative" subculture communities, like Newtowns punk scene and hippy scene.
You want sway?
"EDUCATE! AGITATE! ORGANIZE"
As the IWW used to say.
This can be achieved through a party, but I am of course, skeptical, not just because of history, but largely because of it,and because of the way 'leftist' parties organize now, and make small term concessions which take one step forward and two steps back (if you catch my drift).
Like the bureaucratic nature of the unions, the parties share this tendency.
And how can we have socialism without revolution?
I'd like to hear how you can advocate that.
With solidarity,
X.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: United Students Democratic Socialist Party
Date: 17 Mar 2008, 12:42 AM
Comrade
we understand that our political views differ slightly from your own.
We understand your concern at the ideal of a controlling state. However as a party we feel that referring to a state of anarchy would be counter-productive in the evolution of humanity. Instead we see that an all encompassing body can help to unite humanity. In short we want all humans to work for each other. From our point of view some of the ideals you see as being over indulgent are more reasonable.
At this point in time it is also clear to us that we do not have enough political sway to force a real revolution. So for short term purposes it seems better to look at socialism as a philosophy rather than a practical application. As people we can grow from changing our perspectives of the world and we see socialism as an enlightening concept. Before a practical revolution is possible, a revolution of the mind is necessary. We have no interest in debating the past and picking apart the prior pitfalls of democratic socialism (although we do concede it is important to recognise and learn from the past).
Despite our obvious differing in opinions we share some common ideals. Given that you sympathise with our party's position to an extent and we share the brotherly principle of the abolition of capitalism, we still feel an alliance would be beneficial. However if you do not feel inclined to associate with us, we shall not be offended.
Yours Comradely
USDSP
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Removed
Date: 17 Mar 2008, 06:08 PM
Hi comrades,
before I add you, I want to, first and foremost, discuss some things with you.
Namely, your politics.
Firstly, I am an anarchist communist.
I assume you have some vague idea of what that is: Essentially, one who struggles for "a stateless classless social organization, and the absence of all social and economic hierarchies. "
That means a total social revolution.
From looking at your page, I don't see shared politics in this sense.
You say, this:
"he Party stands for the ideals of equality and freedom through unbiased treatment. "
and then this:
"USDSP functions around the concept of a centralised democratic political system. "
As if such a position was possible, despite the inextricable contradictions in a statement.
Even as Lenin, whom I'm no sympathizer said, "While there is a state, there is no freedom"(State and Revolution).
States are juxtaposed to the concept of freedom because they are an organized body of class rule.
Total freedom is the absence of class, and naturally, the absence of a state.
So how do you uphold such a position?
You say this,
"However the government controls the economy so as to avoid the corruption and inequality involved in a capitalist system. "
But this is just patently false.
Governments, even if social democratic governments, are not inherently good at governing - as if the concept made any sense.
Take Germany in the period between 1918-1933. Social democracy completely fell flat on its face - and furthermore, used methods of suppression and militaristic violence to suppress rebellion.
Now, I know you're probably not sympathisers of the SPD, or even similar in tendency, but it's a perfect example of what happens in such a situation.
Furthermore, Chile, when Salvador Allende was elected, who was a Marxist, and so on.
The situation is somewhat impossible.
You can not remove the power from the current ruling class - the rich - and hand it to the working class and assume they'll sit back and do nothing about it.
"Society is a naturally corrupt entity and as such it is necessary for us as humans to regulate the way in which society develops"
And what do you mean by this?
Humans are not 'naturally' corrupt. What is 'natural' for humans, or, as in human nature, is totally defined by their relationship to the means of production, and the existing social and economic relationships.
I've got a recommendation for you on that one, The German Ideology by Karm Marx.
Plus, I'm somwehwat perplexed as to why you want to meet Lenin and Marx, who were both extremely critical of social-democratic tendencies (for Marx, see Critique of the Gotha Programme for Lenin, see State and Revolution).
I await your response,
X