Getting Anarchy [Archive]

RaiseYourVoice

30th May 2008, 11:31

By setting up a chekist, state-capitalist police state which destroyed the workers revolution, embraced nationalism and handed the cold war to the west?yea its always the same, anarchist mass movements (:rolleyes:) start revolutions, abolish monarchies, and then all of a sudden small numbers of leninists put themselves ahead of the movement, force everyone into their mass party, kill all the anarchists and betray the revolution.

Leninists just fetishise over authority, much like fascists.Heard that a lot, but never met a leninist like that. actually i find my party to be a lot more democratic than anarchist structures in which of course there is no official representative but only leading to there being unofficial ones who work outside of democratic control. (Not referring to all anarchists, but the ones in my region.)

Seriously why do all these threads end up in useless flamewars? yes many anarchist criticisms of "real socialist" states are justified, yes many things went wrong. If more anarchists or whoever wants to put forward criticism could though do that more constructive, it would help the movement a lot. I like to hear when someone thinks the power structure in my organisation is to strict, i like to hear when somebody thinks a decision process is undemocratic. Not though if that is based on the mere fact that I am a leninist but based on something that is happening right now. I don't want to be told "REMEMBER KRONSTADT? FUCK YOU". Because that way it just sticks to "your organisations always end up corrupted" "lolz you can't even organize" I don't know how that benefits democratic structures in any way. Criticism yes, but on a basis of solidarity not one of hatred. In my youth organisation we have anarchists, they are a good counterweight to some more authoritarian parts, actually they are fine with our criticisms of the anarchist movements. No criticism means no progress thats an easy one, but useless flame isn't criticism.

Dros

30th May 2008, 20:51

What? You expected us to agree with your bullshit? in your own words:

I expected self proclaimed leftists not to be reactionaries. I guess those expectations are a little too high.

You started this little sectarian spat, and now you accuse US of "showing our true colours"?

1.) Yeah. I'm sectarian. Read my member title. I started a thread in politics a while back explaining why sectarianism is a good thing.
2.) I simply stated an objective fact. Anyone who knows anything at all about Leninism and anything at all about anarchism will know that they are absolutely mutually exclusive in terms of their outlook, their methodology, their politics, everything.

So yeah. I'm going to continue to watch you reactionaries slander the historic achievements of the international proletariat with your idealist philosophy and juvenile anti-state posturing.

Kami

30th May 2008, 21:01

I expected self proclaimed leftists not to be reactionaries. I guess those expectations are a little too high.
They are when you define "reactionary" as "not adoring the great Lenin". After all, we can all see just how much good HIS revolution did the working class.

So yeah. I'm going to continue to watch you reactionaries slander the historic achievements of the international proletariat with your idealist philosophy and juvenile anti-state posturing.
You're pro-state, and you have the nerve to call US reactionary? You defend leninists putting an end to proletariat revolutions, and you call US reactionary? You, sir, either don't know the meaning of the word, or are purposefully ignorant.

Dros

30th May 2008, 21:37

They are when you define "reactionary" as "not adoring the great Lenin".

Are you unable to read, or do you choose to not understand my posts?

After all, we can all see just how much good HIS revolution did the working class.

Sadly, that's not true. Maybe if you did, you wouldn't be such a reactionary.

You're pro-state, and you have the nerve to call US reactionary?

Yes. Because you are.

You defend leninists putting an end to proletariat revolutions, and you call US reactionary?

You obviously have a strange conception of the proletarian revolution.

You, sir, either don't know the meaning of the word, or are purposefully ignorant.

I'm afraid neither. I am a revolutionary.

Kropotesta

30th May 2008, 22:01

Drosera99, could you give your reasoning for anarchists being, allegedy, reactionaries?

Tower of Bebel

30th May 2008, 22:36

Drosera99, could you give your reasoning for anarchists being, allegedy, reactionaries?

Not directed towards me, but I'll respond anyway.

I don't think that anarchism is reactionary. I think that it is grossly idealist: a materialist analysis of society stops when the capitalist state is - somewhat - abolished, because I never understood what anarchists would do when the capitalist state is "abolished". There is still a capitalist economy present when you end the rule of the state. And we all know that a capitalist economy (scarcity) is not a communist economy (abundance). Even worse: capitalism, or private property, creates petit-bourgeoisie and capitalists. That's right, capitalism is a society of classes. And it is the nature of capitalism to give birth to these classes even if you abolish the means of oppression (the state) of the ruling class.

How can private property be abolished and "abundance" be assured when there is no state to be on overwatch through the whole process. The question might be more difficult to answer when a semi-feodal society tries to abolish the state. What would anarchists do over there to achieve communism (which is not simply a stateless society)?

And if it doesn't work, then some might concider it to be reactionary (because failure brings Reaction).

Dros

30th May 2008, 22:45

Drosera99, could you give your reasoning for anarchists being, allegedy, reactionaries?

I did not say anarchists were reactionaries.

My point is, it is objectively reactionary from a Marxist perspective to take such a Bourgeois line on the history of the socialist experience. You clearly haven't done all of your homework on the issue of the USSR and the PRC and you are simply parroting what everyone in capitalist societies says about these experiences. You are spouting the same bourgeois propagandistic version of history that was expounded for their imperialist aims during the Cold War. This is not real history and making these claims are reactionary.

As for anarchism as an ideology, I wouldn't say it is reactionary right now. However, it will become reactionary after the revolution when they oppose the state. I also agree with most of what Rakunin says. Anarchism is idealistic and will never, not in a trillion years lead to a classless society.

And if it doesn't work, then some might concider it to be reactionary (because failure brings Reaction).

This too. This is why it becomes reactionary post revolution.

BobKKKindle$

31st May 2008, 13:46

A major obstacle preventing discussion between Anarchists and Marxists is the absence of a clear definition of what the state actually is - Marxists understand the state as an apparatus based on class suppression (so as to retain the position of the ruling class) and thus a workers state is required to ensure that the remnants of the bourgeoisie are unable to pose a threat to the rule of the working class and restore capitalist property relations through violent counter-revolution. Given this definition, it is clear that opposition to a workers state could be assumed to mean opposition to the use of force to defend the revolution - because Anarchists do not define the state in the same way as Marxists.

If this semantic disagreement (or lack of semantic clarity) is recognized, then cooperation between Anarchists and Marxists should be possible.

Bilan

31st May 2008, 14:18

You mean the counterrevolutions instigated in Russia by the anarchists?

:lol:
You, Zampano, are a class idiot.

Anarchist revolutions. You can blame the Communists all you want, but deep down everyone knows it's because anarchism is a failed ideology.

This disapoints me. You're smarter than that, Drosera.

So yeah. I'm going to continue to watch you reactionaries slander the historic achievements of the international proletariat with your idealist philosophy and juvenile anti-state posturing.

Come now, Drosera, you're not an idiot, but you're acting like one. You should be well aware that understandings of the state between anarchists and Marxists is vastly different. Surely, you can?
An organ of class rule compared to hierarchical, centralized body of class rule, which exerts power over society, not vice versa.

As for the original poster, there's nothing wrong with taking different parts from different ideologies, it should be encouraged. I've taken my fair share from Marx, Malatesta, Rocker, and so on. Ideological banners aren't that binding, and your ideas will develop and change.

BobKKKindle$

31st May 2008, 14:56

You mean the counterrevolutions instigated in Russia by the anarchists?
You, Zampano, are a class idiot.

Although the Anarchists did not attempt or plan to restore the Tsar, historical evidence suggests that the Kronstadt rebels asked for help from the Whites. On 13 March, Stepan Petrichenko (the leader of the rebellion) sent a telegram to David Grimm, the chief agent of the National Center (the organization coordinating the struggle against the Bolsheviks) and General Wrangel's official representative in Finland, for help in getting food. Although no food aid was able to reach the garrison before the rebellion was crushed, the fact that the members of the rebel government requested support from the Whites indicates that the Bolsheviks were justified in destroying the rebellion.

(Source: Paul Avrich, Kronstadt 1921)

Dros

31st May 2008, 17:02

This disapoints me. You're smarter than that, Drosera.

I'm sorry if I offended you PTiT, but I do see serious problems in anarchist theory. It also pisses me off when some "anarchists" try and blame the failures of past anarchist movements on Leninism. Please. That's pretty absurd.

Come now, Drosera, you're not an idiot, but you're acting like one.

:D:D:D

You should be well aware that understandings of the state between anarchists and Marxists is vastly different. Surely, you can?
An organ of class rule compared to hierarchical, centralized body of class rule, which exerts power over society, not vice versa.

That is correct. But most anarchists do object to states such as PRC and the USSR pre-1975 and 1953 respectively. While most are able take a more complex view and recognize the tremendous leaps taken (but still we will disagree about certain things) some "anarchists" are simply content to spew this reactionary rubish about how horrible these societies were. That is reactionary.

And anarchists do oppose the DoP do they not? So, in my view, anarchy becomes reactionary by opposing the Proletarian state post revolution because of the necessity of that state. Obviously, we disagree on these issues and that is fine.

I don't want anyone to be confused. I have great respect for the real and intelligent anarchists on this site such as you PTiT but also TAT, BD, Deborah, and Mujer Libre. What I find hard to tolerate are people who disregard the incredible gains for the working class made by Leninist revolutions and simply spew bourgeois propaganda and whine about authority.

I hope that clarifies my position here.

R3V0LUTI0N(A)RY

31st May 2008, 17:49

Although the Anarchists did not attempt or plan to restore the Tsar, historical evidence suggests that the Kronstadt rebels asked for help from the Whites. On 13 March, Stepan Petrichenko (the leader of the rebellion) sent a telegram to David Grimm, the chief agent of the National Center (the organization coordinating the struggle against the Bolsheviks) and General Wrangel's official representative in Finland, for help in getting food. Although no food aid was able to reach the garrison before the rebellion was crushed, the fact that the members of the rebel government requested support from the Whites indicates that the Bolsheviks were justified in destroying the rebellion.

(Source: Paul Avrich, Kronstadt 1921)

I had never expected them to work with capitalist, it's quite self contradicting for anarchists isn't it? If they were allies of the whites they deserved to be destroyed. And why would anyone try and reinsert a tsar who had been dead for years? Of course they could find a new guy but I doubt people would want to go back to the tsarist regime.

Joe Hill's Ghost

4th June 2008, 03:17

That is correct. But most anarchists do object to states such as PRC and the USSR pre-1975 and 1953 respectively. While most are able take a more complex view and recognize the tremendous leaps taken (but still we will disagree about certain things) some "anarchists" are simply content to spew this reactionary rubish about how horrible these societies were. That is reactionary.

And anarchists do oppose the DoP do they not? So, in my view, anarchy becomes reactionary by opposing the Proletarian state post revolution because of the necessity of that state. Obviously, we disagree on these issues and that is fine.

I don't want anyone to be confused. I have great respect for the real and intelligent anarchists on this site such as you PTiT but also TAT, BD, Deborah, and Mujer Libre. What I find hard to tolerate are people who disregard the incredible gains for the working class made by Leninist revolutions and simply spew bourgeois propaganda and whine about authority.

I hope that clarifies my position here.

Huh? So the USSR under Stalin made "great advances"? In what? Heavy industry? Yeah command economies are good at that. Were workers liberated? Not really. Was there worker control of industry by the worker's councils? Nope. Were millions of innocent people persecuted and suppressed? Yeah. Were there show trials? Yeah. Did Stalin refuse weapons to the POUM and the CNT...yeah. Were there Gulags? Oh yeah. Man Stalin was awesome, he was objectively revolutionary!

gla22

4th June 2008, 03:24

Not only did Stalin remove weapons from the POUM an the CNT he made the CNT and POUM illegal and called them trotskyists and fascists and betrayed the revolution.
I am not a trotskyist but Stalin betrayed the revolution.

Bilan

4th June 2008, 13:21

I'm sorry if I offended you PTiT, but I do see serious problems in anarchist theory. It also pisses me off when some "anarchists" try and blame the failures of past anarchist movements on Leninism. Please. That's pretty absurd.

There's probably less you disagree with than you think.
Of actual class struggle anarchist theory. Not crimethinc-esque stuff, or anything. Real class struggle anarchist politics most marxists would find themselves in agreement with alot of things.
The biggest problem with Marxism is terminology. You can't deny that a lot of it is quite often intellectual language from the late 19th century.

I think Leninists to often try to shift the blame on those issues, too, though. They refuse to acknowledge what alot of Leninists actually did to crush workers revolutions and revolutionaries. What's worse is when they can't recognize Stalin's involvement in Spain and blame it all on 'anarchist theory'. It's bullshit. It contradict the entire material conditions politic, as well as any basic historical recognition of events which occurred.

Essentially, if either side took the time to read, and understand the other, there'd be a lot less conflict. I don't think RAAN was far off the mark, to be honest.

That is correct. But most anarchists do object to states such as PRC and the USSR pre-1975 and 1953 respectively. While most are able take a more complex view and recognize the tremendous leaps taken (but still we will disagree about certain things) some "anarchists" are simply content to spew this reactionary rubish about how horrible these societies were. That is reactionary.

Note: "some anarchists". Some Marxists have supported some terrible things - like Stalins purges, show trials, etc. "Some" people are not what they seem, and those people don't represent the movement or the politics, now, do they?

And anarchists do oppose the DoP do they not?

Most because it's associated with USSR and is speaking about a state, but not in an anarchist sense, but in a Marxist sense. As in, "an organ of class rule". There is no reason why the DoP can't be upon anarchist principles - i.e. without hierarchical organization, without subordination to a leader (and it shouldn't be, anyway).
From my reading of Marx, I found little I disagreed with; from my views of what Lenin did, I found little I agreed with.

So, in my view, anarchy becomes reactionary by opposing the Proletarian state post revolution because of the necessity of that state. Obviously, we disagree on these issues and that is fine.

It's not reactionary, because we don't wish to reinstate any of the previous institutions, but instead, form new structures based on the principles of liberty and equality - on workers control of the means of production.

What I find hard to tolerate are people who disregard the incredible gains for the working class made by Leninist revolutions and simply spew bourgeois propaganda and whine about authority.

Understandably, but you can't ignore the terrible things they did, either. Bourgeois sources often make faulty, ridiculous criticisms of the revolutions (if not always), but things about the repressive nature of the states, etc. these aren't bourgeois sources, it's a fact that's hard to ignore or deny - some, however, wish to justify it. ;)

Tower of Bebel

4th June 2008, 13:47

It's not reactionary, because we don't wish to reinstate any of the previous institutions, but instead, form new structures based on the principles of liberty and equality - on workers control of the means of production.

Yes, but what are they? All I know is that they should be based on principles (it reminds me of the enlightened bourgeoisie).

Bilan

4th June 2008, 13:53

Yes, but what are they? All I know is that they should be based on principles (it reminds me of the enlightened bourgeoisie).

What are what? The principles? The institutions? What?

Tower of Bebel

4th June 2008, 15:22

What are what? The principles? The institutions? What?

The institutions.

BobKKKindle$

4th June 2008, 16:26

What exactly is the Anarchist definition of hierarchy? Are Anarchists opposed to all forms of hierarchy, or is hierarchy sometimes acceptable when conditions do not permit full democracy?

from my views of what Lenin did, I found little I agreed with.

Lenin suggests that the workers state should be based on democratic institutions of class rule, and officials should receive the same salary as the people who elected them. He further argues that state power (the use of armed force against those who attempt to restore capitalism and destroy the advances of the revolution) should be exercised through the collective will of the proletariat, not armed groups of men which are separate from the the rest of the population, as under capitalism. Are these principles not similar to those supported by the Anarchist movement?

Holden Caulfield

4th June 2008, 17:38

What exactly is the Anarchist definition of hierarchy? Are Anarchists opposed to all forms of hierarchy, or is hierarchy sometimes acceptable when conditions do not permit full democracy?

think plains indians type of structure only more fluid and equal, this is how i have seen hierarchy in anarchists, when hierachy is necessary for them

not armed groups of men which are separate from the the rest of the population

any armed group be it from the state or not is going to include proles and so it made up of the people and yet still be seperate entities as long as they are in 'campaigns', I think you might misunderstand anarchism it is made up of concils or 'soviets' that interact together like a state without a state, I personally don't think this would work as effectively as using the state itself but still it is a valid point far from capitalism,

if you use arguments like this the anarchists could just turn round and say we advocate the use of ruling system seperate from the people just like bourgosie democracy, as your point was too simplistic about anarchism

Dros

4th June 2008, 22:11

There's probably less you disagree with than you think.
Of actual class struggle anarchist theory. Not crimethinc-esque stuff, or anything. Real class struggle anarchist politics most marxists would find themselves in agreement with alot of things.
The biggest problem with Marxism is terminology. You can't deny that a lot of it is quite often intellectual language from the late 19th century.

Perhaps. I tried to differentiate between crimethic-ists, idiots (like the guy who posted right above this post I'm quoting) and real intelligent anarchists.

I think Leninists to often try to shift the blame on those issues, too, though. They refuse to acknowledge what alot of Leninists actually did to crush workers revolutions and revolutionaries.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of anarchist reaction post revolution. I'm assuming you're referring to Kronstadt etc? I absolutely support the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt. You probably don't.

What's worse is when they can't recognize Stalin's involvement in Spain and blame it all on 'anarchist theory'. It's bullshit. It contradict the entire material conditions politic, as well as any basic historical recognition of events which occurred.

I don't really know much about the Spanish civil war except that POUM was semi-Trot and doing some doing some bad things.

Essentially, if either side took the time to read, and understand the other, there'd be a lot less conflict. I don't think RAAN was far off the mark, to be honest.

:lol:

RAAN likes to grafiti my organization's facilities and considers us as bad as cappies.

Note: "some anarchists". Some Marxists have supported some terrible things - like Stalins purges, show trials, etc. "Some" people are not what they seem, and those people don't represent the movement or the politics, now, do they?

Hence my use of quotes to distinguish between real anarchists and idiots.

Most because it's associated with USSR and is speaking about a state, but not in an anarchist sense, but in a Marxist sense. As in, "an organ of class rule". There is no reason why the DoP can't be upon anarchist principles - i.e. without hierarchical organization, without subordination to a leader (and it shouldn't be, anyway).

I really disagree.

From my reading of Marx, I found little I disagreed with; from my views of what Lenin did, I found little I agreed with.

Well then we will disagree quite a bit.

It's not reactionary, because we don't wish to reinstate any of the previous institutions, but instead, form new structures based on the principles of liberty and equality - on workers control of the means of production.

Neither do we. But I would say it is still reactionary in that it attempts to deny the DoP which is a necessary step in getting to a Communist society.

Understandably, but you can't ignore the terrible things they did, either.

And we don't. In fact, Maoists make a thorough criticism of both the USSR and the PRC. But we see these experiences as overwhelmingly positive.

Huh? So the USSR under Stalin made "great advances"? In what? Heavy industry? Yeah command economies are good at that.

Were workers liberated? Not really.

Yes.

Was there worker control of industry by the worker's councils? Nope.

Yup.

Were millions of innocent people persecuted and suppressed? Yeah.

:lol: @ innocent.

Were there show trials? Yeah.

Yes there were.

Did Stalin refuse weapons to the POUM and the CNT...yeah.

Don't care.

Were there Gulags? Oh yeah.

OMGZ prisons! Damn. You're right. Stalin should have let the fascists, whites, Czarists, revisionists, spies and all the other counter revolutionaries overthrow the proletarian state! Oh. And by the way, the percent of political prisoners in Soviet prisons was marginal. Less than 10%. Most of them were rapists, murderers, and other criminals.

Man Stalin was awesome,

Yeah. He kinda was.

he was objectively revolutionary!

Fuck off.

gla22

4th June 2008, 22:40

Stalin had arrest quotas.

Joe Hill's Ghost

5th June 2008, 00:51

This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of anarchist reaction post revolution. I'm assuming you're referring to Kronstadt etc? I absolutely support the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt. You probably don't.

Man those Kronstadt sailors really deserved to be crushed. Asking for freedom of political prisoners, new elections to the soviets, freedom of speech for workers, peasants, anarchists and left socialists. Damn they represented a real threat. What made them really dangerous was their call for equal rations, except for those doing dangerous or unhealthy jobs. Man so reactionary.

I don't really know much about the Spanish civil war except that POUM was semi-Trot and doing some doing some bad things.Like collectivizing land and factories? Fighting Fascists?

RAAN likes to grafiti my organization's facilities and considers us as bad as cappies.So does that mean you're a member of the RCP? AKA the "whole world is ashakien because of Bob Avakian"? You might as well eject any and all credibility if you're with those nutballs.

Neither do we. But I would say it is still reactionary in that it attempts to deny the DoP which is a necessary step in getting to a Communist society.Yeah because constructing a massive state of concentrated hierarchical power will surely lead to communism. I mean if I give someone tons of guns and an ideology to back it up, he'll always just "wither away" and not contest it at all.

OMGZ prisons! Damn. You're right. Stalin should have let the fascists, whites, Czarists, revisionists, spies and all the other counter revolutionaries overthrow the proletarian state! Oh. And by the way, the percent of political prisoners in Soviet prisons was marginal. Less than 10%. Most of them were rapists, murderers, and other criminals.Millions of prisoners don't magically come out of the air. One would assume that as Stalin consolidated rule and things normalized the number of political prisoners and common criminals would have gone down. But oddly enough the number of prisoners kept going up until World War 2, where they were conscripted into prison regiments and turned into cannon fodder. Now you'd think that in 1939, years after the end of the civil war you would have fewer prisoners then during and immediately after the civil war. Not just for political offenses, but for "criminal" acts as well. Under a properly liberated society crime rates should go down, seeing as property related crime is unnecessary, and anti social behavior is generally socialized out. Yet by 1939 Stalin had 1.6 million people in Gulag facilities. In 1928 there were only 30,000 people in the prison camps. Clearly something independent of crime or political dissent pushed these figures up. And most rational people know that factor as Stalin.

The vast majority of those people clearly weren’t in jail for real offenses. You even admitted to the existence of show trials. Much like in Hungary most “criminals” were workers trying to survive. And of course to fuck over their state capitalist taylorism styled factory managers. Of course you had all those Soviet POWs who got thrown into Gulags. They were guilty of real crimes for sure. Of course I’m sure all the anarchists represented a real threat too, being fascists and all.

Fuck off.And you wonder why RAAN vandalizes your offices. Solidarity forever eh?

BobKKKindle$

5th June 2008, 03:03

any armed group be it from the state or not is going to include proles and so it made up of the people and yet still be seperate entities as long as they are in 'campaigns',

Read the following quote from State and Revolution:

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).

SaR: The Economic Basis of the Whithering Away of the State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)

This is an important quote because it demonstrates the Marxist understanding of the state. Marxists recognize that the state can assume different forms depending on the needs of the ruling class; the bourgeois state is based on armed groups of men which are separate from the general population (for example, the armed forces) and these groups are given the authority to exercise violence against those who violate the laws of the bourgeois state, especially those who pose a threat to the power of the ruling class. This means that power is taken away from ordinary people, and so even if the bourgeois state sometimes gives the appearance of being democratic (through general elections etc.) it is actually based on hierarchy.

Lenin's definition of the state as an apparatus of class suppression means that, under this definition, a workers state is necessary - a failure to suppress the remnants of the bourgeoisie will allow for the restoration of capitalism. However, the quote above shows that the workers state does not have the same features as the bourgeois state, because the former exists to protect the power of the majority, not a privileged minority. The power of the workers state is exercised by the general population, through organs of workers democracy which also form the basis of economic organization under Socialism - as shown by the final section of this quote, where Lenin writes:

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)

Therefore, the workers state is not a centralized structure which exercises control over the proletariat - Lenin advocated a type of the state which would be acceptable to many Anarchists, even though they would not classify it as a state, because Anarchists do not use the same definition of the state as Marxists.

Dros

5th June 2008, 03:27

Man those Kronstadt sailors really deserved to be crushed. Asking for freedom of political prisoners, new elections to the soviets, freedom of speech for workers, peasants, anarchists and left socialists. Damn they represented a real threat. What made them really dangerous was their call for equal rations, except for those doing dangerous or unhealthy jobs. Man so reactionary.

Yeah. White backed anarchists trying to overthrow the rule of the Proletariat deserve to and will be crushed.

Like collectivizing land and factories? Fighting Fascists?

Screwing over the Communists.

So does that mean you're a member of the RCP? AKA the "whole world is ashakien because of Bob Avakian"? You might as well eject any and all credibility if you're with those nutballs.

Because I really give a fuck what you think.

Yeah because constructing a massive state of concentrated hierarchical power will surely lead to communism.

OMGZ, itz teh hierararkie! Run for teh hillz!!1!

The answer to your question would be yes.

I mean if I give someone tons of guns and an ideology to back it up, he'll always just "wither away" and not contest it at all.

Are you literate?

Millions of prisoners don't magically come out of the air. One would assume that as Stalin consolidated rule and things normalized the number of political prisoners and common criminals would have gone down. But oddly enough the number of prisoners kept going up until World War 2, where they were conscripted into prison regiments and turned into cannon fodder.

Oh wait! I thought you were in favor of fighting fascism? I guess you are an opportunist as well as a complete idiot.

Now you'd think that in 1939, years after the end of the civil war you would have fewer prisoners then during and immediately after the civil war.

I could see why you might think that if you had absolutely no understanding of socialist society or Marxist-Leninist theory.

Not just for political offenses, but for "criminal" acts as well.

So I guess you are in favor of letting rapists go to?

Under a properly liberated society crime rates should go down, seeing as property related crime is unnecessary, and anti social behavior is generally socialized out. Yet by 1939 Stalin had 1.6 million people in Gulag facilities. In 1928 there were only 30,000 people in the prison camps. Clearly something independent of crime or political dissent pushed these figures up. And most rational people know that factor as Stalin.

Your statistics are simply wrong. While prisons did go up, it is important to remember that property still exists under socialism and that scarcity was still a big problem in a backwards country like Russia.

The vast majority of those people clearly weren’t in jail for real offenses.

Right. That's patently obvious. Oh wait, it's not.

You even admitted to the existence of show trials.

Yeah. I did.

Much like in Hungary most “criminals” were workers trying to survive.

...

And of course to fuck over their state capitalist taylorism styled factory managers.

Wow. Even real Trots don't call the USSR state capitalist at this time. Do you even know what the word means? Would you like to explain on what basis you believe the USSR was state capitalist?

Of course you had all those Soviet POWs who got thrown into Gulags. They were guilty of real crimes for sure. Of course I’m sure all the anarchists represented a real threat too, being fascists and all.

Being anti-state, they were counter revolutionaries.

And you wonder why RAAN vandalizes your offices.

No. I really don't care why they do it.

Solidarity forever eh?

Not with you.

Edit:

By the way, I think it is amusing 1.) that RAAN has nothing better to do then attack the RCP and 2.) that you attack my "solidarity" for not wanting to work with the counterrevolutionary RAAN fuckers who have nothing better to do then attack revolutionaries.

PRC-UTE

5th June 2008, 03:27

Why don't all you authoritarians let the working class decide during the revolution?

Dros

5th June 2008, 03:43

Why don't all you authoritarians let the working class decide during the revolution?

We do and they did.

Bilan

5th June 2008, 04:27

Yeah. White backed anarchists trying to overthrow the rule of the Proletariat deserve to and will be crushed.

They were hardly 'backed' by them. From what we know, some "leaders" of the groups at Krondstadt made some contact with some whites. The rest is speculation at this point, so saying 'they deserved it' is ridiculous.

Screwing over the Communists.

Are you talking about Spain? Because if you are you just admitted before you didn't know much about it, and are here just speaking out of your arse. The 'Communists' were certainly part of the betrayal of the revolution in Spain, as were the 'leaders' of the CNT. The latter, backed into a corner, the former, pushing them in.

OMGZ, itz teh hierararkie! Run for teh hillz!!1!

The answer to your question would be yes.

You're not rationalizing why you hold these positions; just using 4chan-esque speak, and being patronising. Hierarchical organization is opposed by anarchists for a reason, not because we oppose abstract concepts.

So I guess you are in favor of letting rapists go to?

Everyone who was arrested in the USSR for crimes was a rapist? :confused:

Being anti-state, they were counter revolutionaries.

Nonsense. The state is not a progressive structure, and counter-revolutionary would entail bringing it backward - so, in this case, to the former Tsarist regime. Anarchists had no intention of this, and instead wanted to bring the revolution forward, by putting more power in the hands of the workers and peasants, not the party.

PRC-UTE

5th June 2008, 05:33

We do and they did.

I'm primarily addressing the anarchists, actually. Their entire approach is rooted in authoritarian thinking.

Joe Hill's Ghost

5th June 2008, 08:40

Yeah. White backed anarchists trying to overthrow the rule of the Proletariat deserve to and will be crushed. There’s barely any evidence for that assertion. What matters here are the actual demands of the Kronstadt sailors, the same sailors that were revolutionary heros years before. None of their demands indicate a desire for anything but a rejection of bolshevism and a return to days prior to Taylorism and the one party state.

Screwing over the Communists. You admit to knowing little about the war and yet here you are making silly accusations. The PSOE and the PSUC were least revolutionary and most bureaucratized parties within Spain. They rejected collectivization and socialization.

Because I really give a fuck what you think. So you’re a member of the RCP? I’m not so likely to trust any “facts” you bring up, seeing as the RCP spends most of its time bowing down towards a rather large portrait of a washed up Berkley radical. So yeah, you might not care, but I’m sure anyone reading this would care. You lose a lot of credibility when you put your faith in well….that.

OMGZ, itz teh hierararkie! Run for teh hillz!!1!

The answer to your question would be yes. Very enlightening.

Are you literate? Again…very enlightening

Oh wait! I thought you were in favor of fighting fascism? I guess you are an opportunist as well as a complete idiot. Huh? Stalin arresting millions of people for no discernible reason isn’t fighting fascism. Nor is it “fighting fascism” when you send them out with little more than pee shooters. With this logic dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was good because it “fought fascism”

Anyway you ignore my main point, that despite apparent stability and a growing economy the number of prisoners exploded. Did the soviet people see war taper off and suddenly become fascists and engage in mass rape?

I could see why you might think that if you had absolutely no understanding of socialist society or Marxist-Leninist theory. Yup, because clearly using some simple logical exercises means I lack even basic socialist theory. Socialism is against logic…at all times. Right?

So I guess you are in favor of letting rapists go to? Come on you can do better than that. Hundreds of thousands of convicted rapists? That would mean a general population of millions of rapists. That’s crazy!

Your statistics are simply wrong. While prisons did go up, it is important to remember that property still exists under socialism and that scarcity was still a big problem in a backwards country like Russia. Stalin had millions upon millions of people in the camps. Clearly it must have been an incredibly horrid society to engender that sort of criminal activity. During the Hungarian uprising those poor socialist workers left unguarded boxes out to collect money for widows and orphans and they didn’t have theft problems. Man Hungary must have eliminated scarcity during the uprising and ended immediately after. Come on! A social revolution requires basic changes in how people interact with one another, no matter the scarcity; you don’t see crime rates explode after a social revolution. It goes against basic tenants of solidarity.

And why should I trust your “statistics” when you believe that the truth comes from a verifiable nut?

Wow. Even real Trots don't call the USSR state capitalist at this time. Do you even know what the word means? Would you like to explain on what basis you believe the USSR was state capitalist? The state owned the means of production. The ruling bureaucratic class got the dividends by taking surplus value from the workers, the workers worked for a wage under conditions where they had no control over their work. Thus state capitalism.

Being anti-state, they were counter revolutionaries. Yup anarchists hate the liberation of workers. Clearly because they disagreed on tactics with the communists the anarchists needed to be jailed and then subsequently starved.

By the way, I think it is amusing 1.) that RAAN has nothing better to do then attack the RCP and 2.) that you attack my "solidarity" for not wanting to work with the counterrevolutionary RAAN fuckers who have nothing better to do then attack revolutionaries.
I wasn’t criticizing you for not wanting to work with RAAN. Again you’re just resorting to fallacy. I was simply pointing out that you shouldn’t be surprised when other leftists don’t like you. I mean when you and most Stalinists want to jail the rest of us, we tend to wonder why you deserve our solidarity.

BobKKKindle$

5th June 2008, 09:30

There’s barely any evidence for that assertion. What matters here are the actual demands of the Kronstadt sailors, the same sailors that were revolutionary heros years beforeThis is incorrect. The sailors who participated in the uprising were not the same as those who supported the Bolshevik seizure of power, as the class composition of Kronstadt changed during the civil war - the politically experienced sailors (many of whom were members of the Bolshevik party) were replaced with peasant recruits who were not able to understand the difficult conditions which existed in Russia. The fact that the uprising and and subsequent appeals to the workers of Petrograd were met with no response indicates that the Bolsheviks were able to retain the support of the working class, despite the material deprivation suffered by many workers.

Damn they represented a real threat. What made them really dangerous was their call for equal rations, except for those doing dangerous or unhealthy jobs. Man so reactionary.In What We are Fighting For, the Kronstadt rebels announced:

"The rebellious laboring mass has come to understand that in battle with the Communists, and with the renewed serfdom they have given, there can be no middle ground. It is necessary to carry through to the end"

When the rebellion took place, Zinoviev had already withdraw certain aspects of War Communism, in response to industrial action, but this announcement indicates that, even though concessions had been made, the rebels would not be wiling to tolerate Bolshevik control of the Soviets. Given this complete refusal to cooperate, and the possibility that the area captured by the rebels would be used to stage an invasion, the Bolsheviks had no choice but to use force against the rebels.

Chicano Shamrock

5th June 2008, 12:47

Screwing over the Communists.

You just said that you knew pretty much nothing about the war. Actually "Communists" were the ones that screwed over the potential of communism or even socialism in this case. Teaming up on the side of fascists and capitalists to defeat trade unions, The Party of Marxist Unification(POUM) and others really screwed over communism.

By the way you are an asshole. Do you have to be so mean when replying to people?

Threads like this are a big reason I don't hang around this site too much. It's really a shame this stuff goes down too because I really like the idea of discussing issues with people who want to live in equality. Unfortunately some people really take this stuff too seriously. I mean come on you are using lingo that 19th century dudes were using. How do you guys expect to explain to people that communist society would be awesome when you are using words like dialectical analysis and reactionary. Also why would you still use a definition of state that only Marxists use? Why not use the word as it is used in modern day.

I really don't understand the appeal of sticking so closely to an ideology that is so old and outdated. Then again what do I know? I am just a worker in a union..... the party would tell me what to do if the revolution ever came along so I need not worry about this stuff anyways. :laugh:

I do find it really funny and quite sad that you, someone who supposedly wants a communist society(stateless, classless, marketless etc...), have throughout this thread crapped all over anti-state proponents. You must realize that you are anti-state as well right? Just unlike you we don't accept the oxymoron that you must support a state to support statelessness.

Chicano Shamrock

5th June 2008, 12:59

I'm primarily addressing the anarchists, actually. Their entire approach is rooted in authoritarian thinking.

Do you mind explaining this? I don't really understand what you are saying.

To the OP. I think this thread has pretty much demonstrated the possibilities of these theories working together. If state socialism had ever turned out well or if it does I would support it as an alternative to capitalism. I don't think any anarchists would oppose a socialist worker "state" if it worked as democratically and as perfectly as the theory says.

The problem is that it hasn't turned out well. Throughout history when anarchists have sacrificed their anti-authoritarian beliefs to team up with Communists to fight the cappies the anarchists have been burned. So if one were to learn lessons from past mistakes it would be that your enemies enemy is not your friend.

Joe Hill's Ghost

5th June 2008, 20:00

This is incorrect. The sailors who participated in the uprising were not the same as those who supported the Bolshevik seizure of power, as the class composition of Kronstadt changed during the civil war - the politically experienced sailors (many of whom were members of the Bolshevik party) were replaced with peasant recruits who were not able to understand the difficult conditions which existed in Russia. The fact that the uprising and and subsequent appeals to the workers of Petrograd were met with no response indicates that the Bolsheviks were able to retain the support of the working class, despite the material deprivation suffered by many workers.

This claim has been refuted before. The majority of the sailors had been conscripted into the Navy prior to the revolution. The two main battleships had a majority membership with enlistment ranging back to the revolution. Now they may have all been transferred, but that’s a bit extraordinary. Workers in Pertrograd and the rest of Russia probably didn’t revolt because of the presence of the Cheka and general bolshevik hegemony.
That said I think your classification of peasants as somehow too stupid to understand their own exploitation is demonstrative of how weird Marxist economic reductionism can get. Historically peasants have been some of the most militant fighters for the social revolution. Zapata’s army of the south was primarily of peasant origin, as was Makhno’s army. During the Spanish civil war peasant embraced collectivization far more wholeheartedly than most urban workers.

In What We are Fighting For, the Kronstadt rebels announced:

"The rebellious laboring mass has come to understand that in battle with the Communists, and with the renewed serfdom they have given, there can be no middle ground. It is necessary to carry through to the end"

When the rebellion took place, Zinoviev had already withdraw certain aspects of War Communism, in response to industrial action, but this announcement indicates that, even though concessions had been made, the rebels would not be wiling to tolerate Bolshevik control of the Soviets. Given this complete refusal to cooperate, and the possibility that the area captured by the rebels would be used to stage an invasion, the Bolsheviks had no choice but to use force against the rebels. What concessions? As Maurice Brinton shows the Bolsheviks had destroyed the autonomy of worker’s and community soviets, and obliterated worker’s control well before Kronstadt had even happened. Any minor concessions were obviously just an attempt to quiet long stirring discontent. “Bolshevik control of the soviets” meant destruction of democratic soviets. It was that simple. And please, don’t tell me that the rebels would have allowed an invasion to take place on their watch, that’s some of the same silly logic that was used against mahkno.

Dros

5th June 2008, 20:57

They were hardly 'backed' by them. From what we know, some "leaders" of the groups at Krondstadt made some contact with some whites. The rest is speculation at this point, so saying 'they deserved it' is ridiculous.

They attempted to receive goods from the Whites in Finland.

Are you talking about Spain? Because if you are you just admitted before you didn't know much about it, and are here just speaking out of your arse. The 'Communists' were certainly part of the betrayal of the revolution in Spain, as were the 'leaders' of the CNT. The latter, backed into a corner, the former, pushing them in.

You are correct. I don't know much about the situation there. However, I do know a little bit about the POUM and while I don't know nearly enough to make a judgement on Stalin's actions, I am aware that the POUM was doing some... questionable things internationally.

You're not rationalizing why you hold these positions; just using 4chan-esque speak, and being patronising. Hierarchical organization is opposed by anarchists for a reason, not because we oppose abstract concepts.

I'm aware of that. My point is, simply accusing the USSR of having a hierarchy is not an argument without an explanation of why hierarchy is in and of itself bad. I would very much contest that, especially at this point in the struggle.

Everyone who was arrested in the USSR for crimes was a rapist? :confused:

Of course not. This guy pointed out that Stalin had Gulags which seems to be one of his "arguments". Yes. Stalin had prisons. Imprisonment of rapists isn't a bad thing and so criticizing Stalin for having prisons is either dumb or opportunistic.

Nonsense. The state is not a progressive structure,

And this gets back to our disagreement.

and counter-revolutionary would entail bringing it backward - so, in this case, to the former Tsarist regime.

Backwards in an historic sense meaning capitalism.

Anarchists had no intention of this, and instead wanted to bring the revolution forward, by putting more power in the hands of the workers and peasants, not the party.

The workers put the party in power. They were in essence rebelling against the dictatorship of the proletariat. That leads to capitalism.

There’s barely any evidence for that assertion. What matters here are the actual demands of the Kronstadt sailors, the same sailors that were revolutionary heros years before. None of their demands indicate a desire for anything but a rejection of bolshevism and a return to days prior to Taylorism and the one party state.

That's really not true. Their demands were based on petty bourgeois and/or "ultra-left" (by which I mean "rightist") principles.

So you’re a member of the RCP? I’m not so likely to trust any “facts” you bring up, seeing as the RCP spends most of its time bowing down towards a rather large portrait of a washed up Berkley radical. So yeah, you might not care, but I’m sure anyone reading this would care. You lose a lot of credibility when you put your faith in well….that.

:lol:

Another one bites the dust of opportunism.

Please continue to embarrass yourself with you opportunistic non-criticism. If you have anything intelligent to say about the RCP, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stick your head back where it belongs.

Huh? Stalin arresting millions of people for no discernible reason isn’t fighting fascism. Nor is it “fighting fascism” when you send them out with little more than pee shooters. With this logic dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was good because it “fought fascism”

Good job. The USSR was still building heavy industry and much of that was destroyed by the fascists. Bravo!

Come on you can do better than that. Hundreds of thousands of convicted rapists? That would mean a general population of millions of rapists. That’s crazy!

An example. You opportunistically criticize Stalin for the very fact of having prisons.

And why should I trust your “statistics” when you believe that the truth comes from a verifiable nut?

I see there is no reason to continue this conversation with you further. You are content to say the same dumb shit over and over again without even an attempt at rational argument.

Dros

5th June 2008, 23:37

You just said that you knew pretty much nothing about the war. Actually "Communists" were the ones that screwed over the potential of communism or even socialism in this case. Teaming up on the side of fascists and capitalists to defeat trade unions, The Party of Marxist Unification(POUM) and others really screwed over communism.

I don't know what you're saying here. If you are saying that the POUM was bad, that was my whole point. I don't know much about the SCW, but I know some about the POUM.

By the way you are an asshole.

Thanks! I try.:)

Do you have to be so mean when replying to people?

When so-called revolutionaries repeat the same things over and over without any investigation, and when those things are the unbalanced and decontextualized narratives of the imperial bourgeoisie, and when I have told them repeatedly that they are not viewing the whole picture then they are being willfully ignorant.

Unfortunately some people really take this stuff too seriously.

Yeah. It's a shame some people care deeply about emancipating humanity.

I mean come on you are using lingo that 19th century dudes were using. How do you guys expect to explain to people that communist society would be awesome when you are using words like dialectical analysis and reactionary.

Those are just words. Those aren't even out of date. People learn the words when they read. This is what I've been pointing out. The above people (PTiT excluded) simply haven't done their homework.

A
lso why would you still use a definition of state that only Marxists use?

Because that's still what the state is.

Why not use the word as it is used in modern day.

Which definition would you be referring to?

I really don't understand the appeal of sticking so closely to an ideology that is so old and outdated.

Probably because it's still true.

I do find it really funny and quite sad that you, someone who supposedly wants a communist society(stateless, classless, marketless etc...), have throughout this thread crapped all over anti-state proponents.

I have "crapped over" people who have done no investigation of the realities of the Soviet Union and who, despite my attempts to suggest that they do their own investigation, insist on spewing the same old shit over and over. I really think I'm justified here.

You must realize that you are anti-state as well right?

I do.

Just unlike you we don't accept the oxymoron that you must support a state to support statelessness.

This is the same kind of vulgar argumentation that I've criticized in this thread. Have you read Engels and Marx? Have you read the analysis about why there needs to be a state and how it will wither away? Or are you refuting an argument that you don't even know?

Joe Hill's Ghost

6th June 2008, 01:26

They attempted to receive goods from the Whites in Finland. Really, any evidence of that? Like an unsigned, unattributable memo from super secret Russian white HQ?

You are correct. I don't know much about the situation there. However, I do know a little bit about the POUM and while I don't know nearly enough to make a judgement on Stalin's actions, I am aware that the POUM was doing some... questionable things internationally. Now you’re just resorting to unsupported innuendos. The POUM had very little outside assistance, aside from the ILP, most of its international affiliates were small organizations. If you wanna talk about “questionable” international activities you need look no further than the Comintern.

I'm aware of that. My point is, simply accusing the USSR of having a hierarchy is not an argument without an explanation of why hierarchy is in and of itself bad. I would very much contest that, especially at this point in the struggle. If you want an equal society you don’t bring it about through an unaccountable dictatorship over the proletariat. It’s not that complicated. People like power, when you give them that power, they tend to hold on to it. So if you have someone like Stalin with a massive state apparatus behind him, it doesn’t follow that he will ever entertain true communism.

Of course not. This guy pointed out that Stalin had Gulags which seems to be one of his "arguments". Yes. Stalin had prisons. Imprisonment of rapists isn't a bad thing and so criticizing Stalin for having prisons is either dumb or opportunistic. Gulags and prisons are two different animals. Prisons don’t have disease and death rates rivaling concentration camps. In prison you usually get enough calories to survive. In a gulag you get fewer rations than the amount of work you provide, and the work’s in the middle of Siberia. In prison you typically get enough food to subsist. Gulags are qualitatively different than a prison. Prisons are pretty inhuman already, gulags are a crime against basic decency. That’s my “argument.”

The workers put the party in power. They were in essence rebelling against the dictatorship of the proletariat. That leads to capitalism. The party abrogated democracy at the soviet level. They may have put the Bolsheviks in power, but then they never had a chance to change their minds. That leads to capitalism.

That's really not true. Their demands were based on petty bourgeois and/or "ultra-left" (by which I mean "rightist") principles. You have no basis for this claim. Of their 14 demands none advocated for capitalism or wage labor. 2 called for allowances towards those who were self employed, probably because Bolshevik rule was a flaming kleptocracy. The other 12 were all clear calls for renewed free socialism.

Another one bites the dust of opportunism.

Please continue to embarrass yourself with you opportunistic non-criticism. If you have anything intelligent to say about the RCP, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stick your head back where it belongs. Opportunist? Nah I’m just pointing out that your faith in, and unsupported assertions about Stalin spring from the RCP. Anyone with half a brain can objectively see that it’s a personality cult. You may be embarrassed that you belong to such a group of nuts, but don’t take your misplaced anger out on me dear.

Good job. The USSR was still building heavy industry and much of that was destroyed by the fascists. Bravo! So what does this have to do with fighting fascism? Your non sequiturs just pile up.

An example. You opportunistically criticize Stalin for the very fact of having prisons. Again you’re lying. I said he had gulags. I already established that gulags are not prisons.

I see there is no reason to continue this conversation with you further. You are content to say the same dumb shit over and over again without even an attempt at rational argument. Aaaaw. Are your feelings hurt? You tell me to “fuck off” and now your honor has been harmed? Why? Because I can’t question the validity of your unsupported assertions? If you expect us to swallow your statements without question I expect you to be a credible source. No one within the RCP is a credible source, because it’s a personality cult that exists in a realm outside of reality. So you might want to...I dunno try and prove your credibility. Or you can continue with the one liners and non sequiturs. They make for intelligent discussion.

Dros

6th June 2008, 02:25

Wow. This guy is a troll.

And I don't feed trolls.

However, I would be happy to carry out a friendly conversation with anyone who's seriously interested in having a conversation or an argument about Stalin, the USSR, the RCP (which is a "cult of personality") or any other topic in this thread. As always, feel free to PM me or post in the thread.

Bilan

6th June 2008, 03:35

They attempted to receive goods from the Whites in Finland.

Why would they do that? Ask yourself.

You are correct. I don't know much about the situation there. However, I do know a little bit about the POUM and while I don't know nearly enough to make a judgement on Stalin's actions, I am aware that the POUM was doing some... questionable things internationally.

You know nowhere near enough to make any sort of judgement, except one that is completely ignorant.

I'm aware of that. My point is, simply accusing the USSR of having a hierarchy is not an argument without an explanation of why hierarchy is in and of itself bad. I would very much contest that, especially at this point in the struggle.

The accusation that the USSR was hierarchical is not a criticism on its own: it's, indeed, what hierarchy means, and how it effects a society. In the USSR, the hierarchical nature of the state merely perpetuated the class system there. It led to the managerial class there, which held power, not the proletariat.
They usurped power from the proletariat into their own hands. The state merely reinstated class, rather than abolishing it.

Of course not. This guy pointed out that Stalin had Gulags which seems to be one of his "arguments". Yes. Stalin had prisons. Imprisonment of rapists isn't a bad thing and so criticizing Stalin for having prisons is either dumb or opportunistic.

This was a small quote I found on Gulags:

It was the branch of the State Security that operated the penal system of forced labour camps and associated detention and transit camps and prisons. While these camps housed criminals of all types, the Gulag system has become primarily known as a place for political prisoners[/URL] and as a mechanism for repressing political opposition to the Soviet State. Though it imprisoned millions, the name became familiar in the West only with the publication of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn"]Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_prisoners)'s 1973 The Gulag Archipelago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago), which likened the scattered camps to a chain of islands.

People could be imprisoned in a Gulag camp for crimes such as unexcused absences from work, petty theft, or anti-government jokes

About half of the political prisoners were sent to Gulag prison camps without trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_administrative_means); per official data, there were more than 2.6 million imprisonment sentences in cases investigated by the secret police, 1921-1953.

Okay, so, fair, that is from Wikipedia, but as a first glance, without any in depth research, those are vile reactionary institutions.

Stalin did have prisons, he had gulags, and he did persecute political opposition - political opposition can still be revolutionary. And in this case, do you have any doubt that there were revolutionaries who were persecuted by the Soviet State?
You'd be dishonest if you said they weren't.

And this gets back to our disagreement.

How is the state, an organ of class rule, progressive, if classes themselves are reactionary?

Backwards in an historic sense meaning capitalism.

We don't want the structures of capitalism, either. We want classless, free communist organization of society.

The workers put the party in power. They were in essence rebelling against the dictatorship of the proletariat. That leads to capitalism.

They were rebelling against the party that had usurped power and, in their view, lost touch with the needs and interests of the workers. They wanted to bring the revolution forward - that's evident from their demands.
Opposition to the Soviet state =/= rebelling against the DoP or workers power.

That's really not true. Their demands were based on petty bourgeois and/or "ultra-left" (by which I mean "rightist") principles.

This reminds me of those liberal arguments where they think politics are some sort of sphere - that you can become so left wing that you're right wing! :lol:

What about it was petit-bourgeois or "ultra-left"?

Good job. The USSR was still building heavy industry and much of that was destroyed by the fascists. Bravo!

Even so, that doesn't justify what Stalin did - the show trials, persecution of political opposition, tyrannical nature of the Soviet State, etc, etc.

I sympathise with the difficulties of building large industrial states, and the difficulties Russia especially had to go through. The Russian economy was extremely backward, so they were really starting from a small base, and the efforts of the USSR in Industrializing can be commended - but the state was vile and reactionary.

Joe Hill's Ghost

6th June 2008, 03:36

Wow. This guy is a troll.

And I don't feed trolls.

The "sectarian bastard" calling me a troll. :confused: Pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard one.

Bilan

6th June 2008, 03:45

You two, debate, or shut up.

Dros

6th June 2008, 04:05

Why would they do that? Ask yourself.

Because it was a revolt led by Whites?

You know nowhere near enough to make any sort of judgement, except one that is completely ignorant.

I've said this already. I don't know much about the Spanish Civil War. I do know a bit about the POUM. Those are different things.

The accusation that the USSR was hierarchical is not a criticism on its own: it's, indeed, what hierarchy means, and how it effects a society. In the USSR, the hierarchical nature of the state merely perpetuated the class system there. It led to the managerial class there, which held power, not the proletariat.

Right. Which was the reason for my response. Just saying "oh but it was hierarchical" is not a reason to reject independent of an explanation as to why that's bad.

I don't have a problem with that kind of hierarchy. I think Vanguard leadership, which will still be democratic and far more democratic then any bourgeois democratic dictatorship, is necessary during the socialist phase of history.

They usurped power from the proletariat into their own hands. The state merely reinstated class, rather than abolishing it.

The state can't "reinstitute" class even if it wanted to. Class is an objective reality that can't be legislated away. Class always existed in the Soviet Union. What Lenin and Stalin did was to change which class was the ruling class from the Bourgeoisie to the Proletariat.

Okay, so, fair, that is from Wikipedia, but as a first glance, without any in depth research, those are vile reactionary institutions.

Reactionary how? Vile, yes. Prisons usually are.

Make no mistake, I am very critical of Stalin for the show trials and some of the decisions made during the purges. But it is important to look at these mistakes and learn from them and to understand them in the historical context in which they occurred.

Stalin did have prisons, he had gulags, and he did persecute political opposition -

Which is not in and of itself bad.

political opposition can still be revolutionary.

This is something Mao learned from Stalin and correctly applied during the GPCR.

And in this case, do you have any doubt that there were revolutionaries who were persecuted by the Soviet State?
You'd be dishonest if you said they weren't.

We clearly have different views on this issue. There were people who claimed to and probably did want to create Communism. But at the point where they were in open rebellion against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, they have become objectively, if not subjectively, reactionary.

How is the state, an organ of class rule, progressive, if classes themselves are reactionary?

Classes can not simply be magiked away. The rule of society by the Proletariat (the only class with nothing to lose but its chains) is the only way to get their because the Proletariat is the only class that seeks to abolish itself.

We don't want the structures of capitalism, either. We want classless, free communist organization of society.

I know. But we have different ideas about how to get there.

They were rebelling against the party that had usurped power and, in their view, lost touch with the needs and interests of the workers.

It was a revolt of peasants led by White and (some) Czarist military leaders.

They wanted to bring the revolution forward - that's evident from their demands.

Perhaps that's what some of them wanted.

Opposition to the Soviet state =/= rebelling against the DoP or workers power.

Another manifestation of our difference of opinion on this issue.

This reminds me of those liberal arguments where they think politics are some sort of sphere - that you can become so left wing that you're right wing! :lol:

That's true in my view. Many people expressing "ultra-left" views become essentially reactionary. Left in form, right in essence. Leftist rhetoric and intention does not mean that you can lead society into a Communist mode of production. That requires a correct line.

What about it was petit-bourgeois or "ultra-left"?

Ultra-left=opposition to the DoP.
PB= some of their demands and the class nature of their revolt, lead in part by petty bourgeois forces and backed by the French and White governments.

Even so, that doesn't justify what Stalin did - the show trials,

I don't defend the show trials.

persecution of political opposition,

Most of that I'll defend.

tyrannical nature of the Soviet State, etc, etc.

I don't believe it was.

bcbm

6th June 2008, 04:20

You won't defend most of the terrible shit Stalin did, but will defend the persecution of those who objected to it from the inside and were punished?

Bilan

6th June 2008, 04:36

Because it was a revolt led by Whites?

Don't be lazy.

I've said this already. I don't know much about the Spanish Civil War. I do know a bit about the POUM. Those are different things.

I accept that so long as you don't bring it up again, or make any silly claims about the anarchists, or Stalin's involvement.

Right. Which was the reason for my response. Just saying "oh but it was hierarchical" is not a reason to reject independent of an explanation as to why that's bad.

Agreed.

I don't have a problem with that kind of hierarchy. I think Vanguard leadership, which will still be democratic and far more democratic then any bourgeois democratic dictatorship, is necessary during the socialist phase of history.

It wasn't democratic, though.
And of course it's going to be slightly more democratic than bourgeois political systems - thats somewhat of a given in this context. But it was completely undemocratic. It was a dictatorship over the proletariat.

The state can't "reinstitute" class even if it wanted to. Class is an objective reality that can't be legislated away. Class always existed in the Soviet Union.

No, but it can perpetuate class systems; it can change the organization of the economy and the nation; it can adjust the structures of a society to suit its own ends.

What Lenin and Stalin did was to change which class was the ruling class from the Bourgeoisie to the Proletariat.

That's simply not true.
Stalin and Lenin were, at best, representatives of the proletariat. And nothing represents a representative of the bourgeoisie than a representative of the bourgeoisie.

Reactionary how? Vile, yes. Prisons usually are.

The nature of the state was backward - it was authoritarian, brutal and tyrannical. It shared many traits with that of the Tsarist state.

Which is not in and of itself bad.

Debate and rational decisions can not be made when all forms of opposition are crushed. That doesn't even make sense.

We clearly have different views on this issue. There were people who claimed to and probably did want to create Communism. But at the point where they were in open rebellion against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, they have become objectively, if not subjectively, reactionary.

It doesn't make them reactionary. Their intentions weren't reactionary, nor were their methods; to claim it on such a basis is baseless and dishonest.
A communist is not reactionary because they become disillusioned with a state which they feel is usurping power from the proletariat. The state is what is reactionary in that situation.

Classes can not simply be magiked away. The rule of society by the Proletariat (the only class with nothing to lose but its chains) is the only way to get their because the Proletariat is the only class that seeks to abolish itself.

I'm not arguing it can be 'magiked' away. I'm arguing that institutions like a centralized state which perpetuate class are not going to get rid of classes.

It was a revolt of peasants led by White and (some) Czarist military leaders.

Czarist military leaders?

Perhaps that's what some of them wanted.

It must have been a clear majority for it to become the demands. :lol:

That's true in my view. Many people expressing "ultra-left" views become essentially reactionary. Left in form, right in essence. Leftist rhetoric and intention does not mean that you can lead society into a Communist mode of production. That requires a correct line.

I think thats more sectarianism than anything.

Ultra-left=opposition to the DoP.
PB= some of their demands and the class nature of their revolt, lead in part by petty bourgeois forces and backed by the French and White governments.

Which demands?
And the French were obviously opportunists in this situation; any anti-Soviet support they could find they'd support.
Kind of like how the Allies fought with the Soviet Union in WW2. Any opposition to Hitler.

Most of that I'll defend.

Why?

black magick hustla

6th June 2008, 08:36

Kropotesta

6th June 2008, 09:24

First, anarchists limit themselves in plans of action because a certain form of organization is already prescribed by the ideological demands of anarchisn. Some things are more efficent when centralized, and other things are more effective with democracy.
Anarchists have a plan of action for making decisions that affects a mass scale of people/area outside of one commune. This the Conferdation of Communes.
CNT- "The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves their internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate over major problems affecting a country or province and all communes are to be represented at their reunions and assemblies, thereby enabling their delegates to convey the democratic viewpoint of their respective communes."

Second, direct democracy in all situations is not even desirable to most people - and I suspect to many anarchists. Discussing all day my sound fun in paper, but a lot of people are not really interested in spending the whole day in the workplace discussing things that might be better solved with more centralized commiuttees. There is a reason CNT workers faked illness to skip work, you know.
So do you sugest taking decision making away from the people?
Also communal assemblies may only happen, like once a week or even monthly to discuss really important issuses. Obviously there is no desire for people to discuss eveery event happening in the community, and very few people would even tolerate continous meetings. However if required, in emergency situtations, assemblies with be more frequent.
We know, and agree, that free people would not want to waste alot of time at such meetings. So, these meetings would eventually be quick and constructive as feelings would soon be known towards 'time wasters' and a mouthy people.

Chicano Shamrock

6th June 2008, 11:33

I don't know what you're saying here. If you are saying that the POUM was bad, that was my whole point. I don't know much about the SCW, but I know some about the POUM.
No I am saying that The Soviet Union teamed up with fascists and capitalists to defeat the POUM and others. The POUM(and others) had potential of succeeding in getting to a communist society while Stalin was betraying the revolution. Read at least "Homage to Catalonia" before discussing this and condemning any of the groups involved.

Yeah. It's a shame some people care deeply about emancipating humanity.
No it's a shame that some people are too filled with this dogmatic bullshit to be taken seriously by any common person. Caring about freedom and being filled with outdated bullshit are not the same thing.

Those are just words. Those aren't even out of date. People learn the words when they read. This is what I've been pointing out. The above people (PTiT excluded) simply haven't done their homework.
I know you believe in the class of educated, sophisticated workers that will lead the revolution but most people today don't want to do homework and we need more people to understand this stuff before a portion of them can be big enough for a revolutionary vanguard. Especially when it is not necessary to learn this stuff.

This is the same kind of vulgar argumentation that I've criticized in this thread. Have you read Engels and Marx? Have you read the analysis about why there needs to be a state and how it will wither away? Or are you refuting an argument that you don't even know?
Yes I have read Marx and Engels. I read why there needs to be a state and the hypothesis that it would wither away. I thought it sounded like a very good theory until I looked into the experimentation of it. It hasn't worked. The power has not withered away. Within the state a bureaucratic class in control has been formed and as the old saying goes absolute power corrupts absolutely. After knowing the results of history and then going back and reading the stages of the revolution that were pointed out in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" it reads like a dark comedy. Start out with putting all capital in control of the state and all modes of production in control of the state. Then elect someone to lead etc...

To flip this question on it's head; have you read the analysis of the Spanish Civil War or are you making an argument about something that don't have knowledge in?

Joe Hill's Ghost

6th June 2008, 18:51

The fundamental problem of anarchism resides in the fetish of decentralization and democracy. Rather than anarchist perceiving democracy as form of organization desirable in certain situations to attain certain objectives, to the anarchist (in the same way as to the liberal) democracy is crystalized into ideology. This is problematic in many ways.

Essentialize much? Some anarchists may fetishize democracy and decentralization but you can't generalize. Especially not with that nature documentry style commentary. Anarchists aren't antelope! :lol:

First, anarchists limit themselves in plans of action because a certain form of organization is already prescribed by the ideological demands of anarchisn. Some things are more efficent when centralized, and other things are more effective with democracy.

Asserting it doesn't make it so. Care to provide examples or explain what exactly that means? In my experience a lot of anarchist groups avoid unnecessary decentralization. A lot of groups try and keep a unitary org, with locals precisely becuase hyper- decentralization leads to petty branch nationalism.

Second, direct democracy in all situations is not even desirable to most people - and I suspect to many anarchists. Discussing all day my sound fun in paper, but a lot of people are not really interested in spending the whole day in the workplace discussing things that might be better solved with more centralized commiuttees. There is a reason CNT workers faked illness to skip work, you know.

Again, asserting it doesn't make it so. Under participatory democracy, decision making power is given according to degree to which you are affected. Thus most decisions should be made on the shop floor amongst small groups of workers. Large meetings are only necessary for big time issues and aren't all too frequent. Of course the CNT prolly had a whole lot more meetings than usual. They were fighting a 2 front war with the basest of materials. That tends to provoke a need for big discussions. Extraordinary times and all.

Dros

6th June 2008, 21:50

Don't be lazy.

I'm not! Would you dispute that the Kronstadt uprising was led at least partially by officers? That these people had petty bourgeois tendencies and that they were connected to foreign governments and to the Whites in exile in Finland.

It wasn't democratic, though.
And of course it's going to be slightly more democratic than bourgeois political systems - thats somewhat of a given in this context. But it was completely undemocratic. It was a dictatorship over the proletariat.

What is the material basis for that claim? What was the class nature of the state?

No, but it can perpetuate class systems; it can change the organization of the economy and the nation; it can adjust the structures of a society to suit its own ends.

Class does not go away spontaneously. Class goes away only when the means of production are owned collectively by the people instead of through a state. Classes can only began to go away once socialism has reached a global stage in terms of historical development.

That's simply not true.
Stalin and Lenin were, at best, representatives of the proletariat. And nothing represents a representative of the bourgeoisie than a representative of the bourgeoisie.

I don't understand. Either I'm very much missing something here or that's a non-argument. I said that the state under Lenin and Stalin was a DoP, that the means of production were owned by the Proletarian state. You have contested the nature of that state but you have provided no material analysis to back that assertion up.

The nature of the state was backward - it was authoritarian, brutal and tyrannical. It shared many traits with that of the Tsarist state.

Yes. For which we are critical of Stalin. But again, context is absolutely key. But even these errors do NOT make the state reactionary. Both in terms of a grand historical sense of the term but also for the immediate interests of the masses of people, the USSR was overwhelmingly progressive. I have already laid out the tremendous accomplishments made by Stalin in the USSR and they have been almost entirely ignored. The reason for this is that no body denies that these accomplishments were made. And I doubt most would deny that they were indeed momentous.

Debate and rational decisions can not be made when all forms of opposition are crushed. That doesn't even make sense.

True. Not all opposition was crushed (at least originally) and for that opposition which was wrongly crushed Stalin was criticized. But again, hindsight is 20/20 and context is crucial.

I think I've established that prisons and Gulags during this period are not in and of themselves reactionary.

I also don't think that political suppression is in and of itself reactionary. Good luck making a revolution if you aren't going to repress Bourgeois forces within the new society!

It doesn't make them reactionary. Their intentions weren't reactionary, nor were their methods; to claim it on such a basis is baseless and dishonest.

Reaction is not an intention. It is a fact. Either, your actions have the ability to take society foreword towards Communism or they will drag it back towards capitalism. There are lots and lots of people who hate capitalism and want a Communist society but their ideology will objectively not get us there and will in fact return to capitalism.

A communist is not reactionary because they become disillusioned with a state which they feel is usurping power from the proletariat. The state is what is reactionary in that situation.

A "Communist" is reactionary if they are sabotaging the operation of class rule.

Come on. This back and foreword gets old eventually. You don't see the USSR as a proletarian state. As of yet, I haven't seen any analysis about what the class basis of that state was if not Proletarian.

I'm not arguing it can be 'magiked' away. I'm arguing that institutions like a centralized state which perpetuate class are not going to get rid of classes.

Based on what would you make that claim? And why the hatred of centralization?

Czarist military leaders?

Yes. Like all professions, military professionals from the earlier period were very prominent in the Red Army's later leadership as they were still the most experienced and the only ones qualified.

It must have been a clear majority for it to become the demands. :lol:

Not really. Opportunism and counterrevolution masked in red (or black) are nothing new to hour movement.

I think thats more sectarianism than anything.

Fair enough. I've created a thread in the politics forum (it's probably several pages back by now) advancing my view that sectarianism is (in this context) positive. The success of the revolution relies on advancing the most correct and the most revolutionary line. I don't see the revolution going anywhere near Communism without the correct orientation and the most advanced synthesis of theory and the most thorough study of the historical experience to that end.

Which demands?
And the French were obviously opportunists in this situation; any anti-Soviet support they could find they'd support.
Kind of like how the Allies fought with the Soviet Union in WW2. Any opposition to Hitler.

Then what about the memos et. all found in France that were made before the uprising?

Why?

Because most of the political opposition (Bukharin, Kulaks, Whites, Trotsky, Fascists, Bourgeois agents) were reactionary.

Dros

6th June 2008, 21:59

No I am saying that The Soviet Union teamed up with fascists and capitalists to defeat the POUM and others. The POUM(and others) had potential of succeeding in getting to a communist society while Stalin was betraying the revolution. Read at least "Homage to Catalonia" before discussing this and condemning any of the groups involved.

Based on what would you say that the POUM winning would create a Communist society?!?!:confused::lol:

No it's a shame that some people are too filled with this dogmatic bullshit to be taken seriously by any common person. Caring about freedom and being filled with outdated bullshit are not the same thing.

See my argument about sectarianism (which is NOT) dogmatism above.

If you are going to continue to say that Marxism is outdated, you would need to demonstrably show that Marxist materialist analysis as applied by modern Marxists is not applicable in some ways. If you are interested in doing that, I'd be very interested in seeing what you have to say and debating you about this. If you aren't though, then you should probably stop repeating that it's outdated bullshit because that is not an argument. It's a warrantless assertion without much basis in reality.

I know you believe in the class of educated, sophisticated workers that will lead the revolution but most people today don't want to do homework

I hate homework! Fortunately, I love reading Mao and Lenin. I really don't know what you're talking about. I personally know literally dozens of intelligent and thoughtful Proletarians who are committed and dedicated revolutionaries who have and continue to read the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

and we need more people to understand this stuff before a portion of them can be big enough for a revolutionary vanguard.

Couldn't agree more.

Especially when it is not necessary to learn this stuff.

Say what now?!

Do you mean it should be simplified? If so, I agree. I think Bob Avakian's work is generally very easy to read and really represents a condensation of and an advancement of revolutionary theory.

Yes I have read Marx and Engels. I read why there needs to be a state and the hypothesis that it would wither away. I thought it sounded like a very good theory until I looked into the experimentation of it. It hasn't worked. The power has not withered away. Within the state a bureaucratic class in control has been formed and as the old saying goes absolute power corrupts absolutely. After knowing the results of history and then going back and reading the stages of the revolution that were pointed out in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" it reads like a dark comedy. Start out with putting all capital in control of the state and all modes of production in control of the state. Then elect someone to lead etc...

Then you should reread it. The state only whithers away as Communist society develops out of a global socialist society as classes go away do to collective ownership.

To flip this question on it's head; have you read the analysis of the Spanish Civil War

No. I have already repeatedly stated that I don't know much at all about the Spanish Civil War. I at least know my own limitations.

or are you making an argument about something that don't have knowledge in?

For the third time, I do know a bit about the POUM. The POUM is not the same as the Spanish Civil War.

Bilan

7th June 2008, 05:14

I'm not! Would you dispute that the Kronstadt uprising was led at least partially by officers? That these people had petty bourgeois tendencies and that they were connected to foreign governments and to the Whites in exile in Finland?

I would dispute purely on the basis that I've not seen proof that it was partially led by Tsarist officers. If I see proof, then my view will change; but as of yet, only claims.
Their tendencies were, in some cases, 'petty bourgeois', but hardly to the extent that it's claimed.

"
RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF THE CREWS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND BATTLESHIP BRIGADES, occurring March 1st, 1921 Having heard the report of the crew representatives, sent to Petrograd by the General Meeting of ships' crews for clarification of the situation there, we resolve:
1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.
2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.
3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.
4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.
5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.
6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.
7. To abolish all Politotdels [Political Departments], since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.
8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.
9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.
10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the Communists, and if such guards or detachments are necessary, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.
11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.
12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to endorse our resolution.
13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.
14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.
15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.
The resolution was passed by the brigade assembly unanimously with two abstentions.
Petrichenko, President of the Brigade Meeting
Perepelkin, Secretary"[/quote]

My bold.

The one bolded could be seen as two things:

Petit bourgeois or anarchist.

The reason for that is that it states that communism should be voluntary, not coercive, and the liberation comes from voluntary cooperation, not state enforced cooperation.

Which is probably why some Marxists call anarchism petit bourgeois - cuz they don't get it. ;)

What is the material basis for that claim? What was the class nature of the state?

I don't know what you mean by "The class nature of the state"?
Do you mean, what class were the heads of state from? Middle, lower, proletariat.
But proletarians being heads of state does not make it a proletarian state.

Class does not go away spontaneously. Class goes away only when the means of production are owned collectively by the people instead of through a state. Classes can only began to go away once socialism has reached a global stage in terms of historical development.

Agreed, but again, that's not what I'm arguing against: I'm arguing that the state can perpetuate class systems.

I don't understand. Either I'm very much missing something here or that's a non-argument. I said that the state under Lenin and Stalin was a DoP, that the means of production were owned by the Proletarian state. You have contested the nature of that state but you have provided no material analysis to back that assertion up.

I'm saying that it was not a DoP, but that it was a Dictatorship over the proletariat. I'm saying that because the proletariat exerted little power - Soviet power was crushed and usurped into the Supreme Soviet. It was a party, and a dictatorship, ruling. Not the proletariat.
It was a proletarian state only in name.

Yes. For which we are critical of Stalin. But again, context is absolutely key. But even these errors do NOT make the state reactionary. Both in terms of a grand historical sense of the term but also for the immediate interests of the masses of people, the USSR was overwhelmingly progressive. I have already laid out the tremendous accomplishments made by Stalin in the USSR and they have been almost entirely ignored. The reason for this is that no body denies that these accomplishments were made. And I doubt most would deny that they were indeed momentous.

I'm not contesting the accomplishments, I'm contesting whether or not they out weigh the negative aspects, which they do not. Industrialization definitely is a grand achievement, especially in the USSR's case, but again, the nature of the state was overwhelmingly reactionary under Stalin. Compared to other states it was not; but with the crushing of other revolutionary organizations, and people, who wished to bring the revolution forward, one can hardly call it 'progressive'. And the state failed to aptly criticise itself, and allow itself to be criticised.

True. Not all opposition was crushed (at least originally) and for that opposition which was wrongly crushed Stalin was criticized. But again, hindsight is 20/20 and context is crucial.

Not originally, but it didn't take long.

I also don't think that political suppression is in and of itself reactionary. Good luck making a revolution if you aren't going to repress Bourgeois forces within the new society!

Repressing bourgeois forces is incomparable to repressing revolutionary forces.

Reaction is not an intention. It is a fact. Either, your actions have the ability to take society foreword towards Communism or they will drag it back towards capitalism. There are lots and lots of people who hate capitalism and want a Communist society but their ideology will objectively not get us there and will in fact return to capitalism.

Ideologies which support structures which perpetuate class will certainly lead back to capitalism.

A "Communist" is reactionary if they are sabotaging the operation of class rule.

When "class rule" is only in name, a "communist" who sabotages and revolts is revolutionary.

Based on what would you make that claim? And why the hatred of centralization?

Because hierarchical systems have a class nature. Centralization of power can in no way be democratic, nor can it be a true exertion of the will of the people. It can only be a façade at best.

Yes. Like all professions, military professionals from the earlier period were very prominent in the Red Army's later leadership as they were still the most experienced and the only ones qualified.

Oui.

Not really. Opportunism and counterrevolution masked in red (or black) are nothing new to hour movement.

True, but your judging counter revolutionary activity as that which challenges the state, failing to criticise, or recognize the nature of the state in itself.

Fair enough. I've created a thread in the politics forum (it's probably several pages back by now) advancing my view that sectarianism is (in this context) positive. The success of the revolution relies on advancing the most correct and the most revolutionary line. I don't see the revolution going anywhere near Communism without the correct orientation and the most advanced synthesis of theory and the most thorough study of the historical experience to that end.

I am indeed aware of this. But sectarianism is not going to lead to that. Sectarianism usually just prolongs stubbornness and egotistic politics, where people fail to recognize criticisms.
Dialogue and action bring forward revolutions.

Then what about the memos et. all found in France that were made before the uprising?

Which?

Because most of the political opposition (Bukharin, Kulaks, Whites, Trotsky, Fascists, Bourgeois agents) were reactionary.

I love how you slipped Trotsky in there. :lol:

Dros

7th June 2008, 18:21

Petit bourgeois or anarchist.

Considering that most of the soldiers were peasants, and that they were being influenced by whites and military officers, I think I know which one.

The reason for that is that it states that communism should be voluntary, not coercive, and the liberation comes from voluntary cooperation, not state enforced cooperation.

The end of private property is not going to occur spontaneously or without proletarian leadership being institutionalized through a state.

Which is probably why some Marxists call anarchism petit bourgeois - cuz they don't get it. ;)

Or because they do!:sneaky::tt2::cool:

I don't know what you mean by "The class nature of the state"?
Do you mean, what class were the heads of state from? Middle, lower, proletariat.

Engels talks about the origin of the state. The Marxist theory of the state is that the state is an instrument wherein one class dominates the others as determined by the class struggle in society.

So my question is, what class is running the USSR and why?

But proletarians being heads of state does not make it a proletarian state.

Very true. And I never made that claim.

Agreed, but again, that's not what I'm arguing against: I'm arguing that the state can perpetuate class systems.

And I'm arguing that it can also destroy them.

I'm saying that it was not a DoP, but that it was a Dictatorship over the proletariat. I'm saying that because the proletariat exerted little power - Soviet power was crushed and usurped into the Supreme Soviet. It was a party, and a dictatorship, ruling. Not the proletariat.
It was a proletarian state only in name.

I strongly disagree. Certainly, there were errors made in terms of democracy and these were largely corrected by Mao Zedong.

I'm not contesting the accomplishments, I'm contesting whether or not they out weigh the negative aspects, which they do not. Industrialization definitely is a grand achievement, especially in the USSR's case, but again, the nature of the state was overwhelmingly reactionary under Stalin. Compared to other states it was not; but with the crushing of other revolutionary organizations, and people, who wished to bring the revolution forward, one can hardly call it 'progressive'. And the state failed to aptly criticise itself, and allow itself to be criticised.

Why do you think the bad outweigh?

Not originally, but it didn't take long.

This is true and it's something Maoists criticize Stalin for.

Repressing bourgeois forces is incomparable to repressing revolutionary forces.

Again, our definitions differ. I think the suppression of subjectively revolutionary forces that will objectively lead to a return to capitalism is something that is necessary during socialism.

Ideologies which support structures which perpetuate class will certainly lead back to capitalism.

True in the long run.

When "class rule" is only in name, a "communist" who sabotages and revolts is revolutionary.

Again, our disagreement over the nature of the state.

Because hierarchical systems have a class nature. Centralization of power can in no way be democratic, nor can it be a true exertion of the will of the people. It can only be a façade at best.

Even if we accept that centralization and hierarchy are opposed to democracy (which I don't) it does not follow that the state is reactionary if it's class nature is proletarian and it takes a Communist orientation.

True, but your judging counter revolutionary activity as that which challenges the state, failing to criticise, or recognize the nature of the state in itself.

I don't fail to criticize Stalin! Maoists indeed are sharply critical of Stalin.

I do believe that the USSR was a DoP during this period and, if we operate under that assumption for a moment, you can see why the suppression of such "Communists" makes sense.

I am indeed aware of this. But sectarianism is not going to lead to that. Sectarianism usually just prolongs stubbornness and egotistic politics, where people fail to recognize criticisms.
Dialogue and action bring forward revolutions.

I think you are confusing healthy sectarianism with dogmatism.

I love how you slipped Trotsky in there. :lol:

:D

Well.....

Bilan

8th June 2008, 04:41

Considering that most of the soldiers were peasants, and that they were being influenced by whites and military officers, I think I know which one.

Influenced is a bit rich. Come on!

The end of private property is not going to occur spontaneously or without proletarian leadership being institutionalized through a state.

I'm not arguing it will occur spontaneously, but it's not going to occur through a hierarchical state which perpetuates its own existence now, is it?

Or because they do!:sneaky::tt2::cool:

:crying:

Engels talks about the origin of the state. The Marxist theory of the state is that the state is an instrument wherein one class dominates the others as determined by the class struggle in society.

So my question is, what class is running the USSR and why?

It's so much more complex than that. Especially in the USSR, which had a relatively small bourgeoisie (in comparison) which was not in power. The party exerted power; and created a managerial class which served its own ends.
But I get why you think what you do now. :lol: Fucking Marxists.

And I'm arguing that it can also destroy them.

When has it done that?

I strongly disagree. Certainly, there were errors made in terms of democracy and these were largely corrected by Mao Zedong.

Which is why China is a brutal capitalist state?
Surely if the proletariat was exerting power through this hierarchical structure, what has occurred wouldn't have?

Why do you think the bad outweigh?

Because of the atrocities against people committed by Stalin. I value life and liberty.

Again, our definitions differ. I think the suppression of subjectively revolutionary forces that will objectively lead to a return to capitalism is something that is necessary during socialism.

Most of the time, that opinion is based on inflated ego and pompous dogmatism. A revolutionary group that can't prove it's ideas is fucked; a revolutionary group that can't be criticised is going to fail.

True in the long run.

;)

Even if we accept that centralization and hierarchy are opposed to democracy (which I don't) it does not follow that the state is reactionary if it's class nature is proletarian and it takes a Communist orientation.

How can communism, a stateless and classless social organization, have centralization and hierarchy?
You can't grow a flower out of a chilli seed; the logic follows. You can't use hierarchical structures to get rid of class and hierarchy.

In any case, it can and does, because a centralized state is merely a repilca of the organs used by the bourgeoisie of the old world. It's reactionary because for the working class to emancipate itself from the shackles of capitalism it must organize through its own, and through new structures - workers councils, syndicates, etc. Not through the structures of the old world which will in turn lead to oppress it, and its power will wither away.

I do believe that the USSR was a DoP during this period and, if we operate under that assumption for a moment, you can see why the suppression of such "Communists" makes sense.

Only in some sort of twisted logic where you oppress comrades because you've become to arrogant to understand what you're doing!

Daweson

8th June 2008, 07:54

I don't remember who posted this a while back:

"A major obstacle preventing discussion between Anarchists and Marxists is the absence of a clear definition of what the state actually is - Marxists understand the state as an apparatus based on class suppression (so as to retain the position of the ruling class) and thus a workers state is required to ensure that the remnants of the bourgeoisie are unable to pose a threat to the rule of the working class and restore capitalist property relations through violent counter-revolution. Given this definition, it is clear that opposition to a workers state could be assumed to mean opposition to the use of force to defend the revolution - because Anarchists do not define the state in the same way as Marxists."

but word.

Y'all need to relax and consider this shit.

What exactly is the difference between a fancy democratic proletarian communist state and fancy democratic anarchist organizational structures? Is an issue of representative vs. direct democracy? Is it the word 'state?'

We want certain relationships abolished and established in the real world. We can modify the world of symbols to accurately reflect this, because that's all symbols do.

Drink a glass of water!

Dros

8th June 2008, 16:09

Influenced is a bit rich. Come on!

Why? Are you telling me that peasants from an army aren't going to express petty bourgeois ideology?

I'm not arguing it will occur spontaneously, but it's not going to occur through a hierarchical state which perpetuates its own existence now, is it?

Then it's not going to occur at all. Yes the states were necessarily hierarchical. Yes they perpetuate their existence. What is the material basis for this? The fact that there is still class! The state whithers away during late socialism when class distinctions begin to break down.

:crying:

:D

It's so much more complex than that.

I don't really have the time or will to summarize the entirety of Engels work on the subject, but that is really the essence of it.

Especially in the USSR, which had a relatively small bourgeoisie (in comparison) which was not in power.

Correct! The Bourgeoisie was not in power. The Proletariat was!

The party exerted power; and created a managerial class which served its own ends.

What is the basis for claiming that this "managerial class" was in fact a class?

But I get why you think what you do now. :lol: Fucking Marxists.

:Dyup:laugh:

When has it done that?

It was happening in the USSR, the PRC, and also more briefly in Albania.

But come on. Classes can't be destroyed until socialism has become global.

Which is why China is a brutal capitalist state?

Because there was a coup, not because the Proletariat wasn't in command.

Surely if the proletariat was exerting power through this hierarchical structure, what has occurred wouldn't have?

The Bourgeoisie seized power. That is always a risk.

Because of the atrocities against people committed by Stalin. I value life and liberty.

I think you underestimate the huge achievements Stalin made in terms of life and liberty.

Most of the time, that opinion is based on inflated ego and pompous dogmatism.

Perhaps. But it is often made on the basis of a scientific analysis of the objective conditions.

A revolutionary group that can't prove it's ideas is fucked;

Very true.

a revolutionary group that can't be criticised is going to fail.

Something Mao realised.

How can communism, a stateless and classless social organization, have centralization and hierarchy?

Communism can't. Socialism can.

You can't grow a flower out of a chilli seed; the logic follows. You can't use hierarchical structures to get rid of class and hierarchy.

Why not? Indeed, it's the only thing that can!

In any case, it can and does, because a centralized state is merely a repilca of the organs used by the bourgeoisie of the old world.

Not at all! See my sig for Lenin's and Mao's take.

It's reactionary because for the working class to emancipate itself from the shackles of capitalism it must organize through its own, and through new structures - workers councils, syndicates, etc.

And the most important structure: the Vanguard Party!

Also all of those things happened in the USSR and in the PRC.

Not through the structures of the old world which will in turn lead to oppress it, and its power will wither away.

:confused:

What are you talking about?

Only in some sort of twisted logic where you oppress comrades because you've become to arrogant to understand what you're doing!

Or where you have a scientific understanding and they insist on sabotaging the DoP in which case they become objectively reactionary.

trivas7

8th June 2008, 17:33

Daweson

8th June 2008, 17:44

I just don't understand why I should trust some oligarchy to put themselves in power across the world until every state is 'socialist.'

What, at that point, is their motivation for removing their monopoly of force?

And again, what's the difference between the interim socialist state (and can it even be called democratic?) and the revolutionary anarchist movement?

Surely there must be a structural difference.

MarxSchmarx

9th June 2008, 20:56

What exactly is the difference between a fancy democratic proletarian communist state and fancy democratic anarchist organizational structures? Is an issue of representative vs. direct democracy? Is it the word 'state?'

We want certain relationships abolished and established in the real world. We can modify the world of symbols to accurately reflect this, because that's all symbols do.

You're right, it's not about the ending condition, it's about how we get there:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-t54991/index.html?t=54991

Bilan

10th June 2008, 05:33

Why? Are you telling me that peasants from an army aren't going to express petty bourgeois ideology?

I am, because the peasantry wasn't just inclined to petit-bourgeois ideals, and there was infact, revolutionary anarchism existing in the minds of the peasantry - and I have no doubt that there were some at Krondstadt.

Then it's not going to occur at all. Yes the states were necessarily hierarchical. Yes they perpetuate their existence. What is the material basis for this? The fact that there is still class! The state whithers away during late socialism when class distinctions begin to break down.

There is a contradiction in that statement.

"Yes they perpetuate their existence"
"The state whithers away during late socialism when class distinctions break down"

The perpetuating of a hierarchical organization such as a state will in turn, without fail, lead to the formation of new class relations! "Late socialism" cannot come through such bollocks!

I don't really have the time or will to summarize the entirety of Engels work on the subject, but that is really the essence of it.

I sympathise, but again, what happened in Russia was far more complex than a "class exerting power". It was members of a class usurping power and exerting it back over their class.

Correct! The Bourgeoisie was not in power. The Proletariat was!

Ah, fraid not; the power of the proletariat ceased to be when the Soviets were crushed, and the supreme soviet born.

What is the basis for claiming that this "managerial class" was in fact a class?

It was separated from the proletariat in social, political and an economic sense.

It was happening in the USSR, the PRC, and also more briefly in Albania.

So it destroyed class relations, you think?

But come on. Classes can't be destroyed until socialism has become global.

Why do you say that?

Because there was a coup, not because the Proletariat wasn't in command.

I somehow doubt that proletariat would just bend over if it was in control because the bourgeoisie attempt to reseize power. The structures existed for it to occur; it means that power was in the hands of some over many, and that it could change hands. Thus, logically, the proletariat was not in power, but "representatives" of the proletariat.

The Bourgeoisie seized power. That is always a risk.

When you use bourgeois structures, yes, yes, it is. :)

I think you underestimate the huge achievements Stalin made in terms of life and liberty.

Really? Like what?

Perhaps. But it is often made on the basis of a scientific analysis of the objective conditions.

I beg to differ

Why not? Indeed, it's the only thing that can!

History proves that it does the opposite. Classes disappear when the people seize power; when the proletariat exerts power through the instruments of labour - Workers councils, syndicates - and through the communities - i.e. community assemblies.

Not at all! See my sig for Lenin's and Mao's take.

See Marx on the Paris Commune.

And the most important structure: the Vanguard Party!

Also all of those things happened in the USSR and in the PRC.

Nonsense!

:confused:

What are you talking about?

Oh, sorry, I'll be more clear (I can see how it would sound confusing;)).
The structures of the old world - the instruments of bourgeois society (i.e. hierarchical states, etc) - cannot be wieled by the proletariat for its own ends, and that, the only thing that will whither away is the power of the proletariat.

Or where you have a scientific understanding and they insist on sabotaging the DoP in which case they become objectively reactionary.

Science has to continually develop, and be continually expanded for it to be understood. When society is hierarchically organized, power is wielded over the people, not by them, and those at the top claim they have a "scientific understanding" and are thus "right" are dangerous; they fail to allow themselves to be criticised. The only option is resistance.

Daweson

10th June 2008, 08:55

You're right, it's not about the ending condition, it's about how we get there

Cool, but I was asking about the differences between the two democratic transitional systems.

I've got to say that I haven't found many particularly democratic socialist systems, though, and I think that's where a lot of the discomfort anarchists have in regards to Marxist theory comes from. I would like to know if having democratic structures during the revolutionary transitional period is considered risky, reasonable, important, or whatever by the Marxists here.

I would also like to know how the anarchists feel about solid structure during the revolution and what they think of the idea that this revolutionary structure would have to be in place everywhere on the planet before it could simplify.

I know this is asking a lot, but also tell me if I'm boring you with my lack of jargon or should get out of the deep end of the pool (as could have been implied by the link to 'what is communism?').

Kropotesta

10th June 2008, 09:23

I would also like to know how the anarchists feel about solid structure during the revolution and what they think of the idea that this revolutionary structure would have to be in place everywhere on the planet before it could simplify.

We advocate federalism and self-management throughout the revolution, as we do after the revolution, as what happened during the revolutionary period of the Russian revolution and Spanish revolution. We reject any form of centralised Dictatorship of the Proletariat as we believe that this will lead into a new class structure- alike the Russian revolution resulted in- aswell as centralism generally being undesireable.
I'm sure most of the anarchists here are internationalists.

Dros

10th June 2008, 21:44

I am, because the peasantry wasn't just inclined to petit-bourgeois ideals, and there was infact, revolutionary anarchism existing in the minds of the peasantry - and I have no doubt that there were some at Krondstadt.

Perhaps some. But the peasantry, even though they are a revolutionary class, do not have the proletarian class outlook necessary to lead a revolutionary movement. That is why you see peasants making petty bourgeois demands and being very influenced by petty bourgeois/white ideology.

There is a contradiction in that statement.
"Yes they perpetuate their existence"
"The state whithers away during late socialism when class distinctions break down"

The perpetuating of a hierarchical organization such as a state will in turn, without fail, lead to the formation of new class relations! "Late socialism" cannot come through such bollocks!

As per Engels, the state is an instrument of class rule. It exists solely to defend the interests of the ruling class. The Proletariat (the ruling class in the USSR) seeks to go out of existence. As class distinctions begin to break, as they did in the USSR with the collectivization and industrialization campaigns, and as the means of production become nationalized, the state becomes exceedingly irrelevant and whithers away.

Also, again, why does hierarchy lead to class relations?!

I sympathise, but again, what happened in Russia was far more complex than a "class exerting power". It was members of a class usurping power and exerting it back over their class.

This is a philosophical difference. I think you should read "Best Sons of the Fatherland" about the 25000er campaign.

Ah, fraid not; the power of the proletariat ceased to be when the Soviets were crushed, and the supreme soviet born.

Based on what? What was the class nature of the state?

It was separated from the proletariat in social, political and an economic sense.

That's just a sentence. I clearly disagree.

So it destroyed class relations, you think?

It definitely began to break down the material basis for class relations. Of course, the actual destruction of class relations would take decades and a global socialist society.

Why do you say that?

Because a state is required for one.

I somehow doubt that proletariat would just bend over if it was in control because the bourgeoisie attempt to reseize power. The structures existed for it to occur; it means that power was in the hands of some over many, and that it could change hands. Thus, logically, the proletariat was not in power, but "representatives" of the proletariat.

It was not at that time at all obvious that this was a bourgeois coup.

Yes. Power was in the hands of the Proletariat and the Proletariat's vanguard party.

I recognize that there is a need for a popular check on the party and so did Mao. That's why we have the theory of Cultural Revolution. The point is, that was synthesized out of the historical experience of the USSR and there is no basis to blame Stalin for not having that understanding.

When you use bourgeois structures, yes, yes, it is. :)

:lol:

What was bourgeois about the structure of the PRC under Mao Zedong?

Really? Like what?

Education
Healthcare
Gender relations
Food Availability
Defeat of Fascism
Collectivization
Industrialization
End of Kulaks

I beg to differ

How is my understanding dogmatic?:confused:

It seems to me that the revolution needs to be based in the most revolutionary theory. The only way to organize a revolution that can succeed is to organize it on the basis of the most advanced and sophisticated theory.

History proves that it does the opposite. Classes disappear when the people seize power; when the proletariat exerts power through the instruments of labour - Workers councils, syndicates - and through the communities - i.e. community assemblies.

:lol:

How can history prove something that has never happened?

See Marx on the Paris Commune.

The Paris Commune tore itself apart largely because there was not a vanguard party institutionalized in power. That doesn't mean the Commune wasn't a DoP. It does mean that repeating the Commune can't be our aim. We need to learn from that experience!

Nonsense!

See above.

Oh, sorry, I'll be more clear (I can see how it would sound confusing;)).
The structures of the old world - the instruments of bourgeois society (i.e. hierarchical states, etc) - cannot be wieled by the proletariat for its own ends, and that, the only thing that will whither away is the power of the proletariat.

How is this bourgeois structure?

Lenin actually said exactly that. He said there needs to be a DoP!

Science has to continually develop, and be continually expanded for it to be understood.

True...

When society is hierarchically organized, power is wielded over the people, not by them,

That remains unproven by you.

and those at the top claim they have a "scientific understanding" and are thus "right" are dangerous;

???

Scientific understanding is not something determined by power. It is determined through a scientific outlook and dialogue.

they fail to allow themselves to be criticised.

Not so. Mao Zedong's cultural revolution involved the Vanguard encouraging the masses of people to criticize them!

Bilan

12th June 2008, 05:23

Perhaps some. But the peasantry, even though they are a revolutionary class, do not have the proletarian class outlook necessary to lead a revolutionary movement. That is why you see peasants making petty bourgeois demands and being very influenced by petty bourgeois/white ideology.

The proletariat is prone to petit bourgeois demands, too. The "American Dream" is a very petit-bourgeois concept, and its something many American proletarians still hold too.
All classes are susceptible to reactionary ideologies and revolutionary ones.
- Makhno was a peasant and became a revolutionary anarchist militant.
- Kropotkin was a prince and became one of the most important revolutionary socialist/anarchist theorists.
- Durruti was a proletarian, through and through, and became one of the most inspiring anarchist militants in history!

The peasants clearly had the ability to see beyond their class and toward socialism. If they didn't the Russian Revolution couldn't have happened.

As per Engels, the state is an instrument of class rule. It exists solely to defend the interests of the ruling class. The Proletariat (the ruling class in the USSR) seeks to go out of existence. As class distinctions begin to break, as they did in the USSR with the collectivization and industrialization campaigns, and as the means of production become nationalized, the state becomes exceedingly irrelevant and whithers away.

You agreed before it perpetuates its own existence.
Now it perpetuates its own existence and whithers away?

Collectivisation was by force, and the distribution of wealth was not equal.
I think it became quite evident due to the distribution, it was not whithering away.
Gloustecer: Distribution shall undo (excess),
and each man shall have enough.

Distribution of wealth is a fundamental to the breaking down of class. If this does not occur, collectivisation is irrelevant.

This is a philosophical difference. I think you should read "Best Sons of the Fatherland" about the 25000er campaign.

It's not philosophical. It's how it manifested.
I've not heard of the book. Link?

Based on what? What was the class nature of the state?

This Marxist analysis of the state isn't going into enough depth on it, and you know it.

That's just a sentence. I clearly disagree.

As is your rebuttal.

It definitely began to break down the material basis for class relations. Of course, the actual destruction of class relations would take decades and a global socialist society.

Why do you say that?

Because a state is required for one.

That's not an argument, that's just stating the conclusion of your argument.

It was not at that time at all obvious that this was a bourgeois coup.

So what does that tell you?

Yes. Power was in the hands of the Proletariat and the Proletariat's vanguard party.

So, how do'st thou explain the destruction of the Soviets, then? Is this a manifestation of proletarian power, or is it an example of the nature of centralized, bureaucratic state, of which the power of the proletariat has been stripped of its power, and replaced by representatives?

I recognize that there is a need for a popular check on the party and so did Mao. That's why we have the theory of Cultural Revolution. The point is, that was synthesized out of the historical experience of the USSR and there is no basis to blame Stalin for not having that understanding.

I'm not blaming Stalin personally, I'm blaming the structures. Stalin was just playing his role within it.

I was talking about Russia.

[quote]
Education
Healthcare
Gender relations
Food Availability
Defeat of Fascism
Collectivization
Industrialization
End of Kulaks

I'm aware education improved, yes.
As for the rest, do go on? Examples (laws, institutions)?

How is my understanding dogmatic?:confused:

How isn't it?

It seems to me that the revolution needs to be based in the most revolutionary theory. The only way to organize a revolution that can succeed is to organize it on the basis of the most advanced and sophisticated theory.

That's logical, but it's only through practice and debate can that be materialized. Sectarianism =/= either of those.

:lol:

How can history prove something that has never happened?

I meant that it proved that the state doesn't do that, which has occurred. The latter became more evident (that it was occurring) in Barcelona and anarchist controlled areas in Spain during the Civil War. There were, however, still problems (like sexism).

The Paris Commune tore itself apart largely because there was not a vanguard party institutionalized in power. That doesn't mean the Commune wasn't a DoP. It does mean that repeating the Commune can't be our aim. We need to learn from that experience!

The commune didn't defend itself, or make any attacks! That was more to blame than its lack of a vanguard.

How is this bourgeois structure?

You're using the instruments of bourgeois society - the same state, the same organizational structures - and you're asking how it's a bourgeois structure?

Lenin actually said exactly that. He said there needs to be a DoP!

The DoP would not be like what I see Lenin and Leninists advocating.

That remains unproven by you.

It's not unproven at all. How can you argue that hierarchical organization, which by definition means power is held at the top, does not exert power over? The "party" which takes power, through representatives, is exerting power over the proletariat. If the proletariat is exerting power, it is doing it through structures which will allow it to do so - that means workers councils, soviets and community assemblies. Not the state which oppresses them now.

Scientific understanding is not something determined by power. It is determined through a scientific outlook and dialogue.

Yes, and people, with absurdly unscientific understandings, who still use scientific rhetoric, can still be wrong, and still fail to be criticised about it. Such is the reason behind the continual attacks on anarchists by the USSR. They were wrong, and they were brutal, and the state was overtly violent to revolutionaries.

Not so. Mao Zedong's cultural revolution involved the Vanguard encouraging the masses of people to criticize them!

That only occurs when there's a climate which allows them to do so.

Die Neue Zeit

12th June 2008, 05:33

http://www.revleft.com/vb/spontaneity-class-consciousness-t81312/index.html

Dros

13th June 2008, 02:43

The proletariat is prone to petit bourgeois demands, too. The "American Dream" is a very petit-bourgeois concept, and its something many American proletarians still hold too.
All classes are susceptible to reactionary ideologies and revolutionary ones.

That's quite true. As Marx said, the mainstream ideology is always that ideology of the ruling class.

All I'm saying is that peasants are more prone to a reactionary outlook because of the material basis of their wealth.

- Makhno was a peasant and became a revolutionary anarchist militant.
- Kropotkin was a prince and became one of the most important revolutionary socialist/anarchist theorists.
- Durruti was a proletarian, through and through, and became one of the most inspiring anarchist militants in history!

I'd go with the example's of Stalin and Engels...

I don't disagree with this. I'm not a vulgar determinist. I'm not saying that their aren't many important counter examples. I'm not making a law here, but an observation based on materialism. Ideas emerge from material reality, not vice versa. Objectively, peasants as a class are less revolutionary because they are not the only class with nothing to lose but their chains.

The peasants clearly had the ability to see beyond their class and toward socialism. If they didn't the Russian Revolution couldn't have happened.

Agreed!

[/I]You agreed before it perpetuates its own existence.
Now it perpetuates its own existence and whithers away?

This is not a linear relationship. The state is an instrument of class rule and reflects always the interests of the ruling class, in this case the Proletariat. As I said before, the interests of the Proletariat is to go out of existence. As the class goes out of existence so does the state. The state perpetuates itself only insofar as it is in the interests of the Proletariat for it to do so.

Collectivisation was by force, and the distribution of wealth was not equal.
I think it became quite evident due to the distribution, it was not whithering away.

1.) There were problems with collectivization true. And this shouldn't surprise anyone considering the objective conditions.

2.) Again, the state was not supposed to whither at that time. It begins to whither after the historical epoch of socialism.

Gloustecer: Distribution shall undo (excess),
and each man shall have enough.

Distribution of wealth is a fundamental to the breaking down of class. If this does not occur, collectivisation is irrelevant.

It was occurring. Again, one of the things that Marxist-Leninists recognize is that the new society will bear the birth marks of the old. This is a process that takes time and can't simply be legislated. But Stalin made the greatest advances yet achieved by humanity in this regard.

It's not philosophical. It's how it manifested.
I've not heard of the book. Link?

It's old. I suggest you try and find it at a bookstore. ISBN 0-19-504134-8

This Marxist analysis of the state isn't going into enough depth on it, and you know it.

What are you talking about? Simply asserting a lack of depth does not show the lack. I've already referenced the full argument. Obviously, I'm not going to rewrite Engels' book in this post.

State's exist for the sole purpose of allowing the ruling class to dominate the other classes. In the absence of such a class, the state deteriorates, which is why the withering theory makes sense. So, what class was in control of the USSR?

Why do you say that?

Insofar as collectivization and industrialization represent the first attempt at breaking down the objective conditions and production relations that give rise to class relations.

That's not an argument, that's just stating the conclusion of your argument.

The state is required to suppress the bourgeoisie, to eliminate the possibility of a new bourgeoisie developing, to collectivize, to industrialize, to plan the economy, to fight imperialism, etc. All the things necessary for the revolution to succeed.

So what does that tell you?

That there's a class struggle under socialism? And that the bourgeoisie won?

So, how do'st thou explain the destruction of the Soviets, then? Is this a manifestation of proletarian power, or is it an example of the nature of centralized, bureaucratic state, of which the power of the proletariat has been stripped of its power, and replaced by representatives?

What is the problem with centralization and bureaucracy? Or vanguards, the party of the class conscious Proletariat.

I'm not blaming Stalin personally, I'm blaming the structures. Stalin was just playing his role within it.

There was no way for the structures to know it either! The point is the CPSU could not have known the results of this and Mao and the structures of the CPC corrected that to a great extent.

I was talking about Russia.

You were talking about Vanguardism.

Also, what exactly was bourgeois about the CPSU's structure? Lenin specifically states that the Communists can't use bourgeois democratic structures to attain or exert power.

I'm aware education improved, yes.
As for the rest, do go on? Examples (laws, institutions)?

Food Availability

Food was more efficiently distributed for a time. However, WWII and peasant sabotage largely mitigated this along with the natural famines that Stalin is so often accused of causing.

Gender relations

For the first time, women had an opportunity in government and access to education. Not to say mistakes weren't also made in this department.

Defeat of Fascism

Soviet industrialization means Hitler loses.

Collectivization
Industrialization

You know about what those are. What questions have you?

End of Kulaks

For a very long time, rural Russia had been dominated by a class of wealthy land owning peasants who held the peasants in semi-feudal conditions and enforced their rule, even into the 1920's, with roving bands of thugs, anti-Bolshevik militias. They were overthrown.

How isn't it?

If you are going to say that my approach or line is anti-scientific, you would have to go about proving where I've been mistaken and that I'm clinging to some core of ideology with no basis. If you can't do so convincingly, then I'm simply not being dogmatic and just being healthily sectarian.

That's logical, but it's only through practice and debate can that be materialized. Sectarianism =/= either of those.

Sectarianism does not mitigate debate. It simply means that the different sects should operate within their own organizations. This is in fact necessary for the revolution to succeed. We need a vanguard willing to take the most revolutionary line out to the Proletariat. In the absence of such a vanguard, and the vanguard party, the revolution will either not happen or fail.

I meant that it proved that the state doesn't do that, which has occurred. The latter became more evident (that it was occurring) in Barcelona and anarchist controlled areas in Spain during the Civil War.

Are you saying that classes ended during the Spanish Civil War?

There were, however, still problems (like sexism).

And lot's and lot's of others arising from the absence of a state! Like them getting defeated quite rapidly.

The commune didn't defend itself, or make any attacks! That was more to blame than its lack of a vanguard.

It tore itself apart politically. It made many errors based on the lack of a politically institutionalized Vanguard.

Also, the Commune could never have survived. One city in a nation? Never.

You're using the instruments of bourgeois society - the same state, the same organizational structures - and you're asking how it's a bourgeois structure?

Yes. I was unaware that the Czar had been General Secretary of the RSDLP(Bolshevik)!

The DoP would not be like what I see Lenin and Leninists advocating.

The only ones since the Commune all have been.

It's not unproven at all. How can you argue that hierarchical organization, which by definition means power is held at the top, does not exert power over? The "party" which takes power, through representatives, is exerting power over the proletariat. If the proletariat is exerting power, it is doing it through structures which will allow it to do so - that means workers councils, soviets and community assemblies. Not the state which oppresses them now.

Yes. The party operates according to democratic centralism. There is both democracy and hierarchy. Hierarchy allows for functional processes to occur. Democracy means that those are reflected by the party's membership which is the proletarian vanguard. Lastly, I've already stated that there should have been more checks on the Vanguard. That's exactly what Mao did and what Avakian is currently expanding on.

Yes, and people, with absurdly unscientific understandings, who still use scientific rhetoric, can still be wrong, and still fail to be criticised about it.

Then that is a matter of not enough criticism! Do more criticizing! Have discussion! As is customary in Vanguard parties in order to develop the most scientific and revolutionary line.

Such is the reason behind the continual attacks on anarchists by the USSR. They were wrong, and they were brutal, and the state was overtly violent to revolutionaries.

The state was overtly violent to people who were objectively reationary. I really have no problem with that.

That only occurs when there's a climate which allows them to do so.

Say what?

You said Vanguards limit criticism. This Vanguard encouraged criticism of it! To the point where there was even violence in the streets (although rarely directed against the state interestingly!)

So tell me: what's wrong with a state that gives workers big sheets of paper and tells them to write their views on it and post them in public spaces? What's wrong with actively encouraging worker involvement in politics directly? What is wrong with having the Proletariat criticize and shape the positions of the state?

Bilan

13th June 2008, 08:55

That's quite true. As Marx said, the mainstream ideology is always that ideology of the ruling class.

Agreed!

All I'm saying is that peasants are more prone to a reactionary outlook because of the material basis of their wealth.

Prone, perhaps, but not definite indication, because we both recognize that its possible for them to see forward to a classless society - communism - and especially because of what was going on in Russia, it is entirely possible that they were acting in these interests.

I'd go with the example's of Stalin and Engels...

Meh, it matters not who we choose in this case. ;)

I don't disagree with this. I'm not a vulgar determinist. I'm not saying that their aren't many important counter examples. I'm not making a law here, but an observation based on materialism. Ideas emerge from material reality, not vice versa. Objectively, peasants as a class are less revolutionary because they are not the only class with nothing to lose but their chains.

Oui.

This is not a linear relationship. The state is an instrument of class rule and reflects always the interests of the ruling class, in this case the Proletariat. As I said before, the interests of the Proletariat is to go out of existence. As the class goes out of existence so does the state. The state perpetuates itself only insofar as it is in the interests of the Proletariat for it to do so.

I understand this, what I'm saying is that a state, the actual organ, does not always act in such an interest, because it's interests conflict with that of the proletariat. The interest of the state is to perpetuate its own existence; the proletariat, to go out of existence. They are in total conflict.

1.) There were problems with collectivization true. And this shouldn't surprise anyone considering the objective conditions.

It shouldn't, no. In any case, it's not worthy of admiration because of how it was carried out.

2.) Again, the state was not supposed to whither at that time. It begins to whither after the historical epoch of socialism.

I wasn't suggesting it was. I meant that classes were not whithering away; that they were not being broken down. Bad choice of words on my part. :lol:

It was occurring. Again, one of the things that Marxist-Leninists recognize is that the new society will bear the birth marks of the old. This is a process that takes time and can't simply be legislated. But Stalin made the greatest advances yet achieved by humanity in this regard.

So how do you explain the differences in salaries between bureacrats, and heads of state, and the peasants and proletariat? If distribution was equal, or getting equal, it would not have grown, or even been to the extent it was, would it?

It's old. I suggest you try and find it at a bookstore. ISBN 0-19-504134-8

I'll have a look for it. Cheers. :)

What are you talking about? Simply asserting a lack of depth does not show the lack. I've already referenced the full argument. Obviously, I'm not going to rewrite Engels' book in this post.

State's exist for the sole purpose of allowing the ruling class to dominate the other classes. In the absence of such a class, the state deteriorates, which is why the withering theory makes sense. So, what class was in control of the USSR?

Classes do not just appear like magic, and don't disappear in the same way. They're created through structures. There are structures, as you're well aware, that create, and perpetuate class systems; there are also structures which destroy them.

States, hierarchically organized, creates a "ruled" and "ruler", the two become social, political, and economic divisions - the foundation of class.
Pissing about til the historical epoch wont change that. No form of hierarchical structure can or will, in the same way that no leader can, will, or has.

Only through proletarian structures - structures which allow for the proletariat to exert its power (and these structures I've spoken of over and over again) can this change. Structures which destroy class by not allowing it to exist - these are horizontal, egalitarian structures.

That doesn't mean that proletariat will disarm itself and become defenceless, it means the proletariat will be ruled by none other than itself. It means that the organization of society must be done at its roots; from the bottom.

The withering away doesn't make sense because it negates the basic premise of structures; that they perpetuate social and political organization - they're the basis of it.

Insofar as collectivization and industrialization represent the first attempt at breaking down the objective conditions and production relations that give rise to class relations.

True, and collectivisation is a good thing, as is industrialisation - but it has to be through the will of, and to the advantage of, the proletariat - it has to be shown through proof, and practice, that this will be to the advantage of the people - not through top down coercian!

The state is required to suppress the bourgeoisie,

No, arms and militias are required to suppress the bourgeoisie who use arms; words to those who don't pick up weapons.

to eliminate the possibility of a new bourgeoisie developing,

The elements of bourgeois society which perpetuate class and hierarchy must be destroyed.

to collectivize, to industrialize, to plan the economy, to fight imperialism, etc. All the things necessary for the revolution to succeed.

All are things which can be done through workers self management.

That there's a class struggle under socialism? And that the bourgeoisie won?

or that...?

What is the problem with centralization and bureaucracy? Or vanguards, the party of the class conscious Proletariat.

It robs the proletariat of their actual power...

There was no way for the structures to know it either!

Well, in the same way there's no way a hammer to know its hitting a nail. ;)

The point is the CPSU could not have known the results of this and Mao and the structures of the CPC corrected that to a great extent.

So great that the structures allowed a bourgeois coup to take place right under their noses?

Also, what exactly was bourgeois about the CPSU's structure? Lenin specifically states that the Communists can't use bourgeois democratic structures to attain or exert power.

So why did he, then?

Food was more efficiently distributed for a time. However, WWII and peasant sabotage largely mitigated this along with the natural famines that Stalin is so often accused of causing.

Haha, I think we can assume the natural famines, Stalin played no roll in (although, a fairer distribution he could've played a part in - but got to keep the thin upper layer happy, right?)

So, you attribute none of the failures of distribution in the USSR to the organization of the economy?

For the first time, women had an opportunity in government and access to education. Not to say mistakes weren't also made in this department.

Didn't Stalin ban abortion and gay marriage?

For a very long time, rural Russia had been dominated by a class of wealthy land owning peasants who held the peasants in semi-feudal conditions and enforced their rule, even into the 1920's, with roving bands of thugs, anti-Bolshevik militias. They were overthrown.

This is true, and was positive.

If you are going to say that my approach or line is anti-scientific, you would have to go about proving where I've been mistaken and that I'm clinging to some core of ideology with no basis. If you can't do so convincingly, then I'm simply not being dogmatic and just being healthily sectarian.

[quote]
Are you saying that classes ended during the Spanish Civil War?

Nope, I said, "The latter became more evident (that it was occurring) in Barcelona and anarchist controlled areas in Spain during the Civil War. There were, however, still problems (like sexism)."

That being, classes in anarchist controlled areas (e.g. Barcelona) were more evidently "withering away" then in Stalin's Russia. Withering away, not gone.

And lot's and lot's of others arising from the absence of a state! Like them getting defeated quite rapidly.

...Germany had invaded France, and the French AND Germany army turned on them...a state wouldn't have changed shit.

Yes. I was unaware that the Czar had been General Secretary of the RSDLP(Bolshevik)!

Haha, that hardly disproved what I said.

v
The state was overtly violent to people who were objectively reationary. I really have no problem with that.

This objective reactionary nonsense is silly!
They were not trying to revert Russian back to capitalism, but bring the revolution forward!

You said Vanguards limit criticism. This Vanguard encouraged criticism of it! To the point where there was even violence in the streets (although rarely directed against the state interestingly!)

So tell me: what's wrong with a state that gives workers big sheets of paper and tells them to write their views on it and post them in public spaces? What's wrong with actively encouraging worker involvement in politics directly? What is wrong with having the Proletariat criticize and shape the positions of the state?

With those questions, nothing is wrong with that, that is all positive.

Dros

13th June 2008, 15:36

Prone, perhaps, but not definite indication, because we both recognize that its possible for them to see forward to a classless society - communism - and especially because of what was going on in Russia, it is entirely possible that they were acting in these interests.

Of course they can see through to Communism but they can't be the leading force of the revolution and they as a class have an outlook which makes them prone to reaction. I see no reason to believe that they were acting in that way, and even if they were, there actions were still objectively, if not subjectively, reactionary.

I understand this, what I'm saying is that a state, the actual organ, does not always act in such an interest, because it's interests conflict with that of the proletariat. The interest of the state is to perpetuate its own existence; the proletariat, to go out of existence. They are in total conflict.

Why is it in the interests of a Proletarian state to perpetuate its own existence.

It shouldn't, no. In any case, it's not worthy of admiration because of how it was carried out.

Breaking free of feudal conditions and collectivizing agriculture, subverting the material basis of class isn't worthy of admiration?!

I wasn't suggesting it was. I meant that classes were not whithering away; that they were not being broken down. Bad choice of words on my part. :lol:

Through processes like industrialization and collectivization, they were being broken down in terms of the objective factors that lead to class.

So how do you explain the differences in salaries between bureacrats, and heads of state, and the peasants and proletariat? If distribution was equal, or getting equal, it would not have grown, or even been to the extent it was, would it?

Sure there may have been corruption and maybe that was a mistake but in my view it is not at all damning or even near damning.

Classes do not just appear like magic, and don't disappear in the same way. They're created through structures. There are structures, as you're well aware, that create, and perpetuate class systems; there are also structures which destroy them.

Ahh... Here's what we've really been talking about.

Perhaps this is the anarchist view, but it is not the Communist one. To Communists, classes are produced when certain individuals gain control over the means of production. The state, historically, comes after in order to prevent the classes from tearing society apart. So, the state does not perpetuate class, the objective conditions where one group of people owns the means of production for the purpose of exploiting others does.

States, hierarchically organized, creates a "ruled" and "ruler", the two become social, political, and economic divisions - the foundation of class.

Again, the state post-dates class. This is an historically untrue theory.

Pissing about til the historical epoch wont change that. No form of hierarchical structure can or will, in the same way that no leader can, will, or has.

Certainly they have.

Only through proletarian structures - structures which allow for the proletariat to exert its power (and these structures I've spoken of over and over again) can this change. Structures which destroy class by not allowing it to exist - these are horizontal, egalitarian structures.

Won't work for the several reasons I've pointed out already.

That doesn't mean that proletariat will disarm itself and become defenceless, it means the proletariat will be ruled by none other than itself. It means that the organization of society must be done at its roots; from the bottom.

It must be done both ways at the same time! From bottom up and from top down. Very much like the GPCR!

The withering away doesn't make sense because it negates the basic premise of structures; that they perpetuate social and political organization - they're the basis of it.

How is that the premise of structures!

True, and collectivisation is a good thing, as is industrialisation - but it has to be through the will of, and to the advantage of, the proletariat - it has to be shown through proof, and practice, that this will be to the advantage of the people - not through top down coercian!

I suggest again the "Best Sons of the Fatherland". I think it will demonstrate that the workers were very much behind Stalin.

No, arms and militias are required to suppress the bourgeoisie who use arms; words to those who don't pick up weapons.

Perhaps. You still need the state.

The elements of bourgeois society which perpetuate class and hierarchy must be destroyed.

Exactly. Which can be done only by a state.

All are things which can be done through workers self management.

None of those things can be done through mere self management.

or that...?

:confused:

It robs the proletariat of their actual power...

In what way?

Well, in the same way there's no way a hammer to know its hitting a nail. ;)

:confused:

You said Stalin made a mistake. I said there was no reason to blame Stalin for this because it was impossible to know the results. You said you weren't blaming Stalin but merely blaming the structures. I said the CPSU (the structure) could not have known either due to the lack of previous experience in the socialist movement at building socialism.

What is the metaphor I'm missing here?

So great that the structures allowed a bourgeois coup to take place right under their noses?

So what? There was a coup! Obviously, there needs to be a way to prevent this. That's what MLM theory is about today and something that Bob Avakian has been working on for decades.

So why did he, then?

Really! So the Czar was the General Secretary of the Bolsheviks after all?:D

So, you attribute none of the failures of distribution in the USSR to the organization of the economy?

Certainly there were failures. I'm saying that this was the first ever attempt at this in human history and that mistakes, even profound ones, were inevitable.

Didn't Stalin ban abortion and gay marriage?

Yes. Well, gay marriage had never been legal so he didn't really ban it but point taken. I'm aware that he did this and obviously I disagree with that. But again, with respect to abortion, Stalin was the product of nineteenth century Georgia. Not a bastion of progress. It is not at all surprising to see some anti-Communist views. It's just important to understand where they came from scientifically.

As to gay marriage, remember, there was very very little science about homosexuality at that time! There just wasn't very much known at all.

This is true, and was positive.

If you are going to say that my approach or line is anti-scientific, you would have to go about proving where I've been mistaken and that I'm clinging to some core of ideology with no basis. If you can't do so convincingly, then I'm simply not being dogmatic and just being healthily sectarian.

I agree with myself!

Nope, I said, "The latter became more evident (that it was occurring) in Barcelona and anarchist controlled areas in Spain during the Civil War. There were, however, still problems (like sexism)."

What do you mean?

That being, classes in anarchist controlled areas (e.g. Barcelona) were more evidently "withering away" then in Stalin's Russia. Withering away, not gone.

Again, I don't really have the knowledge about this historical period to say much of use other then that I doubt it.

...Germany had invaded France, and the French AND Germany army turned on them...a state wouldn't have changed shit.

Don't really know enough but a state could have tried to prevent that from happening.

Haha, that hardly disproved what I said.

Sure. You said the CPSU was a bourgeois structure. The Czar, being the former ruler of the USSR and being a representative of the feudal and bourgeois classes must surely have been a member, no?:D

This objective reactionary nonsense is silly!
They were not trying to revert Russian back to capitalism, but bring the revolution forward!

Of course some of them weren't subjectively reactionary! But all of them were objectively reactionary in the sense that the outcome of their actions would have been capitalism.

With those questions, nothing is wrong with that, that is all positive.

So centralized, hierarchical, vanguard structures can do good things?

Bilan

13th June 2008, 16:19

Of course they can see through to Communism but they can't be the leading force of the revolution and they as a class have an outlook which makes them prone to reaction. I see no reason to believe that they were acting in that way, and even if they were, there actions were still objectively, if not subjectively, reactionary.

This doesn't negate that the Krondstadt sailors weren't petit-bourgeois, and infact, makes evident that you realize that its entirely possible for them to be revolutionary, if not anarchists and communists.

Why is it in the interests of a Proletarian state to perpetuate its own existence.It's in the interests of all hierarchical states. We've gone over this.

Breaking free of feudal conditions and collectivizing agriculture, subverting the material basis of class isn't worthy of admiration?!No, that is, but through force - violence, murder, terror etc. - this is not worthy of admiration.

Through processes like industrialization and collectivization, they were being broken down in terms of the objective factors that lead to class.But in terms of distribution and wealth, they were being reinforced.

Sure there may have been corruption and maybe that was a mistake but in my view it is not at all damning or even near damning.Maybe that was a mistake?
And it was completely damning! It was reinforcing the class system; inequality! How can you say it was not damning?

Ahh... Here's what we've really been talking about.

Perhaps this is the anarchist view, but it is not the Communist one. To Communists, classes are produced when certain individuals gain control over the means of production. The state, historically, comes after in order to prevent the classes from tearing society apart. So, the state does not perpetuate class, the objective conditions where one group of people owns the means of production for the purpose of exploiting others does.And don't you think, when a state, as in the, anarchist definition, a hierarchical structure which exerts power over the populace (and no doubt, an organ of class rule), is taking over the means of production? Not only that, but the whole social, economic and political nature of the country?

Again, the state post-dates class. This is an historically untrue theory.What do you mean?

Certainly they haveLike when?

Won't work for the several reasons I've pointed out already.I most certainly disagree!

It must be done both ways at the same time! From bottom up and from top down. Very much like the GPCR!I see no point in that. Why not have the proletariat rule?

I suggest again the "Best Sons of the Fatherland". I think it will demonstrate that the workers were very much behind Stalin.I very much think that you know that there was a climate of fear under Stalin. Much like Mussolini (No, I am not suggesting Russia was comparable to fascism, or that Stalin was a fascist, blah blah blah), in the sense that, not every Italian supported Mussolini, but public out cry against Mussolini was violently punished, criticism of the fascist state was a life threatening mistake, and knowledge of what was being done at the top was scarce, and at best, false.
When knowledge of the activities of both became more apparent, their support basis withered.

(Again, just want to say, No, Stalin was not a fascist, and I do not think that!)

Perhaps. You still need the state.I beg to differ. ;)

Exactly. Which can be done only by a state.Bah! I have a reccomendation for you; ever read Towards a Fresh Revolution?

None of those things can be done through mere self management.
Self management of the means of production and distribution will lead to equal (on the basis of each according to their ability, each according to their need styled 'equal', not ration-esque equal) distribution of goods; self management of armaments factories and militias, on horizontal basis (much like the organization of the Anarchist Columns in the Spanish Civil War) will be able to defend the revolution.
I forgot what else I mentioned. :blushing:

In what way?Because the proletariat no longer exerts power, the people above do!

You said Stalin made a mistake. I said there was no reason to blame Stalin for this because it was impossible to know the results. You said you weren't blaming Stalin but merely blaming the structures. I said the CPSU (the structure) could not have known either due to the lack of previous experience in the socialist movement at building socialism.

What is the metaphor I'm missing here?Hang on hang on, that mocking response was to your analogy, not to your argument. :lol:

So what? There was a coup! Obviously, there needs to be a way to prevent this. That's what MLM theory is about today and something that Bob Avakian has been working on for decades.There was a coup because the structures allowed for it took place! That's the point! These structures, because they are hierarchical, because the proletariat itself does not assert power, but a party representing it, are prone to coups, in the same way you speak of the peasants being prone to reactionary ideology!

Really! So the Czar was the General Secretary of the Bolsheviks after all?:D
Lenin was teh Tsar in disguise! :ohmy:
hehe

Certainly there were failures. I'm saying that this was the first ever attempt at this in human history and that mistakes, even profound ones, were inevitable.Mistakes which could've been rectified, or even avoided; mistakes which we should not allow to ever happen again; the biggest mistake being the structures!

Yes. Well, gay marriage had never been legal so he didn't really ban it but point taken. Ah, I remember reading it was legalized under Lenin. I could be wrong, though.

I'm aware that he did this and obviously I disagree with that. But again, with respect to abortion, Stalin was the product of nineteenth century Georgia. Not a bastion of progress. It is not at all surprising to see some anti-Communist views. It's just important to understand where they came from scientifically.True, but the right to abortion, and rights over ones body, are something which was, and had been for sometime advocated by revolutionaries - Emma Goldman, for example. Why did he ignore them?

As to gay marriage, remember, there was very very little science about homosexuality at that time! There just wasn't very much known at all.
This is perhaps true, but I am saying it was still socially reactionary.

I agree with myself!hehe, I didn't mean to post that. :blushing:

What do you mean?That classes were being more rapidly eradicated in Spain in the anarchist controlled areas than they were in Russia, but that classes still existed.
So, breaking down, not gone, because of the more egalitarian structures.

Again, I don't really have the knowledge about this historical period to say much of use other then that I doubt it.I reccomend Durruti: The People Armed to you on this one.

Don't really know enough but a state could have tried to prevent that from happening.So could a band of kids with rocks; the point is they would've lost.

Sure. You said the CPSU was a bourgeois structure. The Czar, being the former ruler of the USSR and being a representative of the feudal and bourgeois classes must surely have been a member, no?:DWasn't he, the Tsar, a member of the feudal classes, and more of the aristocracy, than of the bourgeoisie? Which is why the Mensheviks argued for the bourgeoisie to take class? IS this not true?

Of course some of them weren't subjectively reactionary! But all of them were objectively reactionary in the sense that the outcome of their actions would have been capitalism.The outcomes of the USSR experiment was also capitalism. Was it reactionary, too?

So centralized, hierarchical, vanguard structures can do good things?
Of course. They can also do, and very often do, very bad things.

The bourgeois state can do good things, too. You know this, as well.

I think you're aware I don't think that the vanguard is this evil, villainous organization of underground Leninists wanting to eat teh anarkist brainz, and steal our lunch money *ahem* labour notes. :lol:

Orange Juche

13th June 2008, 18:56

:lol: Anarchist revolutions. You can blame the Communists all you want, but deep down everyone knows it's because anarchism is a failed ideology.

1) Everyone knows this? Who are these "everyone"? The people that happen to agree with you?

2) I would say that theres more evidence that anarchism is a workable theory than Leninism. It doesn't take much to see that.

Originally Posted by drosera99 http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1158896#post1158896)
Oh my!

It seems like H-L-V-S isn't the only reactionary on the boards!http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/ohmy.gif

[sits back and watches as some of the so-called anarchists show their true colors]
STRAWMAN.

Seriously, be responsive and focus on the topic, or shut it. Its annoying to see people childishly lash out with the "HE'S A MEANIE HEAD!!!!" attitude any time anyone disagrees with them. Someone isn't a reactionary just because they don't agree with your obviously glorious and irrefutable ideologies.

Originally Posted by drosera99 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1164972#post1164972)
The workers put the party in power. They were in essence rebelling against the dictatorship of the proletariat. That leads to capitalism.

Wow, thats a really re-god-damned-diculous conclusion to come to. So, if anyone fights for an anti-capitalist ideology that doesn't agree with yours... it will lead to capitalism?

Can you prove this? Or are you (most likely) pulling it out of your ass?

Meetingpeopleiseasy, please make sure to not post more than once at a time, and if want to add something, edit your post, don't just put in more and more comments. Cheers. :) Proper Tea is Theft.

Dros

14th June 2008, 02:28

This doesn't negate that the Krondstadt sailors weren't petit-bourgeois, and infact, makes evident that you realize that its entirely possible for them to be revolutionary, if not anarchists and communists.

My argument was never that they weren't revolutionary because they were peasants. The argument was that they became counter revolutionary/petty bourgeois influenced in part due to the material basis already there for them to do so.

There is absolutely no possibility that the Kronstadt sailors were revolutionary. Even in we accept that they were all militant leftist anarchists (although there's considerable evidence to suggest they were operating with the Whites) that doesn't change the fact that they were attempting to overthrow what is, in my view, a Proletarian state.

It's in the interests of all hierarchical states. We've gone over this.

No. You just continue to assert that all hierarchies are necessarily self perpetuating.

No, that is, but through force - violence, murder, terror etc. - this is not worthy of admiration.

So you're going to get the wealthy land owning class to willingly fork over the means of production?!

But in terms of distribution and wealth, they were being reinforced.

In what sense?!

Maybe that was a mistake?

The corruption was def. a mistake.

And it was completely damning! It was reinforcing the class system; inequality! How can you say it was not damning?

I don't see it as historically significant in a grand historic sense. Certainly it is something I don't support or uphold, certainly it's something I criticize, but in terms of its relevance to the period in a grand historic sense, it's of minimal relevance to me.

And don't you think, when a state, as in the, anarchist definition, a hierarchical structure which exerts power over the populace (and no doubt, an organ of class rule), is taking over the means of production? Not only that, but the whole social, economic and political nature of the country?

I hope I will be able to think when socialism happens!:D

I don't know what this is.

What do you mean?

The idea that the state causes class and not the other way around is untrue.

Like when?

see above

I see no point in that. Why not have the proletariat rule?

They do rule!

I very much think that you know that there was a climate of fear under Stalin.

Yes. That was a gross mistake. But one that was made for certain reasons that need to be understood contextually.

I beg to differ. ;)

How would this society function without a state and with class?

Bah! I have a reccomendation for you; ever read Towards a Fresh Revolution?

No? Say more!

Self management of the means of production and distribution will lead to equal (on the basis of each according to their ability, each according to their need styled 'equal', not ration-esque equal) distribution of goods; self management of armaments factories and militias, on horizontal basis (much like the organization of the Anarchist Columns in the Spanish Civil War) will be able to defend the revolution.
I forgot what else I mentioned. :blushing:

No it won't! Industry is not something that can just be organized on that kind of atomized level. That leads to the same anarchy (bad sense:laugh:) of production that we have to day. That will lead straight back to capitalism.

Because the proletariat no longer exerts power, the people above do!

That's a totally flawed dichotomy.

Hang on hang on, that mocking response was to your analogy, not to your argument. :lol:

:confused: Don't know what's going on.

There was a coup because the structures allowed for it took place! That's the point! These structures, because they are hierarchical, because the proletariat itself does not assert power, but a party representing it, are prone to coups, in the same way you speak of the peasants being prone to reactionary ideology!

Mao and Avakian have in my view fixed this problem quite well.

Mistakes which could've been rectified, or even avoided; mistakes which we should not allow to ever happen again; the biggest mistake being the structures!

Why?!

Ah, I remember reading it was legalized under Lenin. I could be wrong, though.

I've never heard that.

True, but the right to abortion, and rights over ones body, are something which was, and had been for sometime advocated by revolutionaries - Emma Goldman, for example. Why did he ignore them?

Dunno, wasn't there. It was not something that was mainstream even within the revolutionary left at the time. He like all people was a product of his times.

This is perhaps true, but I am saying it was still socially reactionary.

Of course. But they couldn't have known that the same way we do now.

That classes were being more rapidly eradicated in Spain in the anarchist controlled areas than they were in Russia, but that classes still existed.
So, breaking down, not gone, because of the more egalitarian structures.

I don't really know enough to say anything other than that I doubt it.

I reccomend Durruti: The People Armed to you on this one.

Fair 'nuff.

Wasn't he, the Tsar, a member of the feudal classes, and more of the aristocracy, than of the bourgeoisie?

Yes. Which is why I said "feudal" first. But I think he was also backed by large sections of the Bourgeoisie.

Which is why the Mensheviks argued for the bourgeoisie to take class? IS this not true?

That is why the Mensheviks took that position. They were also hideously wrong.

The outcomes of the USSR experiment was also capitalism. Was it reactionary, too?

No. The USSR also reached a level of historic progress which made it the most historically advanced society in the world and provided valuable experience to Mao Zedong and later Communists.

Of course. They can also do, and very often do, very bad things.

Like?

The bourgeois state can do good things, too. You know this, as well.

Yes it can. Your argument was that hierarchies necessarily oppose criticism. My point is that that is not necessarily so.

I think you're aware I don't think that the vanguard is this evil, villainous organization of underground Leninists wanting to eat teh anarkist brainz, and steal our lunch money *ahem* labour notes. :lol:

We are though!:D

===

To MPIE:

Fuck off troll!:)

The Feral Underclass

14th June 2008, 09:24

democratic centralism which has been historically validated.

In what sense has it been "validated"?

The Feral Underclass

14th June 2008, 09:39

I never understood what anarchists would do when the capitalist state is "abolished". There is still a capitalist economy present when you end the rule of the state.

Management of the economy is different to how political authority operates. The state has very little to do with the means of production except that it defends private property.

And it is the nature of capitalism to give birth to these classes even if you abolish the means of oppression (the state) of the ruling class.This argument deconstructs down to one simple component: Effective self-defence. Now I don't argue that a state structure is not an effective way of defending yourself, of course it is, that's evidently the case.

The problem is that the centralisation of political authority and hierarchy negate the material conditions necessary to create a stateless society and therefore we have to organise our self-defence in such a way that means progression from one stage to another is possible and ultimately successful.

Decentralisation of political authority and federalism have worked as defensive organisation and this kind of political and economic transition created the best examples of workers power in the history of class struggle.

The three years of political gains made by the anarchist workers and peasants in Spain were far more democratic, and the projection of the re-organisation of land and industry was far more in line with the creation of a communist society than the whole Soviet Union - in it's entirety - ever was.

How can private property be abolished and "abundance" be assured when there is no state to be on overwatch through the whole process.It depends on your definition of the state. Marx said that the state was simply: "One class organised to suppress another". Anarchists don't necessarily reject that, but would say that this isn't "simply" what a state is. A state has a specific structure that relies on the centralisation of political control.

In order to "overwatch" the economy we would create decentralised and federal systems of organisation, much like they did in Spain, to much success.

You can call that a state if you want. I would argue that it's not.

Bilan

14th June 2008, 10:17

TAT articulated perfectly in one post what I couldn't in 2 pages. :blushing:

Dros

14th June 2008, 14:34

TAT articulated perfectly in one post what I couldn't in 2 pages. :blushing:

:crying::crying::crying:

Are you ignoring me?:laugh:

Bilan

14th June 2008, 16:25

No! Sorry.It's 1:30am! I'll respond tomorrow. :)
Come on drosera, you know you're my favourite Marxist-Leninist type here :blushing:

The Feral Underclass

15th June 2008, 08:40

Why is no one replying to me...? Are you afraid?

trivas7

17th June 2008, 04:01

Marx said that the state was simply: "One class organised to suppress another". Anarchists don't necessarily reject that, but would say that this isn't "simply" what a state is. A state has a specific structure that relies on the centralisation of political control.

What do you mean by this? Understood correctly any Marxist would agree with this.

The problem is that the centralisation of political authority and hierarchy negate the material conditions necessary to create a stateless society [...]
What is "the centralization of political authority"? What does it mean to "negate the material conditions [...]"? Do you mean anything at all by these slogans?

BobKKKindle$

17th June 2008, 04:24

Anarchists don't necessarily reject that, but would say that this isn't "simply" what a state is. A state has a specific structure that relies on the centralisation of political control.

This returns to the problem of definition - Marxists and Anarchists do not define the state in the same way, and so discussion about whether a state is necessary or what form a state should take can be difficult. A state is not an inherently centralized structure - the workers who were elected to the soviets were subject to recall by the people who elected them, and were not payed more than the average wage, such that they were not in a position of power over people, but merely delegates given the task of expressing and fighting for the demands of the working class. The soviets formed the basis of the workers state, although the disintegration of the social base of the revolution undermined the role of the soviets and allowed for the emergence of a bureaucracy which took control of the party apparatus.

As a product of class antagonisms (Lenin, SaR) the state will cease to exist when class division has been abolished, and when the working class does not face external threats.

Bilan

17th June 2008, 05:23

Must...respond...to...revleft thread...arrr!

My argument was never that they weren't revolutionary because they were peasants. The argument was that they became counter revolutionary/petty bourgeois influenced in part due to the material basis already there for them to do so.

There is absolutely no possibility that the Kronstadt sailors were revolutionary. Even in we accept that they were all militant leftist anarchists (although there's considerable evidence to suggest they were operating with the Whites) that doesn't change the fact that they were attempting to overthrow what is, in my view, a Proletarian state.

My bold.
Firstly, they'd made no attempt to over throw it, but to fight it, and to stop it from what it was doing, they were resisting, not organizing a revolution. They were revolutionary - both in their politics, and in their demands - as they seeked to bring forward the revolution, not backward. Their actions and demands could have only had that effect - a revolutionary effect.

No. You just continue to assert that all hierarchies are necessarily self perpetuating.

Nay! I explained a few posts back about how it operates, yo.

So you're going to get the wealthy land owning class to willingly fork over the means of production?!

Well, according to the Myer-Briggs personality test thing, I could use my Zany charm...:lol:
But seriously, no, and I wouldn't advocate such a silly position. But I also don't neglect the idea that there are parts of the bourgeois class who would, without a struggle, give up their control of the means of production.

In what sense?!

In the sense that there was an unequal distribution of wealth and power!
Come on, this isn't rocket science!

The corruption was def. a mistake.

That's more like it! ;)

I don't see it as historically significant in a grand historic sense. Certainly it is something I don't support or uphold, certainly it's something I criticize, but in terms of its relevance to the period in a grand historic sense, it's of minimal relevance to me.

You don't see it as another blow against the soviet system??!?!
How can a system, socialism, which prides itself on proletarian power, and equality, see it as 'minimal relevance'!?

I hope I will be able to think when socialism happens!:D

I don't know what this is.

I am confused?

The idea that the state causes class and not the other way around is untrue.

It's not one way or the other. It's both.

They do rule!

It was completely superficial, and thou knows it!

Yes. That was a gross mistake. But one that was made for certain reasons that need to be understood contextually.

Like what?

How would this society function without a state and with class?

In what sense? When striving toward anarchist communism?

No? Say more!

Fantastic anarchist text, written by anarchists following the Spanish Civil War. Alot of the time, its attributed to "Platformist" anarchists (of which I am not, but I am also sympathetic too [although, I am sympathetic to alot of tendencies within anarchism - syndicalism, communism, platformism, insurrectionary...ism ;)] - the correct method for each situation].
Anyway, I think it covers alot of your concerns anyway.
You can find it online here:
(http://www.struggle.ws/fod/towardsintro.html)...or at a couple of other anarchist pages, like anarkismo, etc.

Keep in mind, there were errors within this text (and slight nationalist sentiment), but alot of the ideas were still good, and are important.

No it won't! Industry is not something that can just be organized on that kind of atomized level. That leads to the same anarchy (bad sense:laugh:) of production that we have to day. That will lead straight back to capitalism.

What do you mean 'atomized'? and how will it lead back to capitalism?
Hast thou never read any anarchist explanations on organization and distribution?
Hit up ye ol' Rudolf Rocker, brutha.

That's a totally flawed dichotomy.

How so?

Why?!

Because the structures allow for what happened, to happen, right under the noses of the people! IF the people were in charge, as in, really in charge, through lib.com structures, this could not have happened. It only happened because they allowed it to happen by setting up the political system in the way they did!

I've never heard that.

Meh, I can't source it, it's not worth going into haha. :lol:

Dunno, wasn't there.

:ohmy:

It was not something that was mainstream even within the revolutionary left at the time. He like all people was a product of his times.

Fair enough.

I don't really know enough to say anything other than that I doubt it.

Like I said, hit up that Durruti the People Armed text.

Yes. Which is why I said "feudal" first. But I think he was also backed by large sections of the Bourgeoisie.

I suppose thats possible.

That is why the Mensheviks took that position. They were also hideously wrong.

Indeed

Like?

You know what I am going to say.

Yes it can. Your argument was that hierarchies necessarily oppose criticism. My point is that that is not necessarily so.

They don't necessarily oppose criticism, thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying they don't take it well, and especially when that criticism calls for their destruction. :lol:

We are though!:D

:ohmy: