Response to LZ's "Why anarchism sucks" thread

[Bilan]

This thread is in the Trotskyist group, and I didn't want to violate it by posting in there without being a member, so I'll post it here instead.



Anarchists and Marxists have the same goal; a communist society, we only differ on how we believe we will get there. Anarchists believe that no transition period is necessary,

This is a myth that needs to be dispelled permanently.
It's basis is purely fictional. It is assumed that because anarchists refuse to accept that Marxists centralized state "transition period" that they reject any transition period what so ever.
True, anarchists have often refused to answer the question, or "blue print" the future society, and instead answering "It will be decided by the people at the time".
Though that is true, that for society to be truly democratic it has to be self managed by the people.
But that doesn't mean anarchists negate the transitional period between capitalism and libertarian communism.

The point is to work towards libertarian communism through structures will exert the power of the proletariat; Workers Councils, Syndicates, Community Assemblies, federations, etc. which are organized upon anarchist principles.
These bodies seize the means of production and are managed by the working class, for the benefits of human kind.
(To put it simply).

For a good discussion, and trying to break through the myths about a libertarian communist society, etc. view this:

Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society (http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics.htm#As_We_See_It)




that centuries of class-society can be gotten rid of right away, that a de-centralized federation of communes (which is pretty vague in and of itself, the system used by Makhno was very different from the system used by the Spanish anarchists, so no one really knows what exactly they're talking about) can hold out against the overthrown bourgeoisie and the bourgeois still in power in other countries.

Yeah, and the organization of a socialist economy in America would be drastically different to one in China. That's a given. You can't just change economic state of a country (Especially one as backward as Ukraine was) because its suddenly been reorganized - are you going to suggesting that its going to occur overnight? The realities of the economic system have to be dealt, that's a fact of life.
Spain had a far larger proletariat and was far more industrialized. It had, economically, more odds in its favour than the Ukrainian anarchists did.

As for defence, never have anarchists suggested that just simply having federations will solve that problem. At least, not to my knowledge, and the organization of the anarchists in Spain combatting the fascists certainly said otherwise.



The only way their "theory for revolution" can work, practically, is if a revolution broke out in at least the majority of advanced capitalist nations more or less instantaneously, that is the only way the anarchist movement can smash the capitalist state-machinery and make sure their loose federation of communes can survive.

What's your basis for that?



Yeah, sorry but history has proven this to be impossible. Class-consciousness varies from nation to nation, and you never know if a revolution is going to be successful or not, and I'm not willing to gamble the future of humanity on chance; "well maybe they'll have a revolution at the same time as us, then the bourgeois of that country won't send their army against us!"

History hasn't proved shit. History proves that you can't just skip over your material conditions, that you can't negate your situation.
If you're blaming the failure of anarchists in Spain on theory, you are just being lazy and dishonest.



Didn't happen in the Ukraine, didn't happen in Spain and...well I would cite more historical examples but there really aren't any.

None? Not in Korea? In Mexico?



No, I don't believe that when a revolution happens in a country the working-class is "equally class-conscious", and everyone suddenly knows exactly what communism is and how such a society would function.

Well, I think that's a given, isn't it?



Scarcity is still a reality, law can never be higher than the material conditions of society, you can't "force communism", being determined consciousness, when there is no material basis for communism there can be no communism.

This doesn't prove anything.





1. The productive forces have to be increased greatly to eliminate scarcity and create the material basis for a communist society, something which can be done easily due to the fact that a socialized economic system is vastly superior to a capitalist economic system.

Once more, a given. But productive forces have to be reorganized as well, so that the proletariat takes control of them; so that production doesn't just create unnecessary excess, but is adaqueately distributed upon a regional basis.



2. The working-class having taken over and smashed the capitalist superstructure will create its own superstructure to "de-bourgeoisify" the working-class. You can't expect people who have been living under class-society for centuries upon centuries to just "become communist". This requires the growing up of new generations under that new superstructure and the dying out of the old generations who were brought up under the old superstructure.

Are you suggesting people cannot shake off the yolk of the old world? People are created, changed, and molded by their environment; when that environment changes, so do they; when it changes drastically, so do they.



So number 1 is the solution to the economic problem, and number 2 is the solution to the consciousness problem.

Neither of which disprove anarchism, but prove your opposition to anarchism is based on assumptions and critiques rather than anarchism its self.



What do anarchist organizations focus on mostly? Raising class-consciousness is, by and large, the main task of Marxists, we believe this can be achieved through a variety of methods, ranging from demonstrations to work inside unions etc.

Anarchists focus mostly on action, but we all know that without theory action is useless.

Rubbish.
That is just propaganda and you know it.



You may very well go out on the street and demonstrate against something, but what use is it if you cannot offer an alternative? What use is it if you cannot explain how the thing you are demonstrating against was caused?

Good question; equally, what good is it if you go out and fight for something, though its structures are likely to bring us back to where we were before hand?



I believe that the reason hardly any attention is given to theory is because anarchists seriously believe that the working-class is some homogeneous whole with an equal level of class-consciousness and that when they are ready for revolution they will join them, so what's the use to try and raise their class-consciousness? What's the use in trying to educate them? No, that's elitist and condescending!

That's simply not true.



The vanguard is, as you know, merely the most advanced section of the class in terms of class-consciousness. Ironically the anarchists themselves belong to this category without knowing it (or refusing to acknowledge it).


No, they don't. They refuse to join a vanguard party for obvious reasons.



The advanced section of the class drags the rest forward and leads it, this has always been the case, this is why I believe that in the context of pre-revolution they are wrong as well.

Towards a Fresh Revolution
(http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/fod/towardsintro.html)
I'm getting tired of these myths about anarchism.

[redSHARP]

:thumbup1:great posting, it really clarifies some murky points for me.

[Tower of Bebel]

No, they don't.

Uhm, some do and some don't. I'm more familiar with anarchists who find the concept of a vanguard rubish.

[Bilan]

Uhm, some do and some don't. I'm more familiar with anarchists who find the concept of a vanguard rubish.

In this sense:


The vanguard is, as you know, merely the most advanced section of the class in terms of class-consciousness. Ironically the anarchists themselves belong to this category without knowing it (or refusing to acknowledge it).

Not really. Anarchists reject the idea that they should "drag the proletariat along" by a vanguard party.

And I do think a large portion of the working class do understand they're place within this economic system but they both don't fully understand how it operates and feel powerless to change it.

[KC]

Not really. Anarchists reject the idea that they should "drag the proletariat along" by a vanguard party.

Which basically means that some anarchists accept the idea of a vanguard in theory but not in practice.

In theory anarchists are revolutionary, too, but in practice they're usually reactionary.

[Gterl23]

Anarchists are both highly reactionary because they oppose all authority (meaning the authority of the proletarian dictatorship), they are just another class enemy.

[Kropotesta]

Anarchists are both highly reactionary because they oppose all authority (meaning the authority of the proletarian dictatorship), they are just another class enemy.
Both statements are not true.
You have been going throughout the forum making ill informed statements but refuse to back them up, why?

[The Feral Underclass]

[/i]Which basically means that some anarchists accept the idea of a vanguard in theory but not in practice.

It's always been the case that Leninists concentrate on petty semantic similarities in an attempt to discredit ideas they oppose. Trying to find a way that anarchists are similar to Leninists is not an argument, nor is it evidence of flaws in anarchism.

Anarchists aren't interested in words. We're not interested in theoretical slogans, we're interested in reality. Whether you call how we organise strategically a vanguard or you want to call how we want to create a transition to communism a state that's entirely up to you.

In reality our objectives are fundamentally different in nature and it's that which is relevant here. We oppose the Leninist concept of vanguard and state, which incidentally are Marxist and Leninist terms (in this context).

Grow up.

[Louis Pio]

Anarchists aren't interested in words. We're not interested in theoretical slogans, we're interested in reality.

This says absolutely nothing, it's the kind of argument one would expect from traditional labour aristocrats, there's really not much meaning in that statement.

[The Feral Underclass]

This says absolutely nothing, it's the kind of argument one would expect from traditional labour aristocrats, there's really not much meaning in that statement.

I think the meaning is clear. If you don't understand it then I am happy to explain it further.

[Louis Pio]

No the meaning is not clear, considering reality is a word one can put meaning into as one desires. So it's not really a justification to "be dealing with reality", a reformist way to deal with reality would be different from a revolutionary. Which is exactly why one needs slogans. Also one needs to understand what one is dealing with, which is why I find the attitude of not really looking at what a state is quite disturbing, in effect that will also lead to having problems dealing with any form of berucracy that might arise.

[The Feral Underclass]

I find the attitude of not really looking at what a state is quite disturbing

When you know what anarchism is, then you will be able to criticise what it is not.

As for all the other shit, it's totally redundant and not worth responding to.

[Gterl23]

In reality our objectives are fundamentally different in nature and it's that which is relevant here. We oppose the Leninist concept of vanguard and state, which incidentally are Marxist and Leninist terms (in this context).

Which makes you no better than any common class enemy.

[apathy maybe]

Boring. Just because you think that your shitty ideas mean that only Leninist concepts can be accepted as "class ideas", doesn't mean that everyone agrees.

Heck, if I'm a "common class enemy" (presumably of the lower classes) because I disagree with your shit ideas, then so are most of the working class, the very people you claim to represent.

Here's some advice for you. Loose the arrogant fucking attitude, accept that not everyone thinks the same as you, and accept that there is more then one "correct" answer for ending capitalism.

Here's some more advice, realise that your shitty ideas aren't one of the correct answers, and deserve to be lost in history (except as an example of what not to do).

Anyone that talks about class enemies in such an off the cuff manner, especially when discussion other "revolutionary leftists" is probably at least a little crazy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Which makes you no better than any common class enemy.

And what the fuck would you know about anything! The fact that I'm involved in fighting community struggles and unionising my workplace tells me differently. People with actual real class struggle experience know full well that sentiments like these are utterly pointless and are reserved for kids on the internet.

[Tower of Bebel]

In reality our objectives are fundamentally different in nature and it's that which is relevant here. We oppose the Leninist concept of vanguard ...,
What is the "leninist" concept ;)? There are all kinds of so called "leninist" concept of the vanguard. You mean the way LZ discribed it?

[The Feral Underclass]

What is the "leninist" concept ;)?

If you read Lenin's What Is To Be Done?, the vanguard/democratic centralism is clearly outlined and this is indeed what has been replicated.


There are all kinds of so called "leninist" concept of the vanguard. You mean the way LZ discribed it?

No, I mean the actual Leninist parties that exist.

[Bilan]

[/i]Which basically means that some anarchists accept the idea of a vanguard in theory but not in practice.

In theory anarchists are revolutionary, too, but in practice they're usually reactionary.

Says the cat who supports centralisation of power, which is completely at odds with proletarian power; says the cat who supports those who fought for the bourgeois republic, rather than the revolution, and subsequently nailed the coffin shut on the Spanish proletariat; says the cat who idolizes assholes from one of the biggest hoaxs of proletarian power in history?
Who the fuck are you calling reactionary?

This, like most shit I've put up with by Leninists when talking about anarchism is dishonest, fictional, slanderous crap. Your politics belong in a museum.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Vanguardism" Revisited (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=60)


In order for the socialist and the worker movements to become reconciled and to become fused into a single movement, socialism had to break out of the utopian way of thinking. This was the world-historical deed of Marx and Engels. In the Communist Manifesto of 1847 they laid the scientific foundations of a new modern socialism, or, as we say today, of Social Democracy. By so doing, they gave socialism solidity and turned what had hitherto been a beautiful dream of well-meaning enthusiasts into an earnest object of struggle and [also] showed this to be the necessary consequence of economic development. To the fighting proletariat they gave a clear awareness of its historical task and they placed it on a condition to speed to its great goal as quickly and with as few sacrifices as possible. The socialists no longer have the task of freely inventing a new society but rather uncovering its elements in existing society. No more do they have to bring salvation from its misery to the proletariat from above, but rather they have to support its class struggle through increasing its insight and promoting its economic and political organizations, and in so doing bring about as quickly and as painlessly as possible the day when the proletariat will be able to save itself. The task of Social Democracy [as a party] is to make the class struggle of the proletariat aware of its aim and capable of choosing the best means to attain this aim.

The "vanguard party" concept did NOT originate with Lenin (no, not Blanqui, either :rolleyes: ). :p

[Tower of Bebel]

Says the cat who supports centralisation of power, which is completely at odds with proletarian power;

I just don't get it why or how a decentralized power in the form of soviets can run and transform a capitalist society into a communist society (:(). Why is decentralized proletarian power (whatever that is) the solution?

[Led Zeppelin]

If you read Lenin's What Is To Be Done?, the vanguard/democratic centralism is clearly outlined and this is indeed what has been replicated.

Just for clarification; if you want to read What Is To Be Done? you need to understand the historical context in which it was written, if you don't you'll end up believing in all kinds of myths about it which simply aren't true, in the same manner as TAT does.

Here's a good work that dispels those myths: The Myth of Lenin’s “Concept of The Party” or What They Did to What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)

Conclusion:



WITBD had done its 1902 job, and should not be treated any more as if it were a current proposal; it had been by-passed. Lenin did not apologize for it or repudiate it; this was something different. He was pigeonholing it as of historical interest only. Socialists would not repudiate the First International either, but no one would dream of bringing it back to life.

It was a far cry from a permanent “concept of the party.”
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section5)

[The Feral Underclass]

I am happy to accept that Lenin's ideas are dated. The problem is, those people who organise parties in his name do so in these dated manners. If WITBD is out of date, why do Leninist parties still keep using its organisational ideas?

[trivas7]

It is assumed that because anarchists refuse to accept that Marxists centralized state "transition period" that they reject any transition period what so ever.
True, anarchists have often refused to answer the question, or "blue print" the future society, and instead answering "It will be decided by the people at the time".
Though that is true, that for society to be truly democratic it has to be self managed by the people.
But that doesn't mean anarchists negate the transitional period between capitalism and libertarian communism.

The point is to work towards libertarian communism through structures will exert the power of the proletariat; Workers Councils, Syndicates, Community Assemblies, federations, etc. [...]
These bodies seize the means of production and are managed by the working class, for the benefits of human kind.
(To put it simply).

Thanks for the post, but except for the proviso that "they are organized on anarchist principles" how this differs for Marxism is beyond me according to my reading of Lenin's State and Revolution. Or is this the point of the op?

[Kropotesta]

Thanks for the post, but except for the proviso that "they are organized on anarchist principles" how this differs for Marxism is beyond me according to my reading of Lenin's State and Revolution.
This (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html) may be of some help.

[trivas7]

This may be of some help.
How does that help? The op is re the end, not the means.

[Kropotesta]

How does that help? The op is re the end, not the means.
op?

[trivas7]

op?
original post

[Kropotesta]

original post
Well I wasn't replying to the origional post.
Nevermind that aye, I'm confused.
:thumbup1:

[Led Zeppelin]

I am happy to accept that Lenin's ideas are dated. The problem is, those people who organise parties in his name do so in these dated manners. If WITBD is out of date, why do Leninist parties still keep using its organisational ideas?

There are thousands of tendencies, parties and individuals who claim to be Leninist, and thousands that claim to be anarchist, Maoist etc., that is meaningless in and of itself.

It is the history, practice and theory of a party/organization which determines if it is Leninist, anarchist, Maoist etc., not what the party/organization itself claims to be.

Now, knowing that WITDB was dated and that what Lenin wrote in there was not meant to be his "permanent concept of the party", you can safely say that all those parties, organizations and individuals who still cling to that myth are wrong, and not Marxist, or Leninist, if you prefer that term.

[Rawthentic]

WITB is a classic, amazing, and original work on how the consciousness of the people is transformed. The organizational ideas that it talked about need to be reexamined and reevaluated, but, in general, its theories on transforming people's consciousness is correct.

It correctly asserts that the consciousness of the oppressed must come out of the realm of their own experience. For example, workers are not going to become communists by unionizing their workplace, or focusing on getting higher wages. No matter how militant this struggle is, if it focuses on the immediate oppression of workers (or peasants, etc) their can be no revolutionary transformation.



Communist consciousness can only come by a systematic exposure of the capitalist system during struggle, and by studying history, economics, theory, etc. It is the dialectical relation between theory and practice.

In the 9 Letters to our comrades, we wrote:

"A revolutionary organization has to be integrated into struggles of the people — directly in its own name while connecting with (or initiating) a variety of other organizations. And it has to draw the thinking and activity of people toward creatively-conceived communist solutions to this awful capitalist present – a task which can only be accomplished with methods that are bold yet sophisticated (not hackneyed or infantile)."

In other words, political struggle (not to negate economic) connected with the exposure of the system can combine to create this consciousness.

A party or organization in the US needs to be fitted to our current conditions (and for any country for that matter). For example, during the time that the Soviet Union was socialist, mainly in the 30's, the Communist International called for the formation of communist parties all over the world. What happened was that all these parties were created, but they were nearly identical to the Russian one, in name, structure, ideology, tactics, etc. So when anarchists say that communists follow Lenin's WITBD word for word, then that is wrong, just like when left-communists say that they have no idea how Maoists in the US would wage revolution (they think that because Mao and the Nepali/Indian Maoists led revolutions starting in the rural areas that it has to be done like that in the US and so ridicule us) and think that we take as a blueprint Mao's theories. We don't, and no one should.

"Concrete analysis of concrete conditions" - Mao

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I just don't get it why or how a decentralized power in the form of soviets can run and transform a capitalist society into a communist society (:(). Why is decentralized proletarian power (whatever that is) the solution?

It's pretty obvious actually. Federations of soviets, syndicates, councils etc. prefigure the society we want to create. Communism is a decentralized, pluralistic, free flowing system, and you can't build that through a centralized, authoritarian state, that institutes work managers, conscription, and jails other less "proletarian" leftists.

[La Comédie Noire]

In order for the socialist and the worker movements to become reconciled and to become fused into a single movement, socialism had to break out of the utopian way of thinking. This was the world-historical deed of Marx and Engels. In the Communist Manifesto of 1847 they laid the scientific foundations of a new modern socialism, or, as we say today, of Social Democracy. By so doing, they gave socialism solidity and turned what had hitherto been a beautiful dream of well-meaning enthusiasts into an earnest object of struggle and [also] showed this to be the necessary consequence of economic development. To the fighting proletariat they gave a clear awareness of its historical task and they placed it on a condition to speed to its great goal as quickly and with as few sacrifices as possible. The socialists no longer have the task of freely inventing a new society but rather uncovering its elements in existing society. No more do they have to bring salvation from its misery to the proletariat from above, but rather they have to support its class struggle through increasing its insight and promoting its economic and political organizations, and in so doing bring about as quickly and as painlessly as possible the day when the proletariat will be able to save itself. The task of Social Democracy [as a party] is to make the class struggle of the proletariat aware of its aim and capable of choosing the best means to attain this aim.

So you're quoting an article you wrote that implies the idea of a Vanguard Party originated with Marx and Engels as proof it originated with Marx and Engels? :confused:



It correctly asserts that the consciousness of the oppressed must come out of the realm of their own experience. For example, workers are not going to become communists by unionizing their workplace, or focusing on getting higher wages. No matter how militant this struggle is, if it focuses on the immediate oppression of workers (or peasants, etc) their can be no revolutionary transformation.


Where does Democratic Centralism come in to play? Cannot the workers decide for themselves capitalism sucks and they should change it?

I think in a revolutionary situation the prolatariat will join leftist organizations en masse. However, don't be suprised if there's instances of mass disobedience on the working class's part in regards to your's or other's orders. Players are always more into the game than spectators.

[Rawthentic]

Where does Democratic Centralism come in to play? Cannot the workers decide for themselves capitalism sucks and they should change it?

I think in a revolutionary situation the prolatariat will join leftist organizations en masse. However, don't be suprised if there's instances of mass disobedience on the working class's part in regards to your's or other's orders. Players are always more into the game than spectators.

I wasn't talking about democratic centralism. That is a topic for a new thread.

Of course I am talking about the proletariat being the "players", they are the ones leading the moving the struggle forward!

But, no, the workers, as a class, cannot decide for themselves that capitalism sucks. Individual workers can, through the combination of overall experiences, but not as a mass. Like I said before, there needs to be political struggle along the key faultlines of capitalist society, such as anti-war, police brutality, immigration (in the United States) and concentrated exposure of capitalism in the process.

I think it is a bit idealist and non-sensical to say that workers can decide that capitalism is bad by their own accord without struggle, communist leadership, or study. If you did not assert this, then I don't understand what you mean by .."Cannot the workers decide for themselves capitalism sucks and they should change it?"

[Tower of Bebel]

It's pretty obvious actually. Federations of soviets, syndicates, councils etc. prefigure the society we want to create. Communism is a decentralized, pluralistic, free flowing system, and you can't build that through a centralized, authoritarian state, that institutes work managers, conscription, and jails other less "proletarian" leftists.
Communism is more than just a superstructure.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think it is a bit idealist and non-sensical to say that workers can decide that capitalism is bad by their own accord without struggle, communist leadership, or study. If you did not assert this, then I don't understand what you mean by .."Cannot the workers decide for themselves capitalism sucks and they should change it?"

Well when I said Revolutionary situation I meant struggle. Let me rephrase.

Through struggle and hardship workers will realize capitalism sucks and then will struggle to abolish it.

I never said the working class was in a vaccum and was just going to decide one day to change things. I meant material conditions will implore the workers to take charge of the means of production.

I was just stating workers may decide to throw out the concept of communist leaders in a party all together.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Communism is more than just a superstructure.

Yes it requires a change in political consciousness on the part of everyday working people. And that change can only come about through the school of struggle. When we build structures to fight capitalism, they have to promote and reinforce communist consciousness and direct action of the working class. That's why anarchists don't understand your obsession with a state. The state does not induce revolutionary consciousness, it induces obedience, hierarchy and reliance on party bureaucrats.

[Rawthentic]

Well when I said Revolutionary situation I meant struggle. Let me rephrase.

Through struggle and hardship workers will realize capitalism sucks and then will struggle to abolish it.

I never said the working class was in a vaccum and was just going to decide one day to change things. I meant material conditions will implore the workers to take charge of the means of production.

I was just stating workers may decide to throw out the concept of communist leaders in a party all together.
Today in the US, and all over the world, workers and other oppressed people struggle and suffer many hardships. Yet, where is the communist consciousness? Nowhere.

You do realize that consciousness is formed for the most part during political struggle, but you forget a crucial component: where is this consciousness going to come from? Because revolutionary consciousness cannot and does not come from immediate oppression, it needs to be brought in from outside of that realm. That is why we need a revolutionary organization, a vanguard core (not necessarily a vanguard party in the classical sense) to bring this to the masses.

Material conditions may create spontaneous resistance, but this will not be revolutionary. It will be based on immediate reforms, such as higher wages, lower hours, etc. Also, these immediate reforms are always and will always be susceptible to being pulled into bourgeois politics (and they usually are). Without a struggle led by communists there is no way for people's consciousness to be transformed.

And I don't think workers are going to throw out communist leaders. Without them, or us, there will be no revolution. Without leaders who have an overall understanding of communism and the class struggle, who will lead struggles and divert them onto radical paths while exposing capitalism?

Also, I don't think that the debate around a revolutionary state is even a serious one. There needs be a post-rev state for so many reasons. Even anarchists, supposing they one day lead a revolution :), will create a state (be it decentralized, federal soviets, whatever).

[Tower of Bebel]

Ideas (wether it be consciousnes or obedience) does not introduce a communist economy. Brainwashing everyone into believing we are aliens wont turn Earth into Mars either.

To help you with what I mean:

Do you think that a feudal society once ruled by kings and landlords is a capitalist society once the bourgeoisie takes control over it? Ofcourse not. It took more than a century to get rid of the feudal economy and replace it with a capitalist economy, which would finaly end any threatful resistance by the old ruling class.
Now, on to capitalism and communism: do you think that a capitalist economy taken over by the proletariat is (suddenly) a communist economy? Do you think that this superstructure of soviets created by a social revolution turns capitalism into communism just by replacing the bourgeoisie and it's organs of power with the proletariat and it's organisations? I don't think they do.

There needs to be a transitional fase which needs centralisation to coordinate in an effective way the proces of change and defend the gains of the early revolution against Reaction (bourgeoisie, hostile petit-bourgeoisie and millions of proletarians who either want to fight oppression but don't support communism or just don't want to fight the system at all), which will keep up the fight untill they don't have any material basis to support on (and that might take decennia, depending on the characteristics of the region they are active in and the mistakes made by the revolutionaries)

And I don't have any obsessions with the state.

[La Comédie Noire]

Today in the US, and all over the world, workers and other oppressed people struggle and suffer many hardships. Yet, where is the communist consciousness? Nowhere.

Is it enough to implore workers to change society? Obviously not. Besides all the vanguard parties in the world wouldn't move them one inch. If that were the case one of the many organizations that exist now would be able "to build communist conciousness." as you put it.

I mean they are suffering, all they need is an organization that will make them realize they can chnage it. Why don't you guys get on that?

Capitalism works well in the first world nations, there's no need for them to question capitalism now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But that won't always be and you don't need a vanguard to tell you that.


You do realize that consciousness is formed for the most part during political struggle, but you forget a crucial component: where is this consciousness going to come from? Because revolutionary consciousness cannot and does not come from immediate oppression, it needs to be brought in from outside of that realm. That is why we need a revolutionary organization, a vanguard core (not necessarily a vanguard party in the classical sense) to bring this to the masses.

Did the French Peasents and Workers need the Bourgeoise to tell them the Monarchy and the Aristocracy were incompetent and senile? No they saw it for themselves. However, the Bourgeoise did not mind leading the revolution later on and that was fine with the other classes, after all they did promise they were going to be much better leaders than the Aristocrats.

Now did the Russian Peasents and Workers need the Bolsheviks to help them incite the February Revolution? No, not at all. However, when it was time to take actual power the Bolsheviks gladly stepped in to claim their throne.

See a pattern here? The proletariat needs to stop entrusting power to other people, they need to emancipate themselves, otherwise they just get screwed.


Material conditions may create spontaneous resistance, but this will not be revolutionary. It will be based on immediate reforms, such as higher wages, lower hours, etc. Also, these immediate reforms are always and will always be susceptible to being pulled into bourgeois politics (and they usually are). Without a struggle led by communists there is no way for people's consciousness to be transformed.

What happens when those reforms cannot be met? If there is a way to fix capitalism will people ever want to overthrow it? Will they listen to us if there is an easier method then revolution? Make no mistake, revolution is risky business and only those with nothing to lose but there chains take action.


And I don't think workers are going to throw out communist leaders. Without them, or us, there will be no revolution. Without leaders who have an overall understanding of communism and the class struggle, who will lead struggles and divert them onto radical paths while exposing capitalism?

They did it in France, Russia, and numerous other places without us. They can do it again.

That's the probelm with Leninists of all stripes they think they can make revolution. Leninists have never made revolution, they've waited for revolutionary situations just like the rest of us with the exception that they take power and proceed with dampening the revolutionary flames, just like the Bourgeoise did to the wage earning classes of France. Did they stop a Communist Revolution from occuring? No, I don't think a Communist Revolution could ever have occured during 1917 in Russia, material conditions wouldn't have allowed it.

[apathy maybe]

It's pretty obvious actually. Federations of soviets, syndicates, councils etc. prefigure the society we want to create. Communism is a decentralized, pluralistic, free flowing system, and you can't build that through a centralized, authoritarian state, that institutes work managers, conscription, and jails other less "proletarian" leftists.

Yes it requires a change in political consciousness on the part of everyday working people. And that change can only come about through the school of struggle. When we build structures to fight capitalism, they have to promote and reinforce communist consciousness and direct action of the working class. That's why anarchists don't understand your obsession with a state. The state does not induce revolutionary consciousness, it induces obedience, hierarchy and reliance on party bureaucrats.
Quoted for great truth.

[trivas7]

That's the probelm with Leninists of all stripes they think they can make revolution. Leninists have never made revolution, they've waited for revolutionary situations just like the rest of us with the exception that they take power and proceed with dampening the revolutionary flames, just like the Bourgeoise did to the wage earning classes of France.
So is your point here that people don't make revolutions, they just happen spontaneously? I don't get it.

[La Comédie Noire]

So is your point here that people don't make revolutions, they just happen spontaneously? I don't get it.


My point is material conditions compel people to revolt. What you get from revolting largely depends on your material conditions. Leninists claim they can make revolution by injecting conciousness into the proletariat then go further to say that conciousness can defeat material conditions. It can't.

[KC]

It's always been the case that Leninists concentrate on petty semantic similarities in an attempt to discredit ideas they oppose. Trying to find a way that anarchists are similar to Leninists is not an argument, nor is it evidence of flaws in anarchism.

Anarchists aren't interested in words. We're not interested in theoretical slogans, we're interested in reality. Whether you call how we organise strategically a vanguard or you want to call how we want to create a transition to communism a state that's entirely up to you.

In reality our objectives are fundamentally different in nature and it's that which is relevant here. We oppose the Leninist concept of vanguard and state, which incidentally are Marxist and Leninist terms (in this context).

If you failed to notice, this was the entire point of my post. You "support the vanguard but not the vanguard party"; i.e. you support the vanguard in theory but not in practice.


Says the cat who supports centralisation of power, which is completely at odds with proletarian power; says the cat who supports those who fought for the bourgeois republic, rather than the revolution, and subsequently nailed the coffin shut on the Spanish proletariat; says the cat who idolizes assholes from one of the biggest hoaxs of proletarian power in history?
Who the fuck are you calling reactionary?

This, like most shit I've put up with by Leninists when talking about anarchism is dishonest, fictional, slanderous crap. Your politics belong in a museum.

And yours in a dumpster.


My point is material conditions compel people to revolt. What you get from revolting largely depends on your material conditions. Leninists claim they can make revolution by injecting conciousness into the proletariat then go further to say that conciousness can defeat material conditions. It can't.

This is a completely flawed conception of Marx's materialist conception of history that bases itself in a strict base/superstructure analysis without looking at the dialectical relationship between the two. This is the reason you can only see two poles (i.e. material conditions vs "injecting consciousness") and thus fail to understand the theory.

[Hit The North]

My point is material conditions compel people to revolt.

Sometimes the material conditions compel people to cringe behind a strong leadership - particularly if they lack the consciousness to understand that those leaders are part of the problem, not the solution. You can see it going on all over the world. Watch the news.

What you get from revolting largely depends on your material conditions. So the difference in material conditions between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were what? And how do these differences account for your explanation as to why crisis in Russia leads to one outcome and crisis in Germany over a decade later leads to another? Or are you chanting empty slogans that you nicked off Marxists in the first place?


Leninists claim they can make revolution by injecting conciousness into the proletariat then go further to say that conciousness can defeat material conditions. It can't.Firstly, Leninists don't think they can inject consciousness into anyone, because we don't think we possess a syringe with consciousness in it. Or are you talking metaphorically? If so, what is the truth that your metaphor is groping at? Or is it yet another empty allusion?

Secondly, the idea that Leninists claim that we can change reality with the power of our minds is just a fucking ridiculous assertion which is just laughable. EDIT: In fact, it's anarchists who claim we can dissolve the state with the power of our will, before the material conditions in which social classes exist have disappeared.

[Hyacinth]

If you failed to notice, this was the entire point of my post. You "support the vanguard but not the vanguard party"; i.e. you support the vanguard in theory but not in practice.
Sorry, that doesn’t follow. The notion of the vanguard when taken to mean merely the most advanced segment of the proletariat (in terms of class consciousness), i.e. those at the forefront of the struggle, is not the same as the notion of a vanguard party which is suppose to serve as the leadership of said struggle. Moreover, whatever the merits of a vanguard party (however one conceives of it), you can forgive the anarchists for being wary of such organizations given their historical track-record. For instance, I doubt any anarchist is opposed to the vanguard serving an educational and agitational role, on the other hand I’m sure all of them would be opposed to a vanguard party seizing state power on behalf of the proletariat. Given that the two notions, of vanguard and vanguard party, are not synonymous, opposition to one while supporting the other does not mean “support in theory but not in practice”.

[La Comédie Noire]

Sometimes the material conditions compel people to cringe behind a strong leadership - particularly if they lack the consciousness to understand that those leaders are part of the problem, not the solution. You can see it going on all over the world. Watch the news.


Yes it does as in the case of Russia.


So the difference in material conditions between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were what? And how do these differences account for your explanation as to why crisis in Russia leads to one outcome and crisis in Germany over a decade later leads to another? Or are you chanting empty slogans that you nicked off Marxists in the first place?

Well, Germany was a first world capitalist nation full of Bourgeoise terrified of losing power to working class organizations where as Russia was a backwards nation full of peasents under the yoke of imperialism. The Bourgeoise funded and put into power the Facists so they would protect their rule where as in Russia Imperialist powers tried to muster a fighting force to destroy the Bolsheviks. They did try to put a military leader into place, Kornilov. However whether or not tht would've led to Facism is anyones guess.


Firstly, Leninists don't think they can inject consciousness into anyone, because we don't think we possess a syringe with consciousness in it. Or are you talking metaphorically? If so, what is the truth that your metaphor is groping at? Or is it yet another empty allusion?

I did not mean it to be a metaphor. Your aim, and sorry if i'm wrong, is to educate the working class to the point where they want revolution then you want to lead them to revolution. You want to raise their conciousness through the party.


Secondly, the idea that Leninists claim that we can change reality with the power of our minds is just a fucking ridiculous assertion which is just laughable. EDIT: In fact, it's anarchists who claim we can dissolve the state with the power of our will, before the material conditions in which social classes exist have disappeared.

Well you don't seem to think material conditions will do it.

[Hit The North]

I did not mean it to be a metaphor.
No, you did, unless you literally mean you think Leninists go around with hypodermic needles full of consciousness which they stick in the arms of unsuspecting workers.


Your aim, and sorry if i'm wrong, is to educate the working class to the point where they want revolution then you want to lead them to revolution. You want to raise their conciousness through the party.Yep, we want to agitate, educate and organise. We want to organise the most class conscious fighters into an organization which can generalise the struggle against capital in practice and generalise the lessons of that struggle in theory. The party needs to be an organic outgrowth of the class itself, not an organisation apart from it and grafted on. In that sense, the only thing which can give birth to such a party is a deepening and widening of class consciousness within our own ranks.


Well you don't seem to think material conditions will do it.Well material conditions won't do anything by themselves except provide the context in which human action is taken.

But anyway, what do we mean by "material conditions"? Do they exclude consciousness and means of organisation?

I mean, if we were to really examine the different material conditions between Russia and Germany, would this exclude the consciousness of the actors involved and their access to the organisational means of expressing that consciousness in action?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ CZ, please keep in mind the "artificial separation" that I spoke of in my "Vanguardism Revisited" post. :)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-movements-t78942/index.html

The party may be an organic growth of the class, but the initial process is started by "socialist theoreticians" and not "ordinary workers."

[Bilan]

And yours in a dumpster.


What a rebuttal!

[La Comédie Noire]

No, you did, unless you literally mean you think Leninists go around with hypodermic needles full of consciousness which they stick in the arms of unsuspecting workers.


Or I could mean it as a noun that means to put something into someone or give them something not literally with a hypodermic needle. But it's your lack of argument not mine.


Yep, we want to agitate, educate and organise. We want to organise the most class conscious fighters into an organization which can generalise the struggle against capital in practice and generalise the lessons of that struggle in theory. The party needs to be an organic outgrowth of the class itself, not an organisation apart from it and grafted on. In that sense, the only thing which can give birth to such a party is a deepening and widening of class consciousness within our own ranks.

So you guys say but you guys have done very different things historically. For some reason you think it's something they can't do on their own. They can't fight for their own material interests or they can only fight for their material interests to a point.

It's impossible for a literate population with access to a wealth of information to ever think of revolution much less struggle for it.


When syndicalists organize it's developing trade union conscience but when Leninists do it it's important political work.

You say you want to educate people but then you just end up seizing power, sometimes sucessfully, sometimes disasterously.


Well material conditions won't do anything by themselves except provide the context in which human action is taken.

But anyway, what do we mean by "material conditions"? Do they exclude consciousness and means of organisation?

I mean, if we were to really examine the different material conditions between Russia and Germany, would this exclude the consciousness of the actors involved and their access to the organisational means of expressing that consciousness in action?

True and It's my contention the Leninist method will not be accepted by first world workers. They'll listen to you at first but they probably won't find what you have to say all that interesting or useful. Especially when you tell them you should be in charge.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You especially really need to drop your spontaneist, anti-vanguardist REDUCTIONISM:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=60


What, then, is the modern significance of all the quotes above? The profound answer is three-fold:

1) Only those who, under initial conditions (the relative absence of class struggle), support revolutionary change due to their education are capable of “spontaneously” developing proletarian class consciousness. All others (“the proletarian masses”), according to Kautsky, “still vegetate, helpless and hopeless.”
2) Since both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals are ancient relics, the “spontaneous” development and proliferation of proletarian class consciousness is left to the modern equivalent and even more: professional and some clerical workers, as well as those in the “class of flux.”
3) When the revolutionary process of introducing class consciousness to the proletarian masses begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians.”

[BobKKKindle$]

My point is material conditions compel people to revolt. What you get from revolting largely depends on your material conditions.

You have not recognized the role of ideology, which Trotskyists understand as the subjective factors determining the state of class consciousness. When workers face attacks on living standards, they may become politically apathetic, or turn to reactionary party organizations which create divisions by identifying an ethnic group within the proletariat (such as the immigrant population) as the cause of material deprivation. This is shown by the recent electoral growth of the extreme right in many European states. A vanguard party is required to ensure that workers are able to avoid reactionary ideas and develop class consciousness, and the vanguard party engages with the working class through a process of agitation and intervening in workers struggles.

[Devrim]

I would like to make a few comments on the original post.


For a good discussion, and trying to break through the myths about a libertarian communist society, etc. view this:

Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society (http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics.htm#As_We_See_It)


Have you read this? Do you know it advocates a market?


None? Not in Korea? In Mexico?

I'd be very careful about the Korean references. From what I can make out the only thing anarchist about the Korean 'anarchists' was the name. They were basically nationalists.



What do anarchist organizations focus on mostly? Raising class-consciousness is, by and large, the main task of Marxists, we believe this can be achieved through a variety of methods, ranging from demonstrations to work inside unions etc.

Anarchists focus mostly on action, but we all know that without theory action is useless. Rubbish.
That is just propaganda and you know it.

I would have concentrated there on the idea that the main task of Marxists is to raise class consciousness. To me it seems a very strange idea.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Ideas (wether it be consciousnes or obedience) does not introduce a communist economy. Brainwashing everyone into believing we are aliens wont turn Earth into Mars either.

To help you with what I mean:

Do you think that a feudal society once ruled by kings and landlords is a capitalist society once the bourgeoisie takes control over it? Ofcourse not. It took more than a century to get rid of the feudal economy and replace it with a capitalist economy, which would finaly end any threatful resistance by the old ruling class.
Now, on to capitalism and communism: do you think that a capitalist economy taken over by the proletariat is (suddenly) a communist economy? Do you think that this superstructure of soviets created by a social revolution turns capitalism into communism just by replacing the bourgeoisie and it's organs of power with the proletariat and it's organisations? I don't think they do.

There needs to be a transitional fase which needs centralisation to coordinate in an effective way the proces of change and defend the gains of the early revolution against Reaction (bourgeoisie, hostile petit-bourgeoisie and millions of proletarians who either want to fight oppression but don't support communism or just don't want to fight the system at all), which will keep up the fight untill they don't have any material basis to support on (and that might take decennia, depending on the characteristics of the region they are active in and the mistakes made by the revolutionaries)

And I don't have any obsessions with the state.

See this is the problem; you’re playing silly semantics games. The transition from feudalism to capitalism is qualitatively different from capitalism to communism. The ownership class did not have to overthrow the aristocracy in one fell swoop in some global conflagration. By and large, it was a gradual change often pushed through the cooptation of forward looking aristocrats. You had your capitalist revolutions here and there, but it is nothing like the changeover between workers and capitalists

Our revolution is quick and total. Gradualism doesn’t work; we must seize the means of production immediately. No anarchist claims that we will have perfected communism within a generation, it will obviously take a fair bit of experimentation to find the best methods. However, once we have taken control, we will administer such things in a way that actually promotes the maturation of a communist society. Not where you administer society so as to promote the exact opposite.

History has shown that Anarchist militias are more than able to defend these gains without a centralized state. Mahkno fought off the Whites, Greens, Germans, Foreign forces, and Trotsky’s reds at the same bloody time. If that’s your only reason to build a “worker’s state,” then you need to review your commitment to Marxist Leninism.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you failed to notice, this was the entire point of my post. You "support the vanguard but not the vanguard party"; i.e. you support the vanguard in theory but not in practice.

I think it's folly to make the claim that anarchists support the (Leninist) vanguard in theory. It's not true. I don't really understand why you're trying to make this point?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If that’s your only reason to build a “worker’s state,” then you need to review your commitment to Marxist Leninism.

This is the main problem with anarchist theory: it sees the state as an independent entity.

A state is simply something that emerges (in any number of forms) in any society in which more than one class exists. It's a tool that the ruling class uses to keep itself in power and enforce its rule. It's no something that anyone wills into existence.

If we are able to overthrow the capitalist rulers, and we don't set about to immediately construct a means for the working class to rule, we're paving the way for bloody counterrevolution.

In the current historical epoch, capitalist property relations dominate, and the imperialists rule the world. The next country in which a revolution occurs will face as much, if not more, pressure than the young Soviet state that was born in the October Revolution. The same will be the case for the countries that follow, up until the point that the balance of forces tips in favor of the working class.

Of course there needs to be popular militias--Cuba's defense strategy is based on a "war of the people," in which popular resistance to any imperialist invader would be carried out over a protracted period. But they also have an army, and under the conditions they face, it would be absolutely suicidal not to.

[Tower of Bebel]

See this is the problem; you’re playing silly semantics games. The transition from feudalism to capitalism is qualitatively different from capitalism to communism. The ownership class did not have to overthrow the aristocracy in one fell swoop in some global conflagration. By and large, it was a gradual change often pushed through the cooptation of forward looking aristocrats. You had your capitalist revolutions here and there, but it is nothing like the changeover between workers and capitalists

Our revolution is quick and total. Gradualism doesn’t work; we must seize the means of production immediately. No anarchist claims that we will have perfected communism within a generation, it will obviously take a fair bit of experimentation to find the best methods. However, once we have taken control, we will administer such things in a way that actually promotes the maturation of a communist society. Not where you administer society so as to promote the exact opposite.

History has shown that Anarchist militias are more than able to defend these gains without a centralized state. Mahkno fought off the Whites, Greens, Germans, Foreign forces, and Trotsky’s reds at the same bloody time. If that’s your only reason to build a “worker’s state,” then you need to review your commitment to Marxist Leninism.

This is not a semantic game. Why would I play such a game? You just haven't answered my initial question in such a way that I could understood a stateless transformation is possible. You wont offer me a solution by (1) saying that there will be soviets and (2) that soviets will be able to promote ideas, or (3) that they will [have to] administer society. It's is indeed my own style to keep asking questions untill someone answers them "correctly", partly due to the fact that English is not my first language (which makes it a bit difficult for me to reply with long pieces of text in a short time). Questions are much easier (:)).

Again, so, I don't believe Makhno was able to achieve a communist society. That's pretty obvious because it was an semi-feodal agricultural society that needed to be transformed and the experiment failed just like the October Revolution. Both revolutionary "experiments" failed though they were able to push hostile armies back for some time. And I don't know if Makhno operated in a centralized or decentralized way (?).

Now, the comparison with the early bourgeois revolution was meant to make it clear that you need more than a revolutionary superstructure to have a new economic substructure. Capitalism needed the free reign of capital, which did not happen untill the bourgeoisie came to power (and even if some feudal lords cooperated, they were over a long periode the allies of capital in some way or another). Now, this also counts for the proletarian revolutions: capitalism + soviets =/= communism (and that also counts for the Bolsheviks)! And you also need more than just ideas promoted by soviets.

So I don't know if I can believe what you say about the fact that gradualism wouldn't be needed. Indeed, soviets will [have to] administer society in such a way that it goes forward, because going backwards only means restoration. Yet it is a question of how. It would indeed be an obsession of mine to keep coming back with the state if I knew how soviets would [be able to] do it.
Capitalism is not sufficient to give every world citizen the luxury is deserves to have. It will take years to develop a sufficient society and this also means years of class struggle between reactionaries (bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeosie and the millions of proles that don't support the revolution) and revolutionaries.
Now, I know that in the past "history has proven" (awful expression :() that (certain?) soviets can maintain themselves. It has not "proven" that it can transform the whole of society into the society that was promoted earlier on by the vanguard amongst the proles and petit-bourgeoisie.

And I think my reponse still wont suffice, yet I leave it here since I have other things to do now.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is the main problem with anarchist theory: it sees the state as an independent entity.

An indepedent entity to what? The economy? Society? Both of those things are true


A state is simply something that emerges (in any number of forms) in any society in which more than one class exists. It's a tool that the ruling class uses to keep itself in power and enforce its rule. It's no something that anyone wills into existence.

That's fine. I, as an anarchist, totally accept that point-of-view. A state is one class organised to oppress another, so in that sense you can call anything a state. I don't care if you call the decentralised federalist and collectivist structure a state, it's not of importance.

What is of importance is recognising the material flaws in the way in which a state is organised. Marxists/Leninists are seemingly unaware or reject the idea that a socialist state - the centralisation of political power, which incidentally has been the main function of a state through out history - will invariably deform.

The centralisation of political power has ultimately failed to create the necessary conditions for transition.

[Bilan]

Have you read this? Do you know it advocates a market?


I have, and I wasn't pretending it was perfect; what i was saying was that it was an example of an anarchist, or "post-Marxist" in the authors sense (I think), transitional period.




^^^ You especially really need to drop your spontaneist, anti-vanguardist REDUCTIONISM:


You really need to stay on topic!




I think it is a bit idealist and non-sensical to say that workers can decide that capitalism is bad by their own accord without struggle, communist leadership, or study. If you did not assert this, then I don't understand what you mean by .."Cannot the workers decide for themselves capitalism sucks and they should change it?"



How you explain Paris 68 then?
That was a decision, a realisation that the entire system was fucked, and it was something caught on by, what, 10 million workers?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

An indepedent entity to what? The economy? Society? Both of those things are true

Independent of historical development and material conditions.

You may or may not see the state this way, but many anarchists do (and of course there's the whole problem of defining what a "real" anarchist is.. that's always been a problem, even within the anarchist miliue itself).


The centralisation of political power has ultimately failed to create the necessary conditions for transition.

And the "decentralization of political power" has done what, where and when?

Look, we have to deal with the fact that revolutions take place within national borders. The working class in each country has to settle accounts with "their own" bosses (and in some cases imperialists) first. In the age of imperialism, the main stage for revolutions is in the imperialist-oppressed countries (and when revolutions occur in enough of these countries, imperialism will greatly weaken, bringing about crises that raise the possibility of revolution in the imperialist countries). That's not to say that revolution is impossible in the imperialist countries now... But regardless, wherever the working class takes power next, it's going to have to defend its rule until revolutions break out elsewhere (all the while doing all it can to accelerate that process). We have to figure out ways to hang on to power and do what we can to pave the way for the communist future all the while preventing internal and external revolution as well as the degeneration of the revolution. I think Che made some useful contributions in this regard, some of which have been implemented in Cuba, which is the only socialist state to prevent the usurpation of power by a privileged bureaucratic caste.

[The Feral Underclass]

Independent of historical development and material conditions.

That's a red herring. Nothing is independent of historical development and material conditions. That's just a silly claim to make.


You may or may not see the state this way, but many anarchists do (and of course there's the whole problem of defining what a "real" anarchist is.. that's always been a problem, even within the anarchist miliue itself).

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. What evidence do you have that's made you conclude that anarchists view the state in this way?


And the "decentralization of political power" has done what, where and when?

In terms of what? What are the parametres by which you ask such petulant question as if this was some form of competition?


Look, we have to deal with the fact that revolutions take place within national borders.

Accepted.


The working class in each country has to settle accounts with "their own" bosses (and in some cases imperialists) first. In the age of imperialism, the main stage for revolutions is in the imperialist-oppressed countries (and when revolutions occur in enough of these countries, imperialism will greatly weaken, bringing about crises that raise the possibility of revolution in the imperialist countries).

I don't necessarily accept that premise. Crisis exists in industrialised countries. That's a very real and clear threat. I do not accept that there is any evidence to suggest a revolution is not possible in an industrialised nation, indeed Marx argued that industrial nations were the prime arena for revolution.


That's not to say that revolution is impossible in the imperialist countries now...

Ok...


But regardless, wherever the working class takes power next, it's going to have to defend its rule until revolutions break out elsewhere (all the while doing all it can to accelerate that process). We have to figure out ways to hang on to power and do what we can to pave the way for the communist future all the while preventing internal and external revolution as well as the degeneration of the revolution.

Well, obviously.

I don't really understand your point. I mean I could summise what you're talking about: That an anarchist means of defence is not strong enough to do that. Well, I don't accept that an in fact there's some evidence that indicates the contrary.


I think Che made some useful contributions in this regard, some of which have been implemented in Cuba, which is the only socialist state to prevent the usurpation of power by a privileged bureaucratic caste.

Yet Raul Castro is now talking about liberalising the economy. Wht happens when he dies and a new, younger cadre take over and view the successes of state capitalism in China. The revolution in Cuba is over.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Sorry for jumping in late but I want to cover some point that others have and haven't already.


This shouting contest has gone on long enough and I would hope that some of you are beginning to get tired of this junk. I will try to engage in a rational level-headed discussion above the aimless shouting of this thread.


First and foremost let's set one thing straight. In all debates between Anarchists and Marxists one problem always pops up and causes chaos, that is the definition of the state. Anarchists and Marxists have two different definitions and it is essential to make these known so as to prevent the misrepresentation of either side.


The Anarchists agree largely with the mainstream definition of the state as used by Weber and modern political scientists. To them to state is defined as a centralized, hierarchical, governing institution which maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.


On the other hand the Marxist has a much broader definition of the state (whether the term is appropriate or not is another matter completely). To the Marxist the state is an organ of class rule, which ensures one class's repression of other classes and the mediation of the class war in the favour of the ruling class.


This distinction is paramount to make clear, but once done so what can we understand from this.


For one, any body which is an organ of class rule, but is decentralised and non-hierarchy in nature is by the Anarchist definition not a state, however in the Marxist definition it is. It is such a body which the Marxist socialist stands. I'm sure some Leninists would disagree and argue for a centralised “workers state”. If this is the case all I can reply is that this is a contradiction and is extremely misguided.


Further, the Anarchist repudiation of the 'workers state' as it is commonly implied, is not a repudiation of Marxism.


We can thus dispel some of the confusion and pointless bickering that this thread and it seems all Marxist and Anarchist dialogue is plagued by, that is semantics.


Now to respond to some of what has been said already:




Not really. Anarchists reject the idea that they should "drag the proletariat along" by a vanguard party. Which basically means that some anarchists accept the idea of a vanguard in theory but not in practice. In theory anarchists are revolutionary, too, but in practice they're usually reactionary.


Unless I'm not reading this correctly, Zampano, you are endorsing the role of the vanguard is to drag the proletariat to victory? If that's the case all I can say is, so much for raising the masses to the level of 'socialist theoreticians'...


To Black & Red, 'vanguardism' does not imply that the vanguard should 'lead' the proletariat in anything more than class consciousness. Unlike Zampano would have you to believe, the 'vanguard party' acts to imbue the class with consciousness, not lead it in it's practical political struggle.



This, like most shit I've put up with by Leninists when talking about anarchism is dishonest, fictional, slanderous crap.


Anarchists are not completely innocent of dishonesty and the misrepresentation either, whether it has been intentional or mistaken. ;)



Thanks for the post, but except for the proviso that "they are organized on anarchist principles" how this differs for Marxism is beyond me according to my reading of Lenin's State and Revolution [quote]


I've said much the same before, however it is important to note that in The State and Revolution Lenin is definitely at his least 'Leninist' (or most 'libertarian').


[quote=Joe Hill's Ghost]It's pretty obvious actually. Federations of soviets, syndicates, councils etc. prefigure the society we want to create. Communism is a decentralized, pluralistic, free flowing system, and you can't build that through a centralized, authoritarian state, that institutes work managers, conscription, and jails other less "proletarian" leftists.


This is not the only basis for a decentralised and non-hierarchical state (a state only under the Marxist definition, this would not be considered a state to the Anarchists). See directly below.



I just don't get it why or how a decentralized power in the form of soviets can run and transform a capitalist society into a communist society. Why is decentralized proletarian power (whatever that is) the solution?


The form the state takes directly reflects the ruling class itself. For example the capitalist state is centralised and hierarchical in nature because it reflects the bourgeoisie, that is a ruling minority class which lives of the labour of others and seeks a perpetuation of such a system.


The 'worker's state' will take (not should take) the form of a 'decentralized, pluralistic, free flowing system' because of the very nature of the proletarian ruling class. The proletariat differ from all other ruling classes in that it is a majority in modern society which will exist not from the labour of others but from it's own free activity and has no desire for the perpetuation of class rule but rather the abolition of such.



Cannot the workers decide for themselves capitalism sucks and they should change it?


Yes they can, however, such class consciousness will not occur simultaneously en masse. Rather some individuals/elements will achieve such before others and thus must act to imbue the masses with such. This is the very basis of 'vanguardism'.



But, no, the workers, as a class, cannot decide for themselves that capitalism sucks.


I would disagree. Workers as a class, due to their material conditions, understand that capitalism sucks. What they fail to understand as a class is their historic role in forging the alternative and the means by which such can be achieved, this is dependant on the individual, the uneven development of class consciousness and thus the need for the 'vanguard party' to imbue the proletariat with such.



revolutionary consciousness cannot and does not come from immediate oppression, it needs to be brought in from outside of that realm.


Where on earth is it imported from!? Bourgeois Intellectuals as Kautsky and his disciple Lenin would have you believe? Certainly there is a an uneven development of class consciousness but such a consciousness is only 'imported' to the masses in that the masses and the vanguard are separated by their level of consciousness.



Material conditions may create spontaneous resistance, but this will not be revolutionary.


Wow, that is an interesting conclusion. I would love to see you explain where a revolutionary consciousness originates from.


O wait, let me guess, Bourgeois Intellectuals? If this is your suggestion where them does their supposed class consciousness come from? Is it not also the product of certain material conditions?



There needs to be a transitional fase which needs centralisation to coordinate in an effective way the proces of change and defend the gains of the early revolution against Reaction ... which will keep up the fight untill they don't have any material basis to support on


Why must such a class rule take the form of a centralised state (that is, the Anarchist definition of the state)? Can we not conceive of a decentralised and non-hierarchical suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (that is, a state in the Marxist sense)?



My point is material conditions compel people to revolt. What you get from revolting largely depends on your material conditions. Leninists claim they can make revolution by injecting conciousness into the proletariat then go further to say that conciousness can defeat material conditions. It can't.


This is a common view held by many Anarchists and so-called Marxists, but it is mistaken. The vanguard party is not a means to over come the existing material conditions, rather it is a direct out growth from them. Certainly any materialist would not suggest that the vanguard party is plucked out of the sky and is a tool to somehow negate real material conditions. The vanguard is simply the expression of the fact that class consciousness does not develop evenly and the vanguard party, that such a class consciousness must be spread.



This is a completely flawed conception of Marx's materialist conception of history that bases itself in a strict base/superstructure analysis without looking at the dialectical relationship between the two. This is the reason you can only see two poles (i.e. material conditions vs "injecting consciousness") and thus fail to understand the theory.


Well if that is the case then I am afraid that I too must have such a flawed conception in that I fail to understand the dialectical relationship between the two, or is it maybe that I do comprehend it, but without the gibberish?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
Originally Posted by Zampano
This is a completely flawed conception of Marx's materialist conception of history that bases itself in a strict base/superstructure analysis without looking at the dialectical relationship between the two. This is the reason you can only see two poles (i.e. material conditions vs "injecting consciousness") and thus fail to understand the theory. Well if that is the case then I am afraid that I too must have such a flawed conception in that I fail to understand the dialectical relationship between the two, or is it maybe that I do comprehend it, but without the gibberish?Yes, you expressed the same idea when you wrote:
The form the state takes directly reflects the ruling class itself. For example the capitalist state is centralised and hierarchical in nature because it reflects the bourgeoisie, that is a ruling minority class which lives of the labour of others and seeks a perpetuation of such a system.and then when you wrote:
The vanguard party is not a means to over come the existing material conditions, rather it is a direct out growth from them. Certainly any materialist would not suggest that the vanguard party is plucked out of the sky and is a tool to somehow negate real material conditions. The vanguard is simply the expression of the fact that class consciousness does not develop evenly and the vanguard party, that such a class consciousness must be spread.
Good post by the way :).

But I disagree with this:
Unlike Zampano would have you to believe, the 'vanguard party' acts to imbue the class with consciousness, not lead it in it's practical political struggle.It sounds like a propagandist formulation. The vanguard has to prove itself through its ability to intervene concretely in the class struggle - otherwise what is the basis of its credentials for leadership? This means that, as class conscious members of the proletariat, we should aim to be at the forefront of real political and economic battles. It's only by being at the forefront of the class struggle that a vanguard can convincingly call itself such.

[Bilan]

We can thus dispel some of the confusion and pointless bickering that this thread and it seems all Marxist and Anarchist dialogue is plagued by, that is semantics.


It's never going to happen because its never going to stop.
There's members of this board, anarchist and Leninist alike, who still don't get it, and have been members for how long?

Look at LZ's original post. I mean, come on!

[Module]

The vanguard has to prove itself through its ability to intervene concretely in the class struggle - otherwise what is the basis of its credentials for leadership? This means that, as class conscious members of the proletariat, we should aim to be at the forefront of real political and economic battles. It's only by being at the forefront of the class struggle that a vanguard can convincingly call itself such.
Considering my understanding of the vanguard,
It is not some static body of revolutionaries that considers itself to be the most class conscious members of the proletariat, but simply those who are the most class conscious members of the proletariat. As such it is they who will be at the forefront of the class struggle whether or not they care to call themselves a 'vanguard'.
As the vanguard they are definitively at the forefront of political and economic battles and the class struggle.
However, I think what Zeigeist's point was (I'll reply for him in his absence, I guess) that the vanguard does not 'lead' the working class in these battles, rather serves to 'educate and agitate' the working class alongside them in these battles, as part of the working class.
These battles which the working class fights simply themselves, rather than having some sort of 'vanguard' to lead them through it.

The vanguard is not necessarily about political leadership, rather the objective fact that some members of the working class are more class conscious than others. They are not a separate entity, rather fully a part of the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I will argue at the beginning of Chapter 6 the historical case for revolutionary-epoch "leadership" ("the road to power" :D ) but will make it VERY clear that it is separate from "vanguardism" as a concept (i.e., "both vanguardism and wider organization"). After all, someone has to step up and say "there is such a party." ;)

I'll edit this post to reply to Comrade Zeitgeist's most excellent reply, especially his utilization of the word "DISCIPLE." :D


Unless I'm not reading this correctly, Zampano, you are endorsing the role of the vanguard is to drag the proletariat to victory? If that's the case all I can say is, so much for raising the masses to the level of 'socialist theoreticians'...

He doesn't understand the merger formula that Lenin memorized all too well, comrade.


To Black & Red, 'vanguardism' does not imply that the vanguard should 'lead' the proletariat in anything more than class consciousness. Unlike Zampano would have you to believe, the 'vanguard party' acts to imbue the class with consciousness, not lead it in it's practical political struggle.

As Comrades Edric O and MarxSchmarx said, there is a role for "leadership" (most notably the setting up of alternative organs of power, but also, as I mentioned, the organization of spoiled voting and the accompanying protests (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html) ;) ).


Where on earth is it imported from!? Bourgeois Intellectuals as Kautsky and his disciple Lenin would have you believe? Certainly there is a an uneven development of class consciousness but such a consciousness is only 'imported' to the masses in that the masses and the vanguard are separated by their level of consciousness.

Oh, how "profoundly true!" ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

It's never going to happen because its never going to stop.
There's members of this board, anarchist and Leninist alike, who still don't get it, and have been members for how long?

Look at LZ's original post. I mean, come on!

Are you kidding me? Your reply was filled with platitudes and semantic play, covered with a coating of inaccurate historical examples.

I'll reply to it:


This is a myth that needs to be dispelled permanently.
It's basis is purely fictional. It is assumed that because anarchists refuse to accept that Marxists centralized state "transition period" that they reject any transition period what so ever.
True, anarchists have often refused to answer the question, or "blue print" the future society, and instead answering "It will be decided by the people at the time".
Though that is true, that for society to be truly democratic it has to be self managed by the people.
But that doesn't mean anarchists negate the transitional period between capitalism and libertarian communism.

The point is to work towards libertarian communism through structures will exert the power of the proletariat; Workers Councils, Syndicates, Community Assemblies, federations, etc. which are organized upon anarchist principles.
These bodies seize the means of production and are managed by the working class, for the benefits of human kind.
(To put it simply).

You replaced the word "higher phase of communism" (used by Marx, and now used by most communists to refer to "communism") with "libertarian communism".

Then you say that you do not reject a transition period, the period which Marx called "the lower phase of communism", and is now called "socialism" by most communists, but merely want that period to be "organized on anarchist principles".

You then go on to link to an article which proposes a market system!

You can't get any more vague than that, can you?

Marxists are not opposed to "structures which exert the power of the proletariat", on the contrary, the entire basis of socialism is founded on those structures, but to you these structures must be "organized on anarchist principles", which is a vague way of saying that you oppose centralization of these structures.

In effect you are saying that you oppose the efficiency of these structures, for centralization has the only task of making them more efficient and worthwhile, and thereby making the transition period to communism shorter, while making the transition period itself stronger to defend.

We have seen what these experiments at "de-centralization" have ended up with; total failure.

Why? Don't Marxists also support de-centralization of power? Of course we do! But we aren't deaf-mute to the material conditions of society, the factor which determines if such a structure is possible to exist:



But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

Marx was not just referring to the inadequate system of proletarian democracy (remember that Lenin quote; "when there is freedom there will be no state."), but also to the economic system, the system of distribution etc. etc.

Anarchists don't grasp this simple basic fact of life; this is why their version of the "transition period" is nothing more but a purile petty attempt at skipping the transitional phase by talking about "de-centralization of political power", "smashing the state" (including a workers' state) and other such high-sounding phrases about the economic condition (though they focus less on that because they're historically not that good at economics).

All of this is nice and well, and as I said earlier Marxists don't disagree with this; we just understand the fact that it is impossible to create such a system in a society that is materially not ready for it.

If you try to introduce those "anarchist principles" when the material conditions are lacking for it, you end up "bringing back all the old crap", as Marx said, which looked like this in reality:


As is well known, the Makhnovites do not recognise the regulations of the Red Army and have created their own organisation, allegedly based on ‘free’ anarchist principles. It is of very great interest and importance for not only every Red Army man but also every worker and conscious peasant to learn what these ‘free’ anarchist principles look like in practice.

In principle – that is, in words – organisation of Makhno’s troops is based on electivity of commanders, on volunteering by all the fighters, and on the strictest ‘self-discipline’. Let us examine these principles, one by one.

1. The principle of election exists only in words, that is, as an outward ritual. Commanders are selected by Makhno himself and his closest collaborators. True, commanders (from platoon to regimental level) are presented for approval by their units. But this is an empty formality. If there is any disagreement, the last word lies with the senior commander, who actually appoints whoever he considers necessary. To this we must add that commanding cadres are very few in numbers, and so it is natural that the fighters have to accept the commanders given them by Makhno.

2. The voluntary principle. Makhno does not carry out any general mobilisations, nor would he be able to do this, given his complete lack of the apparatus needed. But the guerrillas who join his troops are not at all ‘free’ to leave it. Anyone who voluntarily leaves the troop is regarded as a traitor and is threatened with a bloody settlement of accounts, especially if he joins a Red Army unit. Consequently, the ‘volunteers’ feel that they are held in an iron grip, and cannot leave the troop.

To this it must be added that the troop includes some non-volunteers, for example, a choir of Estonian musicians, the medical personnel and others, who were taken prisoner and carry out their duties under compulsion.

3. As for the anarchist ‘self-discipline’, this is on the same footing as ‘electivity’ and ‘voluntariness’, and perhaps even exceeds them in the brutal forms it takes. According to anarchist theory, self-discipline must be maintained by the rebels themselves, without any compulsion from above. But there is no question of this being the case in the troop. The commanders, especially the highest of them, actually enjoy unlimited powers. It is enough to mention that the custom of striking men ‘in the mug’ (as this is described in the language of freedom and brotherhood) is widely practised. Shooting without trial, ‘on the spot’, is also widely practised – not only during battle but also in peaceful situations. The methods of striking ‘in the mug’ and shooting ‘on the spot’ are employed by ‘Daddy Makhno’ himself.

The commanders have batmen and drivers, who are responsible for the care and maintenance of the commanders’ horses and equipment. The commanders have five or six horses each, the very best available, and also carriages and tachanki.

For his own protection Makhno has a ‘Black Squadron’ in which, as the Makhnovites put it, discipline is ‘diabolical’. Makhno’s quarters are guarded by a strong squad of between five and seven sentries. Strangers are not allowed to approach Makhno without being disarmed.

He has his own Cheka, called ‘Counter-Intelligence’.

The army possesses gold, diamonds and other jewels, valuable furs and other clothing, all this being, to a noticeable extent, mostly held by the commanders.

That is how the anarchist principles appear in practice.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch73.htm)

Forgive me if I say hell fucking no to bringing back that crap again.


Yeah, and the organization of a socialist economy in America would be drastically different to one in China. That's a given. You can't just change economic state of a country (Especially one as backward as Ukraine was) because its suddenly been reorganized - are you going to suggesting that its going to occur overnight? The realities of the economic system have to be dealt, that's a fact of life.
Spain had a far larger proletariat and was far more industrialized. It had, economically, more odds in its favour than the Ukrainian anarchists did

No, of course I'm not saying that it is going to occur overnight, in fact I said the opposite:


No, I don't believe that when a revolution happens in a country the working-class is "equally class-conscious", and everyone suddenly knows exactly what communism is and how such a society would function. That's not just impossible given the obvious fact that class-consciousness is never equal in an entire social class, especially not when it just came out of the womb of the capitalist system, but also because the material conditions for communism do not exist yet.

Scarcity is still a reality, law can never be higher than the material conditions of society, you can't "force communism", being determined consciousness, when there is no material basis for communism there can be no communism.

What then is the solution that Marxists offer?

A transition period wherein:

1. The productive forces have to be increased greatly to eliminate scarcity and create the material basis for a communist society, something which can be done easily due to the fact that a socialized economic system is vastly superior to a capitalist economic system.

2. The working-class having taken over and smashed the capitalist superstructure will create its own superstructure to "de-bourgeoisify" the working-class. You can't expect people who have been living under class-society for centuries upon centuries to just "become communist". This requires the growing up of new generations under that new superstructure and the dying out of the old generations who were brought up under the old superstructure.

So number 1 is the solution to the economic problem, and number 2 is the solution to the consciousness problem.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-anarchism-sucks-t82647/index.html)

You ignored that because you have no answer to the criticism of your own ideology which I had included in that, namely; You can't build up the material conditions and defend the revolution most efficiently in the transition period without a workers' state, any attempts at doing so have utterly failed in the initial period of the revolution, while any attempts at doing so by use of a workers' state were infinitely more successful.

So, knowing this, the only thing required for your "anarchist principles" to work is a revolution breaking out in the most advanced capitalist nations more or less instantaneously, which isn't going to happen.


As for defence, never have anarchists suggested that just simply having federations will solve that problem. At least, not to my knowledge, and the organization of the anarchists in Spain combatting the fascists certainly said otherwise

I didn't say that anarchists said that, you are fighting phantoms.

In practice those "anarchist principles" are not so very "anarchist" when they are forced to defend their political power (see the example above), so you are stuck with either giving up your principles to survive, or clinging on to them while being defeated.

Historically anarchists have chosen the former, and were still defeated, not because they didn't go far enough, but because they went too far.


What's your basis for that?

See above.


History hasn't proved shit. History proves that you can't just skip over your material conditions, that you can't negate your situation.
If you're blaming the failure of anarchists in Spain on theory, you are just being lazy and dishonest.

Yeah, history has proven that you can't just skip over your material conditions, that you can't negate your situation, very nicely said, too bad that you don't apply that wisdom to your sacred "anarchist principles".

The failure of anarchists in Spain wasn't just theory; it was a combination of flawed theory, faux practice and general stupidity which caused their failure.


None? Not in Korea? In Mexico?

No.


This doesn't prove anything.

It proves that you can't create a "communist society" when the material conditions for it do not exist.

You can't have communism with scarcity, that's like trying to have capitalism without capitalists.


But productive forces have to be reorganized as well, so that the proletariat takes control of them; so that production doesn't just create unnecessary excess, but is adaqueately distributed upon a regional basis.

Elaborate on this.

What would you do if a certain branch of industry suddenly goes on strike, and all the other branches of industry are affected by it.

You can't really take the right to strike away from them, can you, because they elect themselves at their councils, committees and clubs, so what will you do?

Or are you saying that in a society run on your vague "anarchist principles" no worker would ever dare to go on strike, because they all understand that they must work together in solidarity to "create a libertarian communist society"? These workers who have just come out of the womb of capitalism, who are still living in a society with scarcity, they surely must understand and live by those "libertarian communist principles", right?

No, I don't think so.

This is not to say that I am against proletarian democracy, on the contrary; I just understand the difference between proletarian democracy in the transition period and proletarian democracy in a genuine communist society, or rather, I understand why such a difference is inevitable to exist in a society still shackled by scarcity, lack of material conditions, lack of consciousness, etc., in other words, a society which has just come out of the womb of capitalism.


Are you suggesting people cannot shake off the yolk of the old world? People are created, changed, and molded by their environment; when that environment changes, so do they; when it changes drastically, so do they.

Sure, but if you can't change that "environment" required for that "drastic change", then they won't change either.

And no, I don't believe that you can eliminate scarcity and build up the material conditions required for a communist society within a few months or years, that is absolute nonsense.

It requires a global effort spanning 2 or 3 generations probably, and the consciousness of the people will change in proportion to the advance of socialist society.

But it would be idealist to think that you can just put people in a new environment and they will "change accordingly", it took centuries before people absorbed "bourgeois values" such as bourgeois democracy, and the majority of the world has not even done that.

No, it requires an effort on every level of society, the entire superstructure, to work towards this goal.

Capitalism has provided us with these tools; papers, televisions, internet, media in general, schools, etc. etc.

All of these will have to be utilized and will be utilized to advance towards communism in terms of consciousness, while all of this is in turn based on the level of development of the material conditions, which are built up by utilizing all the tools capitalism has given us for that; factories, infrastructure etc. etc., to advance towards communism in terms of material conditions.


I would have concentrated there on the idea that the main task of Marxists is to raise class consciousness. To me it seems a very strange idea.

Of course it does, because to you blowing soap bubbles in order to criticize real revolutionaries is your main task.

[trivas7]

The Anarchists agree largely with the mainstream definition of the state as used by Weber and modern political scientists. To them to state is defined as a centralized, hierarchical, governing institution which maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.


On the other hand the Marxist has a much broader definition of the state (whether the term is appropriate or not is another matter completely). To the Marxist the state is an organ of class rule, which ensures one class's repression of other classes and the mediation of the class war in the favour of the ruling class.

For one, any body which is an organ of class rule, but is decentralised and non-hierarchy in nature is by the Anarchist definition not a state, however in the Marxist definition it is. It is such a body which the Marxist socialist stands. I'm sure some Leninists would disagree and argue for a centralised “workers state”. If this is the case all I can reply is that this is a contradiction and is extremely misguided.

Please excuse my naivete but this is on such a lofty plane of abstraction I don't know what you're referring to. Can you example "an organ of class rule but [which] is decentralised and non-hierarchy in nature" you say is not a state (organ I presume) -- but which is for the Marxist? Isn't (de)centralisation of social organs a matter of degree and not kind?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, I do have one key problem with Comrade Zeitgeist's remarks on decentralization: what about the potential need for standing armies in order to protect and possibly spread the revolution?

[Rawthentic]

Wow, that is an interesting conclusion. I would love to see you explain where a revolutionary consciousness originates from.


O wait, let me guess, Bourgeois Intellectuals? If this is your suggestion where them does their supposed class consciousness come from? Is it not also the product of certain material conditions?
I never said bourgeois intellectuals. I mean from revolutionary communists, from those that lead the oppressed in struggle and expose the system in that process. It is a back and forth dialectical process of theory and practice.

I have already explained where revolutionary consciousness can originate from. And it doesnt come spontaneously. When workers decide to strike, or peasants revolt, or students walk out, this does not imply that consciousness is going to just come from there. Reality does not work like that. It never has and never will. Struggles over immediate oppression only focus on that, immediate oppression! The oppressed need to see the overall systemic picture and how all class forces act and react to different events in society. This won't come from spontaneity. There needs to be a communist leadership to do these exposures while there is struggle, because the people learn best during political struggle.

And yes, material conditions create resistance, I never denied this.

"Where there is oppression, there is resistance". - Mao

[trivas7]

^^^ Actually, I do have one key problem with Comrade Zeitgeist's remarks on decentralization: what about the potential need for standing armies in order to protect and possibly spread the revolution?
The Paris Commune had a standing garrison (I presume); does this level of specification mean it was (de)centralized enough to satisfy an anarchist'a criteria?

[Hit The North]

Considering my understanding of the vanguard,
It is not some static body of revolutionaries that considers itself to be the most class conscious members of the proletariat, but simply those who are the most class conscious members of the proletariat. As such it is they who will be at the forefront of the class struggle whether or not they care to call themselves a 'vanguard'.

No, it's not static at all. However to say that these "most class conscious members of the proletariat" do not "consider" or identify or recognise themselves as the vanguard would lead us to question in what way they were conscious at all!


As the vanguard they are definitively at the forefront of political and economic battles and the class struggle.Of course. That was my point.


However, I think what Zeigeist's point was (I'll reply for him in his absence, I guess) that the vanguard does not 'lead' the working class in these battles, rather serves to 'educate and agitate' the working class alongside them in these battles, as part of the working class. Which was my initial objection: why stop at agitate and educate - what happed to organise? In fact how can we agitate and educate at all if we're not organised?

These battles which the working class fights simply themselves, rather than having some sort of 'vanguard' to lead them through it.This kinda contradicts your excellent point that the vanguard is part of the working class. It also sounds like you think the class is homogenous and acts as one. But you don't mean that, because further down you claim:


The vanguard is not necessarily about political leadership, rather the objective fact that some members of the working class are more class conscious than others. Which means it should aspire to be the political leadership of the movement, surely? If it isn't then it's the Trade Union bureaucracy and reformism which takes the lead.


They are not a separate entity, rather fully a part of the working class.Yes, but because the vanguard is not the only force in society vying for leadership of the class (there's the bourgeoisie and the reformists; there's the fascists), it must organise itself in contra-distinction to those other political forces.

Which brings us back to my initial point in this post that the vanguard needs to be conscious of itself - because without that self-consciousness it cannot organise itself and act as the head of the class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Which was my initial objection: why stop at agitate and educate - what happed to organise? In fact how can we agitate and educate at all if we're not organised?

"Social Democracy is the party of the militant proletariat; it seeks to enlighten it, to educate it, to organise it, to expand its political and economic power by every available means, to conquer every position that can possibly be conquered, and thus to provide it with the strength and maturity that will finally enable it to conquer political power and to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie." (Karl Kautsky)

[RebelDog]

Led Zeppelin:


You ignored that because you have no answer to the criticism of your own ideology which I had included in that, namely; You can't build up the material conditions and defend the revolution most efficiently in the transition period without a workers' state, any attempts at doing so have utterly failed in the initial period of the revolution, while any attempts at doing so by use of a workers' state were infinitely more successful.

So, knowing this, the only thing required for your "anarchist principles" to work is a revolution breaking out in the most advanced capitalist nations more or less instantaneously, which isn't going to happen.

What was successful? This state transitional period led where? Anytime in history, where workers have come anywhere near anything that could be regarded as resembling communism, they have been either crushed by the bourgeoisie or the authoritarian communists. The idea that the working class should be told to 'wait' while a new exploiting class and a party elite 'guide' them to communism has been shown historically to be a criminal falsehood. The state primarily serves the interests of the new holders of power and control even more directly than capitalism and libertarian communism becomes even further away. Trotskyists and Leninists do not want libertarian communism and will forever claim the 'material conditions and not right' and where workers dissent they are likely to act with as much ruthlessness as the bourgeoisie in putting down libertarian communism as it negates both of these oppressive strands.

[The Feral Underclass]

There's no way anyone can successful argue with Led Zeppelin. He purposefully misrepresents anarchism by creating caricatures of our ideas that he blatantly doesn't understand. He willfully revises history or simply makes unfounded assertions about historical events. He draws on abstract political scenarios in an effort to validate his bizarre fixation with political authority and eludes to this red herring of "material conditions", regardless of the fact it doesn't address any of anarchisms concerns or criticisms. Neither does it prove why decentralisation of power cannot work. Simply pointing out the obvious and claiming we don't know about what is clearly obvious is not a negation of anarchism. No matter how much it is repeated.

In an effort to discredit anarchists and anarchism the guy quoted the very same guy who ordered the murder of hundreds of anarchists. He's a fucking idiot!

[Led Zeppelin]

What was successful? This state transitional period led where?

It led to a lot more than your "anarchist principles" did, that's for sure.

If you want real answers to why it failed, read something about it from sources which aren't anarchist, because all they tell you is "it was centralized and centralization equals failure! Lol!!".


He purposefully misrepresents anarchism by creating caricatures of our ideas that he blatantly doesn't understand. He willfully revises history or simply makes unfounded assertions about historical events. He draws on abstract political scenarios in an effort to validate his bizarre fixation with political authority and eludes to this red herring of "material conditions", regardless of the fact it doesn't address any of anarchisms concerns or criticisms. Neither does it prove why decentralisation of power cannot work. Simply pointing out the obvious and claiming we don't know about what is clearly obvious is not a negation of anarchism. No matter how much it is repeated.

Those are nice words coming from a person who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

For example earlier you claimed that What Is To Be Done? was "Lenin's concept of the vanguard party" which was refuted by me, you then ignored it when your ignorance was exposed and left off with a "yeah well, some Leninists claim it was!"

If that is the best you can do then I suggest you give up altogether.

Also, it doesn't prove why de-centralization doesn't work? Well, history has proven that conclusively, you're just too blind to see it.

Marxists agree that de-centralization and having no state at all is preferrable, if we didn't we wouldn't have referred to socialism as a transition to communism, where there is no state and where political power is most likely de-centralized.

But material conditions certainly do matter, to you they don't because you don't understand historical materialism, you're a political clown after all, but to Marxists it does. You can't have political structures which can only exist in a post-scarcity communist society functioning in a society still shackled by scarcity, lack of material conditions, lack of consciousness, etc., in other words, a society which has just come out of the womb of capitalism: "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development conditioned by it."

Have you read that book, TAT? You referred to it in the thread suggesting books (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1182726&postcount=29), but that part of it probably slipped your tiny mind.


In an effort to discredit anarchists and anarchism the guy quoted the very same guy who ordered the murder of hundreds of anarchists.

Anarchists quote the guy who murdered hundreds of Bolsheviks against Bolshevism, but of course he was an anarchist so he was always right, and the Bolsheviks were always wrong.

Welcome to the warped worldview of anarchism.

Note how he didn't even bother to refute anything I quoted.

[Module]

No, it's not static at all. However to say that these "most class conscious members of the proletariat" do not "consider" or identify or recognise themselves as the vanguard would lead us to question in what way they were conscious at all!
Ah yes, I was trying to point out the identity of a vanguard in reference to a 'static body', for example, a particular group which considers itself a vanguard may not be, it's not simply about what you consider yourself, but what you are.
Sorry, badly phrased sentence I suppose.
Though, many anarchists, out of ignorance or ideology, reject the very notion of vanguardism and don't consider themselves part of the vanguard though they are a part of it, for example.


Of course. That was my point.Yes, sorry I think this is a slight miscommunication.
What I meant to say was that the vanguard has no need to prove itself by being at the forefront of political and economic battles because by definition they already will be.
But if that was your point and I'm continuing to miss it, I apologise. :lol:


Which was my initial objection: why stop at agitate and educate - what happed to organise? In fact how can we agitate and educate at all if we're not organised?Well, I think here in steps the concept of the vanguard 'party', a mass organisation.


This kinda contradicts your excellent point that the vanguard is part of the working class. It also sounds like you think the class is homogenous and acts as one. But you don't mean that, because further down you claim: Yes, that is why I put vanguard in inverted commas, referring to an organisation which considers itself a vanguard and acts separately from the working class.
I don't think that the class 'acts as one', though I believe that all members of the working class through class struggle act as workers, and this goes for those in the vanguard of the working class, as well.


Which means it should aspire to be the political leadership of the movement, surely? If it isn't then it's the Trade Union bureaucracy and reformism which takes the lead.Well,
I think that the vanguard leads the working class through education and agitation as I said, but when it comes to the actual political struggle there should be no leadership besides that.
Organisation is very important for the movement's effectiveness as you said.
The vanguard doesn't necessarily need to take the lead in the political struggles, rather raise class consciousness/provide the rest of the working class with the 'theoretical' means to undertake these struggles themselves, to organise themselves. The vanguard should, as a vanguard try to raise class consciousness, educate and agitate, but in terms of political struggle, struggle not as the vanguard, but as part of the working class.
Again I think this is where the concept of the 'vanguard party' comes in, obviously I'm not as theoretically well versed that I can really expand on this much further.

Yes, but because the vanguard is not the only force in society vying for leadership of the class (there's the bourgeoisie and the reformists; there's the fascists), it must organise itself in contra-distinction to those other political forces.

Which brings us back to my initial point in this post that the vanguard needs to be conscious of itself - because without that self-consciousness it cannot organise itself and act as the head of the class.That is a fair enough point. I think I'll have to go away and think about what I'd say in response to this first, and reply to you later with something coherant ... Not feeling terribly mentally active at the moment. :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Those are nice words coming from a person who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

For example earlier you claimed that What Is To Be Done? was "Lenin's concept of the vanguard party" which was refuted by me, you then ignored it when your ignorance was exposed and left off with a "yeah well, some Leninists claim it was!"

If that is the best you can do then I suggest you give up altogether.

Once again, you've totally misrepresented my point-of-view to the point of making things up.

To clarify, I was asked what the Leninist conception of the vanguard was. I then quoted What Is To Be Done, where Lenin clearly outlines the vanguard. You said it was out of date and then I replied by stating: "I am happy to accept that Lenin's ideas are dated. The problem is, those people who organise parties in his name do so in these dated manners. If WITBD is out of date, why do Leninist parties still keep using its organisational ideas? You replied by informing me that those political organisations were wrong. I had nothing to say to that.

Clearly you're so deluded by your own self-importance that you cannot even grasp the very basics of a conversation.


But material conditions certainly do matter, to you they don't because you don't understand historical materialismThere you go. You've done it again. You've ignored what I've said and constructed a phantom issue to argue against. Either you're not reading what I'm saying properly, you don't understand what I'm saying or you're willfully misrepresenting what I am saying.

I have never, at any point, made any assertion that I think "material conditions" don't matter. And this is the crux of your argument: That anarchists "don't care" about material conditions. You've constructed this imaginary scenario for the benefit of your argument. It's an eidolon! It's not real! You're attributing a made-up problem to anarchism in an effort to argue against it.

Of course material conditions "matter" (stupid way to approach it) but this does not prove anything.


You can't have political structures which can only exist in a post-scarcity communist society functioning in a society still shackled by scarcity, lack of material conditions, lack of consciousness, etc., in other words, a society which has just come out of the womb of capitalismFirst of all I don't accept that an anarchist transition is the kind of "political structures" that we want in a post-scarcity communist society; participatory economics and renumeration contradict a gift economy. Secondly, the premise of this assertion is not founded. You're essentially making the claim that because human beings are not "pure" communists at the point of revolution that they would be unable to organise and defend themselves without centralised political authority. Well, in spite of the material conditions that you outline, I see no basis to make such an assertion, except of course preconceived notions about the validity of authority, which is a bourgeois conception of human dynamics. The idea that we need authority in order to overcome problems is not based on fact.

As for the The German Ideology quote, I cannot seem to find it in either volume so please could you point me to where that is?

[RebelDog]

If you want real answers to why it failed, read something about it from sources which aren't anarchist, because all they tell you is "it was centralized and centralization equals failure! Lol!!".

Being that you believe the empowerment of a new parasitic bureaucratic and party elite, (which crushes self-management and real economic democracy and equality) somehow leads to libertarian communism, you have no right to tell anyone to go and find "real answers" as to how the working class are to achieve freedom. The idea that the working class need new empowered bosses to lead them to freedom betrays what Trotskyists and Leninists really have for the working class: contempt. History shows this clearly.

[Bilan]

Are you kidding me? Your reply was filled with platitudes and semantic play, covered with a coating of inaccurate historical examples.

That's total hypocrisy.
Your post is full of bullshit slander, and inaccuracies, and you're being completely dishonest about it.
And if it's "semantic play", obviously no more than yours, why did you make your initial post, which you know is full of rubbish?




You replaced the word "higher phase of communism" (used by Marx, and now used by most communists to refer to "communism") with "libertarian communism".

In the same way I'll probably use "bosses" and "(the) ruling class" as opposed to the bourgeoisie. Purely because it's much more understandable and doesn't sound like it came out of a video game.



Then you say that you do not reject a transition period, the period which Marx called "the lower phase of communism", and is now called "socialism" by most communists, but merely want that period to be "organized on anarchist principles".
You then go on to link to an article which proposes a market system!

What I was trying to show was that anarchists, of different flavours, do have proposed transitional periods.
What I was not trying to show was one that was perfect.
I agree with parts of that article (It certainly addresses things which alot of anarchists have unfortunatley neglected, intentionally or not, in history, which I addressed in my first post) and disagree with other parts (The obvious one being the proposed market).

Even the Platform of the Libertarian Communists has an example transition period, and that was written around the time of Bolshevism, so why do you fail to admit that these exist?



You can't get any more vague than that, can you?

It's hardly vague.



Marxists are not opposed to "structures which exert the power of the proletariat", on the contrary, the entire basis of socialism is founded on those structures, but to you these structures must be "organized on anarchist principles", which is a vague way of saying that you oppose centralization of these structures.

Firstly, its not vague, its very clear cut: we oppose the centralization of power and unnecessary hierarchical organization; we oppose the idea of "led" and "leaders", of which Leninists seem to capitalize on - which is demonstrated through the way they organize demos, etc.

Secondly, this is not "Marxists" but more Leninists. The trend of "Marxists" toward organization is annoyingly vague and confusing, and they generally have certain strains of Marxism which they follow, which clearly alter their organizational tendencies.



In effect you are saying that you oppose the efficiency of these structures, for centralization has the only task of making them more efficient and worthwhile, and thereby making the transition period to communism shorter, while making the transition period itself stronger to defend.

Yeah, its the efficiency I oppose. God damn it, things must be inefficient or else ...or else...!
Don't put words in my mouth.
I oppose them because they rob the proletariat of exerting power; its exerted for them, not by them.



We have seen what these experiments at "de-centralization" have ended up with; total failure.

Really, where? I see more failure in the USSR than I do in Spain. At least, thats worthy of allowing the theory to be questioned deeply. :lol:
The "Marxists" in the USSR might not have been defeated by fascism, which the anarchists did (of course, you demonstrate later that you've no clue on why that actually occurred, but instead, blame it on "Stupidity" and "theoretical issues", because you frankly don't know any where near enough about it - It couldn't have been the government refusing to arm the people, could it? It couldn't have been the government failing to realize the threat of fascism, which the people, ironically, realized well before the vanguard party. It couldn't have been any of the issues relating to lack of armaments, isolation, and the usurption of the leadership, and cornering of the CNT that led to the failure?
No, it was theory and "stupidity". :lol:)



Why? Don't Marxists also support de-centralization of power? Of course we do! But we aren't deaf-mute to the material conditions of society, the factor which determines if such a structure is possible to exist:[quote]

We're not "deaf mute" either, we're just not arrogant enough to demand that the Proletariat obeys us. I'd rather be a servant of the people than a ruler of them. :rolleyes:

[quote]
Marx was not just referring to the inadequate system of proletarian democracy (remember that Lenin quote; "when there is freedom there will be no state."), but also to the economic system, the system of distribution etc. etc.

Inadequate system, eh?



Anarchists don't grasp this simple basic fact of life; this is why their version of the "transition period" is nothing more but a purile petty attempt at skipping the transitional phase by talking about "de-centralization of political power", "smashing the state" (including a workers' state) and other such high-sounding phrases about the economic condition (though they focus less on that because they're historically not that good at economics).


That's just petty slander. You know nothing of anarchist theory.



All of this is nice and well, and as I said earlier Marxists don't disagree with this; we just understand the fact that it is impossible to create such a system in a society that is materially not ready for it.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the same system can just be implemented anywhere like magic?



If you try to introduce those "anarchist principles" when the material conditions are lacking for it, you end up "bringing back all the old crap", as Marx said, which looked like this in reality:


Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch73.htm)


You mean like how "Leninist Marxism" brought back capitalism? :confused:


Forgive me if I say hell fucking no to bringing back that crap again.

:lol:




No, of course I'm not saying that it is going to occur overnight, in fact I said the opposite:[/URL]

You ignored that because you have no answer to the criticism of your own ideology which I had included in that, namely; You can't build up the material conditions and defend the revolution most efficiently in the transition period without a workers' state, any attempts at doing so have utterly failed in the initial period of the revolution, while any attempts at doing so by use of a workers' state were infinitely more successful.

Why would I not want my ideology to be criticised? Thats idiotic. If it wasn't criticised and built from its criticisms, it would just be stagnant.

I responded to a part of it because it seems pretty unnecessary to quote all of it. But eh.
And no, that hasn't been neglected, its been discussed before.
[URL="http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/fod/towardsintro.html"]Towards a Fresh Revolution. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-anarchism-sucks-t82647/index.html)
It's addressed in there, for one.
It was also addressed in Berkmans ABC of anarchism, and I have no doubt its been addressed in others (forgive me for not flooding you with links).




So, knowing this, the only thing required for your "anarchist principles" to work is a revolution breaking out in the most advanced capitalist nations more or less instantaneously, which isn't going to happen.


No, it isn't. And it would be stupid to argue it would. But its not what anarchism requires to succeed either.



I didn't say that anarchists said that, you are fighting phantoms.

You more or less implied it here:


Anarchists and Marxists have the same goal; a communist society, we only differ on how we believe we will get there. Anarchists believe that no transition period is necessary, that centuries of class-society can be gotten rid of right away, that a de-centralized federation of communes (which is pretty vague in and of itself, the system used by Makhno was very different from the system used by the Spanish anarchists, so no one really knows what exactly they're talking about) can hold out against the overthrown bourgeoisie and the bourgeois still in power in other countries.


My bold.



In practice those "anarchist principles" are not so very "anarchist" when they are forced to defend their political power (see the example above), so you are stuck with either giving up your principles to survive, or clinging on to them while being defeated.

The sheer fucking hypocrisy. In practice, Marxists throughout history have shown their contempt towards real workers power - shall we discuss the reaction of the Communist Party in France toward the 68 revolt? Trotsky toward striking workers in the USSR (of which he was far to much of an arrogant dolt to understand why it would occur under that system)? the Spanish communist party toward the revolution in Spain?

And when have anarchists betrayed those principles in practice. Surely they have before, but in comparison...



Historically anarchists have chosen the former, and were still defeated, not because they didn't go far enough, but because they went too far.

That is preposterous.



Yeah, history has proven that you can't just skip over your material conditions, that you can't negate your situation, very nicely said, too bad that you don't apply that wisdom to your sacred "anarchist principles".


Really, how and when don't we do that? Do we propose only one form of organization in all situations?



The failure of anarchists in Spain wasn't just theory; it was a combination of flawed theory, faux practice and general stupidity which caused their failure.[quote]

I addressed this above.


[quote]
No.

Yes.




It proves that you can't create a "communist society" when the material conditions for it do not exist.

You can't have communism with scarcity, that's like trying to have capitalism without capitalists.

This is true, but that doesn't mean you have to negate structures which will give the workers power, and to manage their economic system; infact, it makes much more sense that when industry is self managed by the workers, scarcity will be eradicated at a much faster rate.




Elaborate on this.

What would you do if a certain branch of industry suddenly goes on strike, and all the other branches of industry are affected by it.

You can't really take the right to strike away from them, can you, because they elect themselves at their councils, committees and clubs, so what will you do?

Or are you saying that in a society run on your vague "anarchist principles" no worker would ever dare to go on strike, because they all understand that they must work together in solidarity to "create a libertarian communist society"? These workers who have just come out of the womb of capitalism, who are still living in a society with scarcity, they surely must understand and live by those "libertarian communist principles", right?

I was thinking about this before.
Explain to me, why would this occur?
This is like asking, "Yeah, but okay, imagine if the economy was organized under communist principles and the aliens invaded? Then what?!"

Why would this dispute occur, and strikes generally only occur as an escalation of a problem, not just "willy nilly".

So, why would it occur?

Furthermore, as I said, it has to be an escalation of a dispute, and since the dispute would be about organization and distribution of resources, and relating to the reorganization of the economy; seeing as though it would be organized through workers councils, where these organs of the economy are directly influencing and directing it, it just seems ridiculous. It would more than likely be sorted well before it came to that sort of action, because its operating on principles of direct democracy and participation.

So I can't really answer something that just can't really manifest itself in a realistic situation.





This is not to say that I am against proletarian democracy, on the contrary; I just understand the difference between proletarian democracy in the transition period and proletarian democracy in a genuine communist society, or rather, I understand why such a difference is inevitable to exist in a society still shackled by scarcity, lack of material conditions, lack of consciousness, etc., in other words, a society which has just come out of the womb of capitalism.

It's inadequate but you're not against it? :confused:
No ones ignoring how its going to be different, but we're not going to justify centralizing power, and make the same mistakes again.




Sure, but if you can't change that "environment" required for that "drastic change", then they won't change either.

Correct.



And no, I don't believe that you can eliminate scarcity and build up the material conditions required for a communist society within a few months or years, that is absolute nonsense.

I don't remember saying you could?



It requires a global effort spanning 2 or 3 generations probably, and the consciousness of the people will change in proportion to the advance of socialist society.

To be fully achieved, that's probably right, and not an unrealistic time frame.



But it would be idealist to think that you can just put people in a new environment and they will "change accordingly", it took centuries before people absorbed "bourgeois values" such as bourgeois democracy, and the majority of the world has not even done that.

They won't completely change, but they will certainly change.

[apathy maybe]

I just want to say, that there are a lot of really stupid people in this thread. I won't name names, and I'm sure that depending on where you are coming from, you would probably name different names then would other people anyway.

I'll then say this, I've meet "Leninists" who I can have a civilised conversation with, and with whom we can basically agree on most of what should happen between now and a future perfect society. They talk about a state, but mean decentralised federations, not run by a single party, but by the people in general.

On this site I've also met complete idiots who demand the most strictest rule by the party over the people.

Needless to say, I'm much happier discussing things, and get much further in the discussion, with the first sort.

Oh yeah, and I also find it amazing that there are people on this site who have been here for years who still don't understand anarchism.

There are a variety of possible transition periods that different anarchists have proposed. They are different, because anarchists don't believe in enforcing blue prints upon the people who will actually implement the blue prints. Marx talked about Utopian Socialists who recorded down to the last detail what their future perfect society would look like. Anarchists also have a problem with that sort of person, because we aren't going to enforce these details.


Meh, I'm going all over the place now. One final thing, I know I'm correct in what I advocate (that is, anarchism), and while I'm open to debate, it has to be considerate, and polite. And this thread doesn't seem to be either.

[Niccolò Rossi]

It sounds like a propagandist formulation. The vanguard has to prove itself through its ability to intervene concretely in the class struggle - otherwise what is the basis of its credentials for leadership? This means that, as class conscious members of the proletariat, we should aim to be at the forefront of real political and economic battles. It's only by being at the forefront of the class struggle that a vanguard can convincingly call itself such.


Maybe I should have been more precise with my words. Propaganda is certainly one of the prime functions of the vanguard party, but it is certainly no the only one. The vanguard also partakes in agitation and direct action, however, in this practical activity they do not 'lead' the proletariat (being at the forefront of the struggle is not the same as leading. 'To lead' indicates the subservience of the class to the 'authority' of the party). Rather support it in it's struggle and work along side it as equal members of the class. In the words of Marx, “They [the communists] have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole”.



However, I think what Zeigeist's point was (I'll reply for him in his absence, I guess) that the vanguard does not 'lead' the working class in these battles, rather serves to 'educate and agitate' the working class alongside them in these battles, as part of the working class.


This is exactly was I was implying. You can read me like a book.



there is a role for "leadership" (most notably the setting up of alternative organs of power, but also, as I mentioned, the organization of spoiled voting and the accompanying protests (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html)


I've said this before and I'll say it again, neither of these tasks can be accurately described as leadership but rather as organisational work. The former is (lending assistance to) worker's organisation, whilst the latter is the organisation of and participation in direct action campaigns.



Please excuse my naivete but this is on such a lofty plane of abstraction I don't know what you're referring to. Can you example "an organ of class rule but [which] is decentralised and non-hierarchy in nature" you say is not a state (organ I presume) -- but which is for the Marxist? Isn't (de)centralisation of social organs a matter of degree and not kind?


First let me say that you need not apologise for any supposed naivete, matter of fact it should be I apologising for not being specific.


Let us first discuss this theoretically and then express it practically.


Let us assume a hypothetical. An organisation (born dying) which is decentralised and non-hierarchical in nature, yet geared toward the suppression of the bourgeoisie. To the Anarchist such a body would not be defined as a state, however, it would undoubtedly be considered a state in the Marxist definition. Further, this hypothetical 'state' is more than that, it is the means by which both Anarchists and Marxists seek to defend the revolution and proceed toward 'the higher phase of communism'. Yet despite this shared vision, relations between the two are not only marred by differences of tactic which are inevitable, but also, and unnecessarily, by misunderstanding.


Now as you have mentioned it is one thing to discuss these things in lofty hypotheticals, but another to bring them down to Earth. When I speak of decentralised 'state' power I am referring directly to organs such as Democratic Worker's Militias, Worker's Councils and Communes. These are all examples of organs of state power in the Marxist definition, but are not regarded as state organs to the Anarchist, despite their shared desirability.


To answer the question of the degree v. the kind of centralisation, I would agree with your conclusion.
The workers council/commune is simply decentralised administration (as opposed to centralised bourgeois administration by parliament and the executive).
The democratic people's militia is simply decentralised defence (as opposed to centralised bourgeois defence by the standing army, whether conscripted or not).
However, the degree of centralisation also indicates a specific kind of centralisation. Would you disagree with this?



what about the potential need for standing armies in order to protect and possibly spread the revolution?


Why would a standing army be desirable to a democratic people's militia? If the working people are not willing to defend their revolution and have to be forced to (or have it done for them), then I say let it fall!



It is a back and forth dialectical process of theory and practice.


You had to bring dialectics into it, didn't you! Maybe you would care to elaborate what exactly this 'dialectical process' is in real terms.



I have already explained where revolutionary consciousness can originate from. And it doesnt come spontaneously. When workers decide to strike, or peasants revolt, or students walk out, this does not imply that consciousness is going to just come from there. Reality does not work like that. It never has and never will. Struggles over immediate oppression only focus on that, immediate oppression! The oppressed need to see the overall systemic picture and how all class forces act and react to different events in society. This won't come from spontaneity. There needs to be a communist leadership to do these exposures while there is struggle, because the people learn best during political struggle.


Well then where the hell does it come from!? The minds of 'great men'!? The heavens!?


And yes, material conditions create resistance, I never denied this.


No, you didn't. What you denied was more significant, that the Vanguard Party is itself not the product of material conditions.



Which was my initial objection: why stop at agitate and educate - what happed to organise? In fact how can we agitate and educate at all if we're not organised?


Organisation is essential for both revolutionaries and the working masses. The later of course can not be done without the achievement of a broader class consciousness and must be done so with the help from the vanguard.


[quote=Bob the Builder]Which means it should aspire to be the political leadership of the movement, surely? [quote]


I think not. The vanguard party aught to be at the forefront of the political struggle, but it need not 'lead' it. The vanguard party is separated only from the class in terms of consciousness and must thus work side by side with the proletariat as a whole.

[Die Neue Zeit]

'To lead' indicates the subservience of the class to the 'authority' of the party). Rather support it in it's struggle and work along side it as equal members of the class. In the words of Marx, “They [the communists] have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole”.

...

I've said this before and I'll say it again, neither of these tasks can be accurately described as leadership but rather as organisational work. The former is (lending assistance to) worker's organisation, whilst the latter is the organisation of and participation in direct action campaigns.

Thanks for clarifying, comrade, but what's with the font fetish? ;)


Why would a standing army be desirable to a democratic people's militia? If the working people are not willing to defend their revolution and have to be forced to (or have it done for them), then I say let it fall!

Um, you forgot the "and possibly spread" part. That can't be done by a rag-tag group of militias, but only by a standing professional army (invented by the Romans). This is one of several beefs that I have with Lenin's April Theses. :(

[Led Zeppelin]

To clarify, I was asked what the Leninist conception of the vanguard was. I then quoted What Is To Be Done, where Lenin clearly outlines the vanguard. You said it was out of date and then I replied by stating: "I am happy to accept that Lenin's ideas are dated. The problem is, those people who organise parties in his name do so in these dated manners. If WITBD is out of date, why do Leninist parties still keep using its organisational ideas? You replied by informing me that those political organisations were wrong. I had nothing to say to that.

So then you were wrong in claiming that WITDB? contains Lenin's "permanent concept of the party", but you didn't concede to being wrong, instead you said that some Leninists consider it to contain that, ignoring the fact that they are wrong as well.

Is it really that hard for you to admit that you were wrong, ever?


I have never, at any point, made any assertion that I think "material conditions" don't matter. And this is the crux of your argument: That anarchists "don't care" about material conditions. You've constructed this imaginary scenario for the benefit of your argument. It's an eidolon! It's not real! You're attributing a made-up problem to anarchism in an effort to argue against it.

I am certainly not alone in that, that criticism has been around since the times of Marx and Engels, and there still has been no proper reply by any anarchists.


Of course material conditions "matter" (stupid way to approach it) but this does not prove anything.

First of all I don't accept that an anarchist transition is the kind of "political structures" that we want in a post-scarcity communist society; participatory economics and renumeration contradict a gift economy.

Explain how that anarchist transition period would differ from a communist society, that is, a fully anarchist society.

Would a de-centralized federalist commune system be...de-centralized more?


Secondly, the premise of this assertion is not founded. You're essentially making the claim that because human beings are not "pure" communists at the point of revolution that they would be unable to organise and defend themselves without centralised political authority. Well, in spite of the material conditions that you outline, I see no basis to make such an assertion, except of course preconceived notions about the validity of authority, which is a bourgeois conception of human dynamics. The idea that we need authority in order to overcome problems is not based on fact.

Is it not based on fact? Then why did anarchists like Makhno have to resort to the same means of centralized political and military authority when they were in the heat of battle?

And actually, I did not say that centralized political authority will be necessary only because "people aren't pure communists at the point of revolution", even if they were pure communists that wouldn't negate the fact that centralized political and military authority is vastly superior to de-centralized political and military authority, as the history of every anarchist struggle for power has shown; they all ended in military and political failure.

While the history of centralized military and political authority shows that they were victorious and were able to keep power.

Centralization and de-centralization are merely tactics used by us to keep power, they are not the be-all and end-all of our struggle.

The need for centralization is based on the proportion to which the material conditions and the level of consciousness of the working-class requires it; A revolution in a backward nation such as the one which happened in Russia required a high level of political, military and economic centralization, simply because there was no other way to be able to keep power while also building the productive forces inherited from the underdeveloped capitalist system preceding it.

If a revolution broke out in an advanced capitalist nation like France or the US, it would require a lot less centralization in all those fields, though I don't agree that de-centralization in the economic field can ever be productive.


As for the The German Ideology quote, I cannot seem to find it in either volume so please could you point me to where that is?

It was in Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm) actually.


Being that you believe the empowerment of a new parasitic bureaucratic and party elite, (which crushes self-management and real economic democracy and equality) somehow leads to libertarian communism, you have no right to tell anyone to go and find "real answers" as to how the working class are to achieve freedom. The idea that the working class need new empowered bosses to lead them to freedom betrays what Trotskyists and Leninists really have for the working class: contempt. History shows this clearly.

Do you even know anything about Marxism? Clearly you don't if you believe that it stands for "empowering a new parasitic bureaucratic and party elite".

If you believe that "history shows this clearly" you don't know anything about history, which makes it pointless for me to argue with you.


Purely because it's much more understandable and doesn't sound like it came out of a video game.


"Libertarian communism" sounds less like it comes from a videogame than "communism"?

Yeah, I can totally see the logic in that.


What I was trying to show was that anarchists, of different flavours, do have proposed transitional periods.
What I was not trying to show was one that was perfect.

Well then go on, show a transition period which you consider to be "perfect" or desirable.

It's easy to criticize others when you offer nothing yourself.


Firstly, its not vague, its very clear cut: we oppose the centralization of power and unnecessary hierarchical organization; we oppose the idea of "led" and "leaders", of which Leninists seem to capitalize on - which is demonstrated through the way they organize demos, etc.

Obviously you don't oppose the idea of "led" and "leaders", if you had actually read anything about anarchism in practice from other sources besides those anarchist rags you would have known this.

I don't blame anarchists for doing that, it is borne out of necessity.

At least they understood this basic fact.


I oppose them because they rob the proletariat of exerting power; its exerted for them, not by them.

That's nice, establishing a fully democratic system when the majority of the working-class isn't class-conscious yet.

Yeah, that's going to end well.

No wonder this theoretical garbage has never been put in practice yet.


It couldn't have been the government refusing to arm the people, could it? It couldn't have been the government failing to realize the threat of fascism, which the people, ironically, realized well before the vanguard party.

Which "vanguard party"?


We're not "deaf mute" either, we're just not arrogant enough to demand that the Proletariat obeys us. I'd rather be a servant of the people than a ruler of them.

First of all, I doubt the proletariat would want someone like you to "serve them".

Secondly, Marxists don't "demand" the position of leadership from the proletariat, if they did they'd never be able to get it in the first place.

No, they are granted that position by the proletariat itself; That's when revolutions happen.

Here we come to the issue of equalized class-consciousness again, you seem to believe that the proletariat is a homogeneous whole. This is obviously nonsense.

If this were true we would've been living in a communist society right now.

No, the proletariat has an advanced section and a backward section. The advanced section, the vanguard, is composed of the class-conscious proletarians. It is only natural that this section leads the proletariat in a revolutionary struggle, the proletariat knows this, which is why historically it has always had leaders.

Ironically this betrays an ignorance on your part of anarchist history itself; What the fuck were Makhno, Durruti etc. if not leaders?

Oh right, anarchist leaders are merely "servants of the people" while Marxist leaders are "evil dictators in the making".

Forgot about that.


You know nothing of anarchist theory.

Apparently I know more about anarchist theory and history than you do.


I don't think anyone's arguing that the same system can just be implemented anywhere like magic?

You haven't proposed what kind of system could be implemented, you've just totally ignored that issue altogether instead citing examples which you yourself don't even support.

As I asked above; Well then go on, show a transition period which you consider to be "perfect" or desirable.

It's easy to criticize others when you offer nothing yourself.


You mean like how "Leninist Marxism" brought back capitalism?

If you believe that Lenin's positions were the same as Stalin's, you don't know anything about Marxist history either.


No, it isn't. And it would be stupid to argue it would. But its not what anarchism requires to succeed either.

Again, stop being vague and say yourself what you believe it requires to succeed. Explain how this anarchist transition period would look like.

Ironically you and TAT have strayed from the orthodox anarchist view that no transition period is needed at all, I suppose that's a good thing.


In practice, Marxists throughout history have shown their contempt towards real workers power - shall we discuss the reaction of the Communist Party in France toward the 68 revolt?

No, I'm not interested in defending the actions of Stalinists.


Trotsky toward striking workers in the USSR

We already know what you would do if workers went on strike in your anarchist utopia; oh wait, we don't, you just don't believe it will happen because everyone will be so delighted living in that utopia.


the Spanish communist party toward the revolution in Spain?

Again, no, I'm not interested in defending Stalinists.


This is true, but that doesn't mean you have to negate structures which will give the workers power, and to manage their economic system; infact, it makes much more sense that when industry is self managed by the workers, scarcity will be eradicated at a much faster rate.

Democratic control over the means of production is not the same as de-centralization of the means of production.


I was thinking about this before.
Explain to me, why would this occur?
This is like asking, "Yeah, but okay, imagine if the economy was organized under communist principles and the aliens invaded? Then what?!"

Why would this dispute occur, and strikes generally only occur as an escalation of a problem, not just "willy nilly".

So, why would it occur?

Oh, wow, I can't believe you really just equated workers going on strike in a society coming out of the womb of capitalism to aliens invading.

Why would workers strike when there is scarcity? Are you even serious?

Do you think your anarchist transition period will somehow provide everything for everyone and that the level of class-consciousness will be equalized because of that?

Do you think that if the anarchists were succesful in Russia there would have been no strikes?

See, this is what I mean about anarchists knowing nothing about economics.


Furthermore, as I said, it has to be an escalation of a dispute, and since the dispute would be about organization and distribution of resources, and relating to the reorganization of the economy; seeing as though it would be organized through workers councils, where these organs of the economy are directly influencing and directing it, it just seems ridiculous. It would more than likely be sorted well before it came to that sort of action, because its operating on principles of direct democracy and participation.

So I can't really answer something that just can't really manifest itself in a realistic situation.

Great, "it's not a problem because it won't happen, and I don't care about the fact that this kind of thing is inevitable to happen in a society which is still marked by defects inherited from the previous society."

No wonder anarchist theoreticians are such a joke.


I don't remember saying you could?

You can't do that, but you can prevent strikes from happening right after the revolution.


To be fully achieved, that's probably right, and not an unrealistic time frame.

Why is it even necessary if you can prevent strikes from happening and complete social harmony exists in your anarchist transition period?

[The Feral Underclass]

Ironically you and TAT have strayed from the orthodox anarchist view that no transition period is needed at all

This highlights your ignorance of anarchist theory. You clearly have no idea about anarchism. If you're going to talk about "orthodox anarchism" then the opposite is true; but of course you'd know this if you'd taken any time to read about what it is you're criticising.

Perhaps instead of just reading Leninist rubbish about anarchism you might actually read something by an anarchist. You should at least have the courtesy to understand the thing you so earnestly attempt to attack. In order to successfully refute something, you first have to know what it is.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Yeah anarchists never claim that there will be an overnight transformation. But our transition period is very different from a leninist transition. Our transition is the defense of the revolution and the implementation of democratic, egalitarian, and libertarian values in the administration of society. We're not jailing everyone outside our party, we're not conscripting soldiers into a hierarchical army, we're not eliminating democracy at the base. There's a big difference here. We are merely the testing and experimenting in the best ways to implement libertarian communism, you are ossifying power into a centralized state that'll never "wither away."

[Led Zeppelin]

Perhaps instead of just reading Leninist rubbish about anarchism you might actually read something by an anarchist. You should at least have the courtesy to understand the thing you so earnestly attempt to attack. In order to successfully refute something, you first have to know what it is.

Again; this is ironic coming from the person who claimed that WITDB? contained "Lenin's concept of the vanguard party".

Perhaps instead of just reading anarchist rubbish about Marxism you might actually read something by a Marxist. You should at least have the courtesy to understand the thing you so earnestly attempt to attack. In order to successfully refute something, you first have to know what it is. :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ LZ, the least TAT should do is read Chapter 1 of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered, as well as Chapter 5 of Kautsky's The Class Struggle (http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm) and Lenin's Our Immediate Task (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg3oit.htm). :)

[trivas7]

Yeah anarchists never claim that there will be an overnight transformation. But our transition period is very different from a leninist transition. Our transition is the defense of the revolution and the implementation of democratic, egalitarian, and libertarian values in the administration of society. We're not jailing everyone outside our party, we're not conscripting soldiers into a hierarchical army, we're not eliminating democracy at the base. There's a big difference here. We are merely the testing and experimenting in the best ways to implement libertarian communism, you are ossifying power into a centralized state that'll never "wither away."
These are rhetorical differences, IMO. After the revolution of course anarchists are going to expel the capitalist agitator, defend the motherland and jail the bourgeoise as a class if they're up to snuff.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

These are rhetorical differences, IMO. After the revolution of course anarchists are going to expel the capitalist agitator, defend the motherland and jail the bourgeoise as a class if they're up to snuff.

Dunno about that. Unless its an instantaneous global revolution most capitalists will have fled. The ones remaining should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Deprived of their property the capitalists aren't much of a danger, its the ones with soldiers we need to worry about. Once things have stabilized, I'm more in favor of letting capitalists back into society. The egregious offenders should be tried for their crimes, but your everyday capitalist is usually just a guy that got born into a class position he never left.

[Module]

Dunno about that. Unless its an instantaneous global revolution most capitalists will have fled. The ones remaining should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Deprived of their property the capitalists aren't much of a danger, its the ones with soldiers we need to worry about. Once things have stabilized, I'm more in favor of letting capitalists back into society. The egregious offenders should be tried for their crimes, but your everyday capitalist is usually just a guy that got born into a class position he never left.
Is it 'Leninist' not to deal with capitalists on a case by case basis?
You're making unfounded presumptions about how Leninists advocate dealing with counterrevolutionaries; why wouldn't capitalists be let back into society - once they're no longer capitalists?
:confused:

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Is it 'Leninist' not to deal with capitalists on a case by case basis?
You're making unfounded presumptions about how Leninists advocate dealing with counterrevolutionaries; why wouldn't capitalists be let back into society - once they're no longer capitalists?
:confused:

Well that's not always the case. One of the reasons why the cultural revolution was such shit show was because the sons and daughters of capitalists were given a chance to "prove themselves" after decades of discrimination.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Obviously, I just wasted my time reading this thread. We will never get along.
"They fail because they did not realize that (Insert the phase you would love to use)!"

[Random Precision]

Yeah anarchists never claim that there will be an overnight transformation. But our transition period is very different from a leninist transition. Our transition is the defense of the revolution and the implementation of democratic, egalitarian, and libertarian values in the administration of society. We're not jailing everyone outside our party, we're not conscripting soldiers into a hierarchical army, we're not eliminating democracy at the base. There's a big difference here. We are merely the testing and experimenting in the best ways to implement libertarian communism, you are ossifying power into a centralized state that'll never "wither away."

Please leave this site, do some reading, and come back when you have a clue. Thanks.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Please leave this site, do some reading, and come back when you have a clue. Thanks.

The Red Army utilized conscription.

The Soviets lost their autonomy and were subordinated to the Bolshevik party.

The Bolsheviks party became the sole legal party, anarchists, SRs, etc. were jailed.

Where have I lost my proverbial clue? These are all facts. Facts that clearly don't build towards communism but towards a form of state capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ RP, the anarchist poster has a point. You yourself wrote on substitutionism. :(

[Random Precision]

The Red Army utilized conscription.

The Soviets lost their autonomy and were subordinated to the Bolshevik party.

The Bolsheviks party became the sole legal party, anarchists, SRs, etc. were jailed.

Where have I lost my proverbial clue? These are all facts. Facts that clearly don't build towards communism but towards a form of state capitalism.

A lot of shit like this can happen when a workers' revolution happens in a country in which the workers are a minority, which is immediately set upon by internal forces of reaction as well as the direct and indirect intervention of most imperialist powers of the day.

We don't advocate repeating what happened in Russia to a t, as there are many mistakes in that experience we should learn from. What we do advocate (which is what the Bolsheviks put into practice) is pursuing the revolution to its victorious conclusion, by any means necessary and against all opponents of workers' power.

Jacob, I think the substitutionist attitude of Lenin and Trotsky during the early twenties was clearly mistaken, however their mistakes in this regard can be explained by the objective circumstances they found themselves in at that time.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

A lot of shit like this can happen, and has to happen, when a workers' revolution happens in a country in which the workers are a minority, which is immediately set upon by internal forces of reaction as well as the direct and indirect intervention of most imperialist powers of the day.

We don't advocate repeating what happened in Russia to a t, as there are many mistakes in that experience we should learn from. What we do advocate (which is what the Bolsheviks put into practice) is pursuing the revolution to its victorious conclusion, by any means necessary and against all opponents of workers' power.

Here we go again. This is what I don't understand. By your logic then only a minority actually engaged in revolution. If you couldn't get a majority of the population to join with you, what right do you have to claim control of Russia? What right do you have to jail everyone that disagrees with you, including other revolutionaries? What right do you have to conscription? Hell, when do you have the right to conscription and the jailing of other revolutionaries? I would say, never.

[Niccolò Rossi]

what's with the font fetish?

It's not purposely done. I typed the reply out in OpenOffice and when i pasted it here it came out funny.


Um, you forgot the "and possibly spread" part. That can't be done by a rag-tag group of militias, but only by a standing professional army

Rag-tag? Maybe it's your own pre-conceived notions getting in the way of rational thinking (no offence). Why could a worker's militia not lend aid to their fellow workers of the world if it was needed?


Jacob, I think the substitutionist attitude of Lenin and Trotsky during the early twenties was clearly mistaken, however their mistakes in this regard can be explained by the objective circumstances they found themselves in at that time.

Indeed, matter of fact it was these objective circumstances which necessitated a bourgeois revolution and the development of capitalism. Since the national bourgeoisie were unwilling, the Bolsheviks (unknowingly) did their job for them. ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Again; this is ironic coming from the person who claimed that WITDB? contained "Lenin's concept of the vanguard party".

But it does. It outlines clearly what Lenin thought a political party was and what its role should be. I suggest you read it. But in any case, this does not negate the fact that you have no idea what anarchism is. Appealing tu quoque is not an argument and doesn't prove that you know what you're talking about. Not that I'd expect your argument to be anything other than a logical fallacy.

I mean, even if it's true that What Is To Be Done does not contain Lenin's ideas about a vanguard party; getting the contents of a book wrong is not at all the same as not even understanding the basics of what you're so earnestly trying to refute.


Perhaps instead of just reading anarchist rubbish about Marxism you might actually read something by a Marxist. You should at least have the courtesy to understand the thing you so earnestly attempt to attack. In order to successfully refute something, you first have to know what it is. :rolleyes:Instead of arguing this petulance with me why don't you educate yourself.

[Led Zeppelin]

But it does. It outlines clearly what Lenin thought a political party was and what its role should be. I suggest you read it.

Funny, earlier you said that you accepted that it was "dated", suddenly you don't anymore, because you just hate to admit that you were ever wrong.

Typical.

I suggest you read up more about what you're trying to criticize, because there is no such thing as a "permanent concept of the party" in What Is To Be Done?, if you believe there is that only means that you've not bothered to read anything else by Lenin.


But in any case, this does not negate the fact that you have no idea what anarchism is. Appealing tu quoque is not an argument and doesn't prove that you know what you're talking about. Not that I'd expect your argument to be anything other than a logical fallacy.

I probably know more about what anarchism is than you do, because you look at it from a different world outlook, the outlook of a petty anarchist unable to admit that the ideology he puts so much hope in is worthless.

By the way, I was curious, if anarchists also have a transition period, how exactly does that transition differ from the transition period that Left-Communists believe in?


I mean, even if it's true that What Is To Be Done does not contain Lenin's ideas about a vanguard party; getting the contents of a book wrong is not at all the same as not even understanding the basics of what you're so earnestly trying to refute.

This isn't about the contents of the book, stop trying to purposefully play dumb.

I never said the contents of the book did not outline a temporary concept of the party which was needed at the time, I said that there was no "permanent concept" and that What Is To Be Done? did not contain one.

Anyone who has bothered to read anything by Lenin or even just about the Bolshevik party after he wrote WITDB? would know this.

You obviously haven't.

So, knowing this, it's a bit idiotic of you to criticize me for "not understanding anarchism" and for "criticizing it without knowing everything about it" instead of actually trying to refute what I have said, which you are clearly unable to do.

The last resort of the person who has no argument is to exclaim; "You don't know anything about this!"

Talk about logical fallacies.

[The Feral Underclass]

Funny, earlier you said that you accepted that it was "dated", suddenly you don't anymore, because you just hate to admit that you were ever wrong.

You said it was dated...

I don't know what it is I'm supposed to be wrong about. I claimed that Lenin outlined what he considered to be a vanguard in WITBD. You claimed that it was dated.

Stop trying to confuse this conversation. I have not retracted nor contradicted anything I've said.


I suggest you read up more about what you're trying to criticize, because there is no such thing as a "permanent concept of the party" in What Is To Be Done?

I'm not sure I ever made that assertion. Someone asked me what was this vanguard I was criticising and I said the one outlined by Lenin in WITBD. If you're saying that there is no "permenant concept" or that Lenin's concept is dated, then that's fine. I never made a claim to to the contrary.


if you believe there is that only means that you've not bothered to read anything else by Lenin.

No, I accept that there are other means. In a letter to Socialist Appeal in 1936, Trotsky aptly outlines the nature of democratic centralism/vanguardism. I accept that it can change depending on the circumstances of the time; but as of yet, I have not seen a Trotskyist party that has ever deviated from this dated interpretation.

I used to be a Trotskyist, by the way.


I probably know more about what anarchism is than you do, because you look at it from a different world outlook, the outlook of a petty anarchist unable to admit that the ideology he puts so much hope in is worthless.

That's not really an argument and the fact that you claimed that we anarchists we diverging from: "orthodox anarchist view that no transition period is needed at all" clearly demonstrates you're lack of knowledge when it comes to anarchism. That assertion is unequivocally false.


I never said the contents of the book did not outline a temporary concept of the party which was needed at the time, I said that there was no "permanent concept" and that What Is To Be Done? did not contain one.

Which I agree with.


Anyone who has bothered to read anything by Lenin or even just about the Bolshevik party after he wrote WITDB? would know this.

You obviously haven't.

Kid, I was bashing people over the head with Trotsky long before you even cared about him.


The last resort of the person who has no argument is to exclaim; "You don't know anything about this!"

Talk about logical fallacies.

That's not a logical fallacy...

[Tower of Bebel]

Here we go again. This is what I don't understand. By your logic then only a minority actually engaged in revolution. If you couldn't get a majority of the population to join with you, what right do you have to claim control of Russia? What right do you have to jail everyone that disagrees with you, including other revolutionaries? What right do you have to conscription? Hell, when do you have the right to conscription and the jailing of other revolutionaries? I would say, never.

Rights have a materialist basis and are not universal. You know that.

The whole country engaged in the revolution, yet not everyone fought for the same goal. Even after the October Revolution many supported a bourgeois-capitalist society (also many Bolsheviks did), some supported a socialist revolution, others had quite different ideas. The proletariat in general favored a socialist revolution while the farmers in general supported bourgeois-democratic demands. Russia during the revolution was by far a united country which formed the basis for both revolution and counter-revolution.

The importance of the so called coup d'Etat or October uprising was the fact that Lenin did so to support the imminent German uprising. In the words of Liebknecht:

The Russian revolution was to an unprecedented degree the cause of the proletariat of the whole world becoming more revolutionary.
The succes of the German revolution would make the October uprising beareble for the revolutionaries who took part in it. Posponing the revolution after 1919 started the initial degeneration worsened by the Civil War and the (revolutionary) duality(?) of society:

The country had no basis for a socialist nor a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

The Bolsheviks are the historic heirs of the English Levellers and the French Jacobins. But the concrete task which faced them after the seizure of power was incomparably more difficult than that of their historical predecessors. [...]


Surely the solution of the problem by the direct, immediate seizure and distribution of the land by the peasants was the shortest, simplest, most clean-cut formula to achieve two diverse things: to break down large land-ownership, and immediately to bind the peasants to the revolutionary government. As a political measure to fortify the proletarian socialist government, it was an excellent tactical move. Unfortunately, however, it had two sides to it; and the reverse side consisted in the fact that the direct seizure of the land by the peasants has in general nothing at all in common with socialist economy.http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch02.htm

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't have a lot of time, nor a lot of interest in participating any longer in this thread, but I wanted to respond to some things TAT brought up.


That's a red herring. Nothing is independent of historical development and material conditions.

Of course that's true, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who believe otherwise.


That's just a silly claim to make.

Not really.

If one understood that the state is an organ for the rule of one class over others that emerges, they wouldn't talk of "abolishing the state" as an immediate goal... unless they somehow believed that class divisions could disappear overnight, which is equally as bad.


In terms of what? What are the parametres by which you ask such petulant question as if this was some form of competition?

You asserted that "centralized power" was not the way forward as it has never "create[d] the necessary conditions for transition [to communism], and did so in a way that proposed "decentralized power" as the effective alternative.

I was simply asking you to put "decentralized power" to the same test, and tell us where/when it has "created the necessary conditions" or shown itself to be able to do so otherwise.


I don't really understand your point. I mean I could summise what you're talking about: That an anarchist means of defence is not strong enough to do that. Well, I don't accept that an in fact there's some evidence that indicates the contrary.

My point was that we have to figure out not only how to overthrow capitalist rule, but also to set up our own (working class) rule, and do so in a way allows us to defend our position from internal and external counterrevolutionary forces all the while preventing a privileged bureaucracy from coming into being.

With that in mind, any talk of abolishing the state as an immediate goal is completely unrealistic.


Yet Raul Castro is now talking about liberalising the economy. Wht happens when he dies and a new, younger cadre take over and view the successes of state capitalism in China. The revolution in Cuba is over.

They've been saying that since 1959. First it was when the USSR was destroyed, then when Fidel left the Presidency, etc. The fact is, Cuba remains, even in the most difficult of conditions. Of course it cannot withstand such conditions forever, and that's why there have been some strategic retreats here and there, but my original point remains: (1) We need to figure out how to take power and hold on to it without allowing a privileged bureaucracy to arise, all the while fighting to extend the revolution to other countries (2) Che made some useful contributions into how that can most effectively be done. (3) Cuba is the only socialist country so far in which a privileged bureaucracy hasn't arisen and taken power. They haven't fully embraced all of Che's ideas anyway, as I said, so I actually think there is room for improvement on their part.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The country had no basis for a socialist nor a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

And yet it happened anyway.. which should make anyone question preconceived deterministic dogma that said it couldn't.

[Tower of Bebel]

And yet it happened anyway.. which should make anyone question preconceived deterministic dogma that said it couldn't.

What happened? During a relative short period of time the Party substituted the proletarian organisations of power and merged with the bureaucratic state aparatus.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What happened: socialist revolution. The toiling masses, under the leadership of the working class, overthrew the ruling class, set up their own rule and overturned capitalist property relations. That the revolution later degenerated does not change this fact.

[Led Zeppelin]

You said it was dated...

And you accepted it. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1182188&postcount=22)


I don't know what it is I'm supposed to be wrong about. I claimed that Lenin outlined what he considered to be a vanguard in WITBD. You claimed that it was dated.

Yes, so you were wrong in saying to a member who asked what your definition of a vanguard party is to "read What Is To Be Done?" as if somehow everything Lenin wrote in there still applies to today.

Just accept it and move on.


I'm not sure I ever made that assertion. Someone asked me what was this vanguard I was criticising and I said the one outlined by Lenin in WITBD. If you're saying that there is no "permenant concept" or that Lenin's concept is dated, then that's fine. I never made a claim to to the contrary.

So you were criticizing a concept of a vanguard party which Lenin himself did not believe was permanent, and in fact changed over time.

Are you really willing to go that far to prevent yourself from admitting that you were wrong?


No, I accept that there are other means. In a letter to Socialist Appeal in 1936, Trotsky aptly outlines the nature of democratic centralism/vanguardism. I accept that it can change depending on the circumstances of the time; but as of yet, I have not seen a Trotskyist party that has ever deviated from this dated interpretation.

Are you seriously saying that all Trotskyist organizations are organized along the same lines?


I used to be a Trotskyist, by the way.

Hardly.


That's not really an argument and the fact that you claimed that we anarchists we diverging from: "orthodox anarchist view that no transition period is needed at all" clearly demonstrates you're lack of knowledge when it comes to anarchism. That assertion is unequivocally false.

Oh is it? Care to provide me with links to works by early anarchist writers elaborating on this "transition period" and the need for it?


Kid, I was bashing people over the head with Trotsky long before you even cared about him.

Grandpa, you dogmatically followed some phrases and slogans that were taught to you by your recruiters, you never bothered to critically examine and study the theory of Marxism yourself.


That's not a logical fallacy...

Oh yeah, I forgot, you're never wrong.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rag-tag? Maybe it's your own pre-conceived notions getting in the way of rational thinking (no offence). Why could a worker's militia not lend aid to their fellow workers of the world if it was needed?

But there is a reason why there was a shift from the "temporary army of citizens" to a professional army during Roman times, no? ;)

http://history-world.org/roman_army.htm


Shortly before the end of the 2nd century BC a number of changes were made in the Roman army system that were to change the very nature of Rome itself. Reliance on an annual call-up of citizens meant that Rome never had a permanent army. This practice was abandoned. The citizen army was replaced by a standing army made up of landless city dwellers and newly created citizens from outlying provinces. The allegiance of these new legions was to their commander rather than to the Roman state. The commander was expected to pay his soldiers in money or land supplied by the state.

The leader in this reform of Rome's military system was the general Gaius Marius. He reformed the legion, substituting for the maniple a 600-man unit that was called the cohort. The soldiers swore an oath to him, binding them to service for a period of ten years. This transformation from a temporary citizen army to a professional one made better training possible. It also meant that each Roman commander had his own private army, with legions that were faithful to him for their term of service.




Indeed, matter of fact it was these objective circumstances which necessitated a bourgeois revolution and the development of capitalism. Since the national bourgeoisie were unwilling, the Bolsheviks (unknowingly) did their job for them. ;)

I won't go into the usual "permanent revolution" debate, but I still hold firm to my "ortho-Leninist" position that "permanent revolution" was a mistaken notion:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/errors-trotsky-and-t78770/index2.html

Also, consider this (Is the "democratic revolution" necessarily bourgeois?):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economism-revisited-t82798/index.html

[The Feral Underclass]

And you accepted it. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1182188&postcount=22)

Are you mentally ill? Of course I accepted it, I've been telling you that for the last three fucking posts.


Yes, so you were wrong in saying to a member who asked what your definition of a vanguard party is to "read What Is To Be Done?" as if somehow everything Lenin wrote in there still applies to today.You're confusing these issues, sparky.

I was asked a specific question and I answered it specifically. Now, whether or not WITBD applies now is a different question all together. You have told me that it is dated. I have accepted that it is dated. You said that the vanguard is not permenant. I have accepted that.

However, I have asserted that I do not know any Leninist organisation that does not apply ideas from WITBD in their organisational structure. Now, if you want to address that issue, address it.


Just accept it and move on.I fail to see what exactly it is I'm supposed to be accepting and moving on with...


So you were criticizing a concept of a vanguard party which Lenin himself did not believe was permanent, and in fact changed over time.Yes.


Are you really willing to go that far to prevent yourself from admitting that you were wrong?Wrong about what? The vanguard? I don't think so. The vanguardist parties in this country (UK) certainly have not moved on from 1905. If WITBD is dated then someone needs to explain that to the SWP, SP and AWL.


Are you seriously saying that all Trotskyist organizations are organized along the same lines?I wouldn't say exactly the same but the essence of what is written in WITBD remains applicable, yes.


Hardly.Well, yeah, I was.


Oh is it? Care to provide me with links to works by early anarchist writers elaborating on this "transition period" and the need for it?Fields, Factories and Workshops (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/fields.html) by Peter Kropotkin is the seminal work on how an anarchist society, including its transition would be organised. How could someone who has a full understanding of anarchist not know that? Also, why do you know know about Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html), which is yet another extensive Kropotkin book about anarchist transition and society.

You could also try reading Stateless Socialism: Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm) by Bakunin and Ideas on Social Organisation (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm) by James Guillaume, although they are not the best written works and are not as extensive as Kropotkin's book.

Ok?


Grandpa, you dogmatically followed some phrases and slogans that were taught to you by your recruiters, you never bothered to critically examine and study the theory of Marxism yourself.:lol:


Oh yeah, I forgot, you're never wrong.Actually, there are many times that I'm wrong. It's not big deal, really. You learn and move on. That's something you learn when you grow up.

[Led Zeppelin]

I was asked a specific question and I answered it specifically. Now, whether or not WITBD applies now is a different question all together. You have told me that it is dated. I have accepted that it is dated. You said that the vanguard is not permenant. I have accepted that.

However, I have asserted that I do not know any Leninist organisation that does not apply ideas from WITBD in their organisational structure. Now, if you want to address that issue, address it.

The Bolsheviks were a pretty good example of a "Leninist organization" which did not apply the concept put forth in WITDB?, but instead altered it when it was no longer applicable.


Yes.

Hope you have fun criticizing irrelevancies.


Wrong about what? The vanguard? I don't think so. The vanguardist parties in this country (UK) certainly have not moved on from 1905. If WITBD is dated then someone needs to explain that to the SWP, SP and AWL.

WITDB? was written in 1901/1902 and by 1905 the Bolsheviks had already changed some of their policies regarding party organization:


We, the representatives of revolutionary Social-Democracy, the supporters of the “Majority” [Bolsheviks], have repeatedly said that complete democratization of the Party was impossible in conditions of secret work, and that in such conditions the “elective principle” was a mere phrase. And experience has confirmed our words. ... But we Bolsheviks have always recognized that in new conditions, when political liberties were acquired, it would be essential to adopt the elective principle.

[...]

The conditions in which our Party is functioning are changing radically. Freedom of assembly, of association and the press has been captured.

[...]

Organize in a new way... new methods ... a new line.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section2)

Explain how the SP is run along the same lines as the "concept of the party" put forth in WITDB?, that's an absurd statement as any person who has read that book would know.


I wouldn't say exactly the same but the essence of what is written in WITBD remains applicable, yes.

The parties which are even remotely based on the concept of the party put forth in WITBD? are probably only the main Communist parties, I don't believe that even the SWP is based on that.


Well, yeah, I was.

No, you were a Cliffite.


Fields, Factories and Workshops (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/fields.html) by Peter Kropotkin is the seminal work on how an anarchist society, including its transition would be organised. How could someone who has a full understanding of anarchist not know that? Also, why do you know know about Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html), which is yet another extensive Kropotkin book about anarchist transition and society.

You could also try reading Stateless Socialism: Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm) by Bakunin and Ideas on Social Organisation (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm) by James Guillaume, although they are not the best written works and are not as extensive as Kropotkin's book.

Ok?

Thanks, I'll look into those when I have some time.

Seems a bit unlikely though that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. all missed those works somehow and were just "badly mistaken" when it came to anarchism and its theories on the transition period.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think Trotsky ever made any comments about Kropotkins work, but the others were dead before they were written.

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't think Trotsky ever made any comments about Kropotkins work, but the others were dead before they were written.

I was also referring to the work by Bakunin which you mentioned.

By the way, there seem to be different opinions within anarchist theory itself on the "transition period":


There are four basic trends within social anarchist theory: mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism. They differ in their view of how to reach full communism: mutualists support market socialism, collectivists stress distribution based on contribution (the view of Marx and Lenin when regulated by a government), anarchist-communists believe in an immediate transition to full communism, and syndicalists believe that unions are the organisations that can help usher in communist society.

When I referred to "orthodox anarchism" I was referring to the anarchist-communists as described above.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Rights have a materialist basis and are not universal. You know that.

No “rights” is a word that means multiple things. It can mean lockean rights based on property possession, or it can mean something else. When I said that I meant that the bolshies did not have the moral right to commit those actions. What they did was morally reprehensible. That’s my point.


The whole country engaged in the revolution, yet not everyone fought for the same goal. Even after the October Revolution many supported a bourgeois-capitalist society (also many Bolsheviks did), some supported a socialist revolution, others had quite different ideas. The proletariat in general favored a socialist revolution while the farmers in general supported bourgeois-democratic demands. Russia during the revolution was by far a united country which formed the basis for both revolution and counter-revolution.

The importance of the so called coup d'Etat or October uprising was the fact that Lenin did so to support the imminent German uprising. In the words of Liebknecht:




By this logic the Bolsheviks were deranged, foolish, and downright tyrannical. They dragged most Russians kicking and screaming into a new world of “socialism” when they didn’t even want it. It’s a bit hard to build a communist society without the people behind such a project. Besides, that was a pretty awful way of helping the Germans. Lenin handed off huge swaths of land to the Kaiser, freeing up his whole eastern front for an offensive on the west. I doubt there would have been much of a revolution in a victorious Germany.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I was also referring to the work by Bakunin which you mentioned.

By the way, there seem to be different opinions within anarchist theory itself on the "transition period":



When I referred to "orthodox anarchism" I was referring to the anarchist-communists as described above.

You're using Marxist Internet Archive as the source on what anarchists believe? Jesus, Mary and Joseph are you that obtuse? Kropotkin was one of the founders of anarcho communism! He wrote about transition!

[Kropotesta]

You're using Marxist Internet Archive as the source on what anarchists believe? Jesus, Mary and Joseph are you that obtuse? Kropotkin was one of the founders of anarcho communism! He wrote about transition!
Come on now, I'm pretty sure Led has acknowledged his ignorance of anarchist theory and we soon read up on it. Hopefully this time from actual anarchist sources.

[Tower of Bebel]

By this logic the Bolsheviks were deranged, foolish, and downright tyrannical. They dragged most Russians kicking and screaming into a new world of “socialism” when they didn’t even want it. It’s a bit hard to build a communist society without the people behind such a project. Besides, that was a pretty awful way of helping the Germans. Lenin handed off huge swaths of land to the Kaiser, freeing up his whole eastern front for an offensive on the west. I doubt there would have been much of a revolution in a victorious Germany.

Lenin also urged for the insurection because there was another Kornilovian counterrevolution waiting around the corner.


The resolution, written hastily by Lenin with the gnawed end of a pencil on a sheet of paper from a child’s notebook ruled in squares, was very unsymmetrical in architecture, but nevertheless gave firm support to the course towards insurrection. “The Central Committee recognises that both the international situation of the Russian revolution (the insurrection in the German fleet, as the extreme manifestation of the growth throughout Europe of a world-wide socialist revolution, and also the threat of a peace between the imperialists with the aim of strangling the revolution in Russia) – and the military situation (the indubitable decision of the Russian bourgeoisie and Kerensky and Co. to surrender Petersburg to the Germans) – all this in connection with the peasant insurrection and the swing of popular confidence to our party (the elections in Moscow), and finally the obvious preparation of a second Kornilov attack (the withdrawal of troops from Petersburg, the importation of Cossacks into Petersburg, the surrounding of Minsk with Cossacks, etc.) – all this places armed insurrection on the order of the day. Thus recognising that the armed insurrection is inevitable and fully ripe, the Central Committee recommends to all organisations of the party that they be guided by this, and from this point of view consider and decide all practical questions (the Congress of Soviets of the Northern Region, the withdrawal of troops from Petersburg, the coming-out of Moscow and Minsk).”

A remarkable thing here as characterising both the moment and the author is the very order in which the conditions of the insurrection are enumerated. First comes the ripening of the world revolution; the insurrection in Russia is regarded only as the link in a general chain. That was Lenin’s invariable starting-point, his major premise: he could not reason otherwise. The task of insurrection he presented directly as the task of the party. The difficult question of bringing its preparation Into accord with the soviets is as yet not touched upon. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets does not get a word. To the northern regional congress and the “coming-out of Moscow and Minsk” as points of support for the insurrection was added, upon the insistence of Trotsky, “the withdrawal of troops from Petersburg.” This was the sole hint of that plan of insurrection which was subsequently dictated by the course of events in the capital. Nobody proposed any tactical amendments to the resolution, which defined only the strategical starting-point of the insurrection, as against Zinoviev and Kamenev who rejected the very necessity of insurrection.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch42.htm

I don't support the idea that the Bolsheviks dragged the Russians towards socialism (as socialism was impossible). I myself haven't seen any signs of socialism except maybe for the soviets that still existed after the Ocotber urprising.

The peace with Germany had to be signed because the basis of support for the Bolsheviks was the slogan "bread, land and peace", togheter with the slogan "all power to the soviets". The soviet(s) of soldiers demanded the end of war, yet that meant also peace as proposed by the Germans. Trotsky refused peace and war all togheter yet it didn't work since the Germans marshed towards Petrograd and threatened the revolution. So peace on German conditions was inevitable. (The left-communists within the Bolshevik party refused to support this peace though)

And I don't know what you last sentence means because the Bolsheviks did swap lands, yet the Germans were not victorious at all. Even worse, they had to sign a peace treaty because parts of the army started to refuse fighting the war while in Germany mutiniy and revolt was on the agenda of the masses.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Lenin also urged for the insurection because there was another Kornilovian counterrevolution waiting around the corner.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch42.htm

I don't support the idea that the Bolsheviks dragged the Russians towards socialism (as socialism was impossible). I myself haven't seen any signs of socialism except maybe for the soviets that still existed after the Ocotber urprising.

The peace with Germany had to be signed because the basis of support for the Bolsheviks was the slogan "bread, land and peace", togheter with the slogan "all power to the soviets". The soviet(s) of soldiers demanded the end of war, yet that meant also peace as proposed by the Germans. Trotsky refused peace and war all togheter yet it didn't work since the Germans marshed towards Petrograd and threatened the revolution. So peace on German conditions was inevitable. (The left-communists within the Bolshevik party refused to support this peace though)

And I don't know what you last sentence means because the Bolsheviks did swap lands, yet the Germans were not victorious at all. Even worse, they had to sign a peace treaty because parts of the army started to refuse fighting the war while in Germany mutiniy and revolt was on the agenda of the masses.

Had the the western allies lost to the German combined offensive, then Germany would have kept all of its land acquired in the peace with Russia. A victory of such massive proportions would have forestalled any kind of mass insurrection and the Russians handed it to them on a silver platter. Clearly any strategy of "helping the German revolutionaries" wasn't working very well since they singlehandedly doubled German territory in europe

[Led Zeppelin]

You're using Marxist Internet Archive as the source on what anarchists believe? Jesus, Mary and Joseph are you that obtuse? Kropotkin was one of the founders of anarcho communism! He wrote about transition!

Don't be an idiot, MIA has archives on all tendencies related to the workers movement, ranging from Stalinism to Anarchism.


Come on now, I'm pretty sure Led has acknowledged his ignorance of anarchist theory and we soon read up on it. Hopefully this time from actual anarchist sources.

Not really, if you believe that there is no tendency within anarchism which believes that we should go straight to communism without a transition period, you're a fool.

Whether this is called "anarchist-communism" or not is irrelevant, the fact is that it exists.

By the way, petulant child, I mean, Joe Hill's Ghost, what is this trend called if not anarchist-communism? Or are you denying that such a trend exists within the anarchist movement, thereby proving beyond a doubt that you are a clueless idiot?

Also, TAT could you please respond to CDL.

[Kropotesta]

Not really, if you believe that there is no tendency within anarchism which believes that we should go straight to communism without a transition period, you're a fool.
OK then, what is this trend of anarchism called? If this idea does actually exist beyond a small group of anarchists.

[Random Precision]

Here we go again. This is what I don't understand. By your logic then only a minority actually engaged in revolution. If you couldn't get a majority of the population to join with you, what right do you have to claim control of Russia?

The masses of Russian workers had demanded the Bolsheviks take initiative and set up the workers' government even a few months before October. At that time the party was not ready. But in October, as Kornilov attempted his coup, Lenin realized that it was either a workers' government or counter-revolutionary coup, which would erase all the gains of the February Revolution and keep the war going.


What right do you have to jail everyone that disagrees with you

Hyperbole much? Jailing "everyone who disagreed" would have meant jailing a large portion of the Bolshevik Party, including the anti-insurrectionists (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov etc.), the Left-Communists (Bukharin) and so on.


including other revolutionaries?

What other revolutionaries? The Mensheviks and Right-SRs had refused to take part in the Soviet government unless Lenin and Trotsky resigned (an impossible demand, which was why they made it), and then went over to the Whites in large numbers. The Left-SRs were for the most part absorbed into the Bolshevik Party, and as for the anarchists, many of them joined or collaborated with the Bolsheviks as well. As for the ones who were jailed, I would guess most of them were bandits or other criminal elements, not "anarchists" in any meaningful sense of the term.


What right do you have to conscription?

The right to defend the revolution at all costs.


Hell, when do you have the right to conscription and the jailing of other revolutionaries? I would say, never.

Let's hope you never lead a revolution, then. :)

[Led Zeppelin]

OK then, what is this trend of anarchism called? If this idea does actually exist beyond a small group of anarchists.

MIA says they're called anarchist-communists, and since you are the one who isn't "ignorant of anarchism" I would think that you would know what it was called, but apparently you didn't even know it existed.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Don't be an idiot, MIA has archives on all tendencies related to the workers movement, ranging from Stalinism to Anarchism.

MIA is a marxist archive, thus when it attempts to contextualize and comment on anarchism it's usually wrong. Which is why they state that
Individual anarchist are made up of reformist-anarchists and terrorists.

This is completely wrong, individualist anarchists fall in many categories, but few are reformists or terrorists. Insurrectionist anarchists are usually either primitivist inspired or class struggle inspired, so they fall within either insane or social anarchist sections. Reformist anarchists? Not many of those around...ever. The glossary entry on MIA is grossly incorrect on a number of key points.




Not really, if you believe that there is no tendency within anarchism which believes that we should go straight to communism without a transition period, you're a fool.

Whether this is called "anarchist-communism" or not is irrelevant, the fact is that it exists.

By the way, petulant child, I mean, Joe Hill's Ghost, what is this trend called if not anarchist-communism? Or are you denying that such a trend exists within the anarchist movement, thereby proving beyond a doubt that you are a clueless idiot?
I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me so. I only said that you were being obtuse with your reliance on MIA, I'm not trying to impugn your character.

There is no trend that talks of going "straight to communism" because there is no heavy discussion of transition in anarchist theory. That is outside of anarcho collectivism, and anarcho collectivism is a dead practice.

We see transition as the time starting with revolution and ending when things have settled down and we've worked out whatever kinks we've encountered. Transition for us is the literal expropriation of production and the democratic reorganization of society along lines we see as resembling libertarian communism. Is that going straight to communism? I guess you guys may see it that way, but we don't. It'll take several decades for things to flesh out, but in those decades, we will be living as we wish to live in the future. Though with more militia meetings and lots and lots of planning.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The masses of Russian workers had demanded the Bolsheviks take initiative and set up the workers' government even a few months before October. At that time the party was not ready. But in October, as Kornilov attempted his coup, Lenin realized that it was either a workers' government or counter-revolutionary coup, which would erase all the gains of the February Revolution and keep the war going.

¡Hay dios mio! The October Revolution was the product of months of social revolution, washing over the whole of Russia. The deposition of the the Kerensky government cost less than a thousand lives. The soviets had the power in Russia, the October revolution brushed away the remaining tidbits.

But lets examine this further. The mass of Russian workers demanded the elimination of Kerensky. What of the peasants? The destitute peasants that made up the majority of the Russian population. Did they have a say in the matter?




Hyperbole much? Jailing "everyone who disagreed" would have meant jailing a large portion of the Bolshevik Party, including the anti-insurrectionists (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov etc.), the Left-Communists (Bukharin) and so on.

Not at all. I said that the Bolshevik party was the only legal party, hence I was referring to all those outside of the party. The anarchists, SRs, etc.



What other revolutionaries? The Mensheviks and Right-SRs had refused to take part in the Soviet government unless Lenin and Trotsky resigned (an impossible demand, which was why they made it), and then went over to the Whites in large numbers. The Left-SRs were for the most part absorbed into the Bolshevik Party, and as for the anarchists, many of them joined or collaborated with the Bolsheviks as well. As for the ones who were jailed, I would guess most of them were bandits or other criminal elements, not "anarchists" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Well, there was this country called Ukraine, where things were organized along anarchist principles. The Red Army eventually stabbed them in the back and set about decimating the RIAU from the rear. They weren't "bandits" but solid revolutionaries. There were all kinds of non Bolshevik leftists that were jailed following consolidation of Bolshevik power. Maurice Briton's Bolsheviks and Worker's Control (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group) and Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group) describe it in lurid detail. Many joined the party ostensibly to avoid said persecution. Kronstadt made it pretty clear what happened when you contradicted Bolshevik policy.




The right to defend the revolution at all costs.

Does this logic not bother you? Does it not stink of totalitarianism to you? A revolution is a means to an end, but the means must build the end. When you conscript people to join the "people's revolution" there's something wrong. Revolution requires the support and enthusiasm of the people, conscription implies the exact opposite.

[Kropotesta]

MIA says they're called anarchist-communists, and since you are the one who isn't "ignorant of anarchism" I would think that you would know what it was called, but apparently you didn't even know it existed.
Well I'm afraid MIA is wrong. Why don't you look at anarchist sources for what anarchism is, you know it really is the logical thing to do after all.
I've seen TAT has posted some of the Kropotkins work on the anarchist transitory stage. Guess what, Kropotkin was a anarchist-communist.

[Led Zeppelin]

Well I'm afraid MIA is wrong. Why don't you look at anarchist sources for what anarchism is, you know it really is the logical thing to do after all.
I've seen TAT has posted some of the Kropotkins work on the anarchist transitory stage. Guess what, Kropotkin was a anarchist-communist.

Ah yes, the "you just need to read more about it because I'm not going to tell you" crap which every person who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about resorts to.

Neither you nor Joe Hill's Ghost have bothered to answer my question, so how about in the future before you think you actually have a good point, but deep down you really know you don't, you keep your nonsense to yourself to save embarrassment.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Ah yes, the "you just need to read more about it because I'm not going to tell you" crap which every person who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about resorts to.

Neither you nor Joe Hill's Ghost have bothered to answer my question, so how about in the future before you think you actually have a good point, but deep down you really know you don't, you keep your nonsense to yourself to save embarrassment.

Then what's the question?

[Kropotesta]

Ah yes, the "you just need to read more about it because I'm not going to tell you" crap which every person who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about resorts to.

Neither you nor Joe Hill's Ghost have bothered to answer my question, so how about in the future before you think you actually have a good point, but deep down you really know you don't, you keep your nonsense to yourself to save embarrassment.
You haven't even asked a question. You have merely made ill-inormed statements.

[KC]

We see transition as the time starting with revolution and ending when things have settled down and we've worked out whatever kinks we've encountered. Transition for us is the literal expropriation of production and the democratic reorganization of society along lines we see as resembling libertarian communism. Is that going straight to communism? I guess you guys may see it that way, but we don't. It'll take several decades for things to flesh out, but in those decades, we will be living as we wish to live in the future. Though with more militia meetings and lots and lots of planning.

So what you're saying is that you will go right to "living as we wish to live in the future". So where's this transition period?

Also, saying that transition for you is "the literal expropriation of production and the democratic reorganization of society along lines we see as resembling libertarian communism" is vague theorizing and not much more than mental masturbation without any actual particular ideas on what form this expropriation and reorganization will take. Based on the incredibly broad and meaningless definition that you have given as revolution, the same statement you made could apply to me, or even to a Stalinist. It's so vague it's meaningless.


But lets examine this further. The mass of Russian workers demanded the elimination of Kerensky. What of the peasants? The destitute peasants that made up the majority of the Russian population. Did they have a say in the matter?

Following the proposal of land reform, the majority of peasants went over to the side of the Bolsheviks through the Left SR's (who ended up assimilating into the Bolshevik party). Kulaks and reactionaries (obviously heavily in the minority) went over to the Right SR's, who ended up joining the reactionaries.


Well, there was this country called Ukraine, where things were organized along anarchist principles. The Red Army eventually stabbed them in the back and set about decimating the RIAU from the rear. They weren't "bandits" but solid revolutionaries. There were all kinds of non Bolshevik leftists that were jailed following consolidation of Bolshevik power. Maurice Briton's Bolsheviks and Worker's Control (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group) and Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group) describe it in lurid detail. Many joined the party ostensibly to avoid said persecution. Kronstadt made it pretty clear what happened when you contradicted Bolshevik policy.

So what you're saying is that the Bolshevik party should have allowed violent opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat? Are you serious?


Does this logic not bother you? Does it not stink of totalitarianism to you? A revolution is a means to an end, but the means must build the end. When you conscript people to join the "people's revolution" there's something wrong. Revolution requires the support and enthusiasm of the people, conscription implies the exact opposite.

Not totalitarianism, but certainly authoritarianism. Revolution is the most authoritarian act of all. Of course, your position is not based on mere opposition to authority itself, but rather the assumption that the party dictated the proletariat and their allies.

What you fail to understand are the various differences between different strata of each class and the implications it has on such matters (hence your opinion that the Bolsheviks "dragged" the proletariat through revolution, when in reality the class conscious proletarians dragged the backwards proletarians through revolution through the work of the Bolshevik party). It is also based on your misunderstandings of the role of the party in the struggle and the place it occupies and the purpose it serves (and who it serves) within that struggle.

[Led Zeppelin]

Then what's the question?

You haven't even asked a question. You have merely made ill-inormed statements.

Are you the anarchist version of dumb and dumber or something?


What is this trend called if not anarchist-communism? Or are you denying that such a trend exists within the anarchist movement, thereby proving beyond a doubt that you are a clueless idiot?

Kropotesta then responded by...asking me the same question:


OK then, what is this trend of anarchism called?

So either answer that question or stop wasting my time.

[The Feral Underclass]

By the way, there seem to be different opinions within anarchist theory itself on the "transition period":

Perhaps, but I would say that anarchist collectivism is the most established idea.


When I referred to "orthodox anarchism" I was referring to the anarchist-communists as described above.But anarchist communism is essentially the leading tradition that was developed by Malatesta (Bakunin's contemporary) and Kropotkin, both of whom used anarchist collectivism as a transitional idea from capitalism to a gift economy.


I will respond to CDL when I can be bothered.

[Random Precision]

¡Hay dios mio! The October Revolution was the product of months of social revolution, washing over the whole of Russia. The deposition of the the Kerensky government cost less than a thousand lives. The soviets had the power in Russia, the October revolution brushed away the remaining tidbits.

But lets examine this further. The mass of Russian workers demanded the elimination of Kerensky. What of the peasants? The destitute peasants that made up the majority of the Russian population. Did they have a say in the matter?

Of course, the peasants wanted Kerensky gone just as much as the workers, because the Provisional Government was bent on continuing Russia' involvement in the disastrous war, and wasn't making any steps toward land reform that the peasants desperately needed. But October was primarily a workers' revolution.


Well, there was this country called Ukraine, where things were organized along anarchist principles. The Red Army eventually stabbed them in the back and set about decimating the RIAU from the rear. They weren't "bandits" but solid revolutionaries. There were all kinds of non Bolshevik leftists that were jailed following consolidation of Bolshevik power. Maurice Briton's Bolsheviks and Worker's Control (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group) and Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group) describe it in lurid detail. Many joined the party ostensibly to avoid said persecution. Kronstadt made it pretty clear what happened when you contradicted Bolshevik policy.

Here I have something for you to read: http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml


Does this logic not bother you? Does it not stink of totalitarianism to you? A revolution is a means to an end, but the means must build the end. When you conscript people to join the "people's revolution" there's something wrong. Revolution requires the support and enthusiasm of the people, conscription implies the exact opposite.

Like I said, it's a good thing you'll never lead a revolution. They ain't as pretty as you'd like them to be.

[Kropotesta]

Are you the anarchist version of dumb and dumber or something?
Sorry but I forgot to laugh.


So either answer that question or stop wasting my time.
We know that the development towards communism depends on the conditions locally. This can only progressed towards by community self-organisation and expermintation.

"

"A political revolution can be accomplished without shaking the foundations of industry, but a revolution where the people lay hands upon property will inevitably paralyse exchange and production . . . This point cannot be too much insisted upon; the reorganisation of industry on a new basis . . . cannot be accomplished in a few days; nor, on the other hand, will people submit to be half starved for years in order to oblige the theorists who uphold the wage system. To tide over the period of stress they will demand what they have always demanded in such cases -- communisation of supplies -- the giving of rations." [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 72-3] The basic principles of this "transition" period would, therefore, be based on the "socialising of production, consumption and exchange." The state would be abolished and "federated Communes" would be created. The end of capitalism would be achieved by the "expropriation" of "everything that enables any man -- be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord - - to appropriate the product of others' toil." Distribution of goods would be based on "no stint or limit to what the community possesses in abundance, but equal sharing and dividing of those commodities which are scare or apt to run short." [Op. Cit., p. 136, p. 61 and p. 76] Clearly, while not "full blown" communism by any means, such a regime does lay the ground for its eventual arrival. As Max Nettlau summarised, "[n]othing but a superficial interpretation of some of Kropotkin's observations could lead one to conclude that anarchist communism could spring into life through an act of sweeping improvisation, with the waving of a magic wand." [A Short History of Anarchism, p. 80]
This was what happened in the Spanish Revolution, for example. Different collectives operated in different ways. Some tried to introduce free communism, some a combination of rationing and communism, others introduced equal pay, others equalised pay as much as possible and so on. Over time, as economic conditions changed and difficulties developed the collectives changed their mode of distribution to take them into account. These collectives indicate well the practical aspects of anarchist and its desire to accommodate and not ignore reality. "- The Anarchist FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech25

[Mersault]

The meaning of Trotskyism is so transient that I'm surprised so many people continue using the word to describe their beliefs. Much in the same way as anarchism. I've often considered the merit of either ideas and have found myself feeling incredibly alienated. The structure of the language that you revolutionaries use is so vague and based on such assumptions that the meaning of any one thing comparative to another could easily lead to it being interpreted as the same thing, or indeed many other things. I'm not sure that makes what you say particularly meaningful.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sorry but I forgot to laugh.

You also forgot something else; To answer my question instead of posting some inane section from a FAQ which has nothing to do with the question I asked.

[Mersault]

I suppose one attributes meaning for the sake of "knowing" something. It's probably far better than not knowing something. Ideology is probably quite comfortable.

[Random Precision]

The meaning of Trotskyism is so transient that I'm surprised so many people continue using the word to describe their beliefs. Much in the same way as anarchism. I've often considered the merit of either ideas and have found myself feeling incredibly alienated. The structure of the language that you revolutionaries use is so vague and based on such assumptions that the meaning of any one thing comparative to another could easily lead to it being interpreted as the same thing, or indeed many other things. I'm not sure that makes what you say particularly meaningful.

Well, no one's begging you and your postmodernist rubbish to stick around here.

[Mersault]

Well, no one's begging you and your postmodernist rubbish to stick around here.

That's not very nice. Do you normally attack people that don't understand the meaning of what you say? That's not very productive.

[black magick hustla]

The meaning of Trotskyism is so transient that I'm surprised so many people continue using the word to describe their beliefs. Much in the same way as anarchism. I've often considered the merit of either ideas and have found myself feeling incredibly alienated. The structure of the language that you revolutionaries use is so vague and based on such assumptions that the meaning of any one thing comparative to another could easily lead to it being interpreted as the same thing, or indeed many other things. I'm not sure that makes what you say particularly meaningful.

I don't know if that language is "meaningful" or not, but certainly is much more crystal clear and comprehensible than this mud post.

[Module]

The right to defend the revolution at all costs.
Whose revolution?
Certainly not a worker's revolution - to be conscripted is to fight somebody else's fight.

Like I said, it's a good thing you'll never lead a revolution. They ain't as pretty as you'd like them to be.It's a bad thing you ever think you would lead a revolution. A communist revolution shouldn't be carried out by you, it should be carried out by the working class. You mean nothing as opposed to them and you can do nothing without them. Who are you to tell them to fight? They should fight for themselves.


Not totalitarianism, but certainly authoritarianism. Revolution is the most authoritarian act of all. Of course, your position is not based on mere opposition to authority itself, but rather the assumption that the party dictated the proletariat and their allies.A worker's revolution is authoritarianism in relation to their relationship as a class to those in power.
This does not mean that it's okay for you to use that as an excuse to take control of the working class - which is what you are, by conscripting them to fight for this so-called worker's revolution, doing.
As JHG said, when you conscript people to join what is supposed to be their revolution there's something wrong.

[Random Precision]

It's a bad thing you ever think you would lead a revolution. A communist revolution shouldn't be carried out by you, it should be carried out by the working class. You mean nothing as opposed to them and you can do nothing without them. Who are you to tell them to fight? They should fight for themselves.

Have I ever said otherwise?

[Module]

Have I ever said otherwise?
Yes, you have;


What right do you have to conscription?The right to defend the revolution at all costs.
You can't conscript somebody to fight their own revolution.
One, you don't have the right, and two, it ceases to be their revolution once they lose their freedom to choose how, or if they want to fight it.

[Mersault]

I don't know if that language is "meaningful" or not, but certainly is much more crystal clear and comprehensible than this mud post.

Language is the way in which we communicate everything that we conceive. If you deconstruct the language used by people to describe or defend their ideologies you can see that it's meaningless in the sense that it makes it interpretable in many ways. It's not very clear and shrouded in pseudo-science and assumption.

[KC]

A worker's revolution is authoritarianism in relation to their relationship as a class to those in power.
This does not mean that it's okay for you to use that as an excuse to take control of the working class - which is what you are, by conscripting them to fight for this so-called worker's revolution, doing.

This is exactly what I was talking about at the end of my last post.

[Kropotesta]

You also forgot something else; To answer my question instead of posting some inane section from a FAQ which has nothing to do with the question I asked.
There isn't a form of anarchism which proposes no transition stage. The quote is relevant as it shows that anarchist-communism does advocate a transition stage. Yet for some reason you seem to think that a Marxist archive knows more about anarchist-communism than the actual origional theorists. Now that is ridiculous.

[Tower of Bebel]

Had the the western allies lost to the German combined offensive, then Germany would have kept all of its land acquired in the peace with Russia. A victory of such massive proportions would have forestalled any kind of mass insurrection and the Russians handed it to them on a silver platter. Clearly any strategy of "helping the German revolutionaries" wasn't working very well since they singlehandedly doubled German territory in europe

I believe that's just speculation. Even before the last massive assault on Paris (which was in the beginning rather succesful and stimulating) German high command knew of growing unrest (remember the massive demonstrations in germany since 1915).
Also in France as early as march 1917 several thousands of soldiers started a revolt or protested against every slaughter they had to participate in. These signs of revolt within the army, inflicted by the Russians who fought on the Western front, were accompanied with strikes in factories.
I don't want to waist time so I just want to say that the whole of Europe was the scene of unrest and small revolt, yet waited for a spark which would set the whole prairy on fire. The October uprising was that spark, and Lenin did what he had to do, even though the October Revolution itself could not survive without a complete succes of the international revolution. Besides, the Russian peoples didn't want to fight this war any longer.

On the question of the peace treaty, Lenin elaborated his view against the left communists within the Bolshevik party in this work (parts I and II): http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

[Led Zeppelin]

There isn't a form of anarchism which proposes no transition stage.

And you dare say that I am ignorant of anarchism?

Hilarious.

How about you take your own advice and go read something about the ideology you try so desperately to defend (while failing desperately at it).

[Kropotesta]

And you dare say that I am ignorant of anarchism?

Hilarious.

How about you take your own advice and go read something about the ideology you try so desperately to defend (while failing desperately at it).
:rolleyes:
What is this mystical form of anarchism then O great one? You still haven't answered that question.

[apathy maybe]

And you dare say that I am ignorant of anarchism?

Hilarious.

How about you take your own advice and go read something about the ideology you try so desperately to defend (while failing desperately at it).

Dude, unless you can quote some anarchist saying that there isn't going to be a transition stage, and that we will magically go from a society of hierarchy, greed and so on to one without, then perhaps you should hush.

I can't think of any anarchist theoretician who claims that you can go from capitalism, to communism over night.

Every single anarchist that I can think of admits that there will be a time when there will still exist hierarchy and inequality before the real anarchist society is brought about.

So, I repeat, can you provide an quotes from anarchists that say that there isn't going to be a transition period?

[Led Zeppelin]

What is this mystical form of anarchism then O great one? You still haven't answered that question.

Stop rolling your eyes with your schoolboy stupidity.

MIA says that tendency is called anarchist-communist, perhaps it was an early tendency of anarchist-communism preceding Kropotkin, I don't know, that's why it's your job - the person who "is not ignorant of anarchism" - to tell me what the name of that trend within anarchist theory is.

If you can't do that, and deny that such a trend exists or has ever existed, you are the ignorant one.


Dude, unless you can quote some anarchist saying that there isn't going to be a transition stage, and that we will magically go from a society of hierarchy, greed and so on to one without, then perhaps you should hush.

I can't think of any anarchist theoretician who claims that you can go from capitalism, to communism over night.

Every single anarchist that I can think of admits that there will be a time when there will still exist hierarchy and inequality before the real anarchist society is brought about.

So, I repeat, can you provide an quotes from anarchists that say that there isn't going to be a transition period?

Yes, "dude", I can provide a quote from an anarchist theoretician saying that such a trend exists or existed:



Guillaume saw no difference in principle between collectivism and anti-State communism. The collectivists understood that full communism would not be immediately realizable. They were convinced that the workers themselves would gradually introduce communism as they overcame the obstacles, both psychological and economic.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/policy-iwma.htm)

[Kropotesta]

Stop rolling your eyes with your schoolboy stupidity.
Patronising is only effective when you are correct, which you arent. Dumbarse.


MIA says that tendency is called anarchist-communist, perhaps it was an early tendency of anarchist-communism preceding Kropotkin, I don't know, that's why it's your job - the person who "is not ignorant of anarchism" - to tell me what the name of that trend within anarchist theory is.
MIA is wrong. Anarchist-communism does advocate a transition stage, which I posted a quote and a link to prove, from an actual anarchist source. Kropotkin was one of the origional theorists, along with Malatesta, both whom spoke of a tranistion stage.
So no there is no trend in anarchism that doesn't have a transition stage.


If you can't do that, and deny that such a trend exists or has ever existed, you are the ignorant one.
:laugh:

[Led Zeppelin]

So no there is no trend in anarchism that doesn't have a transition stage.

Yeah, I'm going to take the word of some anarcho-kiddie over the word of a serious anarchist theoretician and MIA. :lol:

Not gonna happen kid, now go back to school and stop wasting my time with your petulance.

[apathy maybe]

MIA says that tendency is called anarchist-communist, perhaps it was an early tendency of anarchist-communism preceding Kropotkin, I don't know, that's why it's your job - the person who "is not ignorant of anarchism" - to tell me what the name of that trend within anarchist theory is.
MIA is wrong.


If you can't do that, and deny that such a trend exists or has ever existed, you are the ignorant one.
No such trend exists.


Yes, "dude", I can provide a quote from an anarchist theoretician saying that such a trend exists or existed:

Guillaume saw no difference in principle between collectivism and anti-State communism. The collectivists understood that full communism would not be immediately realizable. They were convinced that the workers themselves would gradually introduce communism as they overcame the obstacles, both psychological and economic.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/policy-iwma.htm)

The quote merely says that collectivists understood that communism would not be immediately realizable. Wait, isn't it saying that therefore some sort of transition is required? Why yes!
There is no difference between collectivism and anti-State Communism, because both accept that there will not be an anarchist society over night!

So, do you have a quote (again, from an anarchist), which says that anarchism can be achieved over night, and without a transitional period?


Yeah, I'm going to take the word of some anarcho-kiddie over the word of a serious anarchist theoretician and MIA.

Not gonna happen kid, now go back to school and stop wasting my time with your petulance.
You have yet to provide the word of "a serious anarchist theoretician", and the MIA is wrong in this regard.

As for being patronising, it doesn't work. You're wrong. Going to tell me to go back to school now? (Especially considering that I know I have not only done more formal schooling, but that I've read a lot more anarchist writings then you.)

[Kropotesta]

Yeah, I'm going to take the word of some anarcho-kiddie over the word of a serious anarchist theoretician and MIA. :lol:
That quote posted doesn't say anything.
I'm arguement is far more valid than any of yours, I have supplied references of anarchist theoriticans and even from an anarchist FAQ, all anarchist sources that show that you are wrong. You fail hard.


Not gonna happen kid, now go back to school and stop wasting my time with your petulance.
School? WTF? Again with the patronising, I'm actually almost starting to feel sorry for you.

[Led Zeppelin]

MIA is wrong.

Apparently you're wrong, not MIA.


No such trend exists.

Then you are ignorant of anarchist history and theory.


The quote merely says that collectivists understood that communism would not be immediately realizable. Wait, isn't it saying that therefore some sort of transition is required? Why yes!
There is no difference between collectivism and anti-State Communism, because both accept that there will not be an anarchist society over night!

So, do you have a quote (again, from an anarchist), which says that anarchism can be achieved over night, and without a transitional period?

Don't be obtuse, he says that collectivists "understood that full communism would not be immediately realizable", as opposed to the anti-State communists, which "Guillaume saw no difference in principle between".


I have supplied..

The only thing you have supplied is irrefutable evidence of your stupidity and inability to read and comprehend at the same time.

[Kropotesta]

The only thing you have supplied is irrefutable evidence of your stupidity and inability to read and comprehend at the same time.
He's getting desperate now!:lol:
How have I done this then?

[apathy maybe]

Incidentally, I just did a quick search for "anarchism and transition". I cannot find anything that says that there won't be some sort of transition.

Indeed, I found a thread on this very site, http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchist-paradigm-transition-t30602/index.html which discusses transitions.

Umm...


Don't be obtuse, he says that collectivists "understood that full communism would not be immediately realizable", as opposed to the anti-State communists, which "Guillaume saw no difference in principle between".
Funny, I didn't read the quote as saying that the anti-State communists thought that full communism would be immediately realizable. Indeed, based on my extensive reading on anarchist literature, I have to say that I don't know why you persist in trying to argue that there exists now a trend in anarchism that doesn't admit to some sort of transition.

OK, I'll concede that at one point in the past there may have been a serious trend with in the anarchist-communist movement that advocated going straight to full communism (though I've never seen any evidence for it), however, right now there does not exist such as serious trend with in anarchism at all.

[Led Zeppelin]

Funny, I was just looking through the wikipedia entry on the history of anarchist-communism and it basically proves what MIA said on the subject, while also providing sources:



Anarchist communist currents appeared during the English Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War) and the French Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution) of the 1700s. Gerrard Winstanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrard_Winstanley), who was part of the radical Diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers) movement in England, wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, The New Law of Righteousness, that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-Graham-2005-1) During the French Revolution, Sylvain Maréchal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvain_Mar%C3%A9chal), in his Manifesto of the Equals (1796), demanded "the communal enjoyment of the fruits of the earth" and looked forward to the disappearance of "the revolting distinction of rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-Graham-2005-1)

An early anarchist communist was Joseph Déjacque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque), the first person to describe himself as "libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-Dejacque-2) Unlike Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon), he argued that, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-Graham-2005-1)

The collectivist anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) advocated remuneration for labor, but held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. As Bakunin's associate, James Guillaume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Guillaume), put it in his essay, Ideas on Social Organization (1876), "When... production comes to outstrip consumption... [e]veryone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-3)
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism)

There you go, the anarcho-kiddie was wrong, big surprise there.

So there is (or was, depending on who you ask I suppose) a difference between collectivism and anarcho-communism, the former recognizes the need for a transition period to a communist system of distribution according to need, due to the limitation of material conditions, the latter does not.


OK, I'll concede that at one point in the past there may have been a serious trend with in the anarchist-communist movement that advocated going straight to full communism (though I've never seen any evidence for it), however, right now there does not exist such as serious trend with in anarchism at all.

Apparently this was the cause of a disagreement between Proudhon, Bakunin and the "collectivists" on one side, and the "anarcho-communists" on the other, represented by Kropotkin, Malatesta and others:


Anarchist communism as a coherent, modern economic-political philosophy was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_International) by Carlo Cafiero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Cafiero), Errico Malatesta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errico_Malatesta), Andrea Costa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Costa) and other ex-Mazzinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Mazzini) Republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin), they did not make their differences with collectivist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) explicit until after Bakunin's death.

Emma Goldman then combined both into her own version of anarcho-communism, which I believe is now the common modern version of the theory, which does not exclude a transition period, depending on who you ask.

I don't believe that all modern anarcho-communists agree on there being some sort of transition period though.

[apathy maybe]

@LZ, so you admit that there isn't any trend now in anarchism that says that there is no need for a transition period?

(As for the quote you provide from Wikipedia, I am once more failing to see anywhere where anyone said that we can go straight to anarchism from the present society (or indeed, from the society of 100, 200 or 350 years back). Though of course, pre-industrialisation (it is, by the way, commonly accepted that there was no "anarchism" as such before industrialisation, no one called themselves "anarchist", though people such as the Diggers are called proto-anarchists), it would have been a lot easier to move to a communist system. However, as I'm alluded to before, and I'm in the process of writing an article about, communist does not automatically equate to anarchist. So yeah.)

[Led Zeppelin]

@LZ, so you admit that there isn't any trend now in anarchism that says that there is no need for a transition period?

No, and you can't prove this either because anarchism has many tendencies and trends within it.

Perhaps it is no longer a "serious trend within the movement", but you can't possible say that it no longer exists at all.


As for the quote you provide from Wikipedia, I am once more failing to see anywhere where anyone said that we can go straight to anarchism from the present society.

The quote is about a difference in the economic sphere.

Anarchist-communists believed that society should go straight to the communist system of distribution: "It is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."

This was opposed to the collectivists who believed that a transition period was needed, due to a lack of material conditions : "The collectivist anarchists (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) advocated remuneration for labor, but held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. As Bakunin's associate, James Guillaume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Guillaume), put it in his essay, Ideas on Social Organization (1876), "When... production comes to outstrip consumption... [e]veryone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste."

So the issue is about the communist system of distribution according to need versus a transition period of a system of distribution according to ability until "production comes to outsrip consumption".

To summarize: straight to communism versus transition period.

If you say that this issue has been resolved in anarchist theory and that the trend which represented "straight to communism" is no longer pre-dominant, I'll believe you, but I don't believe that this trend is non-existant.

[apathy maybe]

Well, there has been a bit of misunderstanding here. I was always talking about anarchism, as distinct from communism. Because anarchists aim for a free society, they don't aim for communism. (It just so happens that there are a good many who think that communism is the economic model for a free society.)

So yeah, straight to anarchism, no way.


No, and you can't prove this either because anarchism has many tendencies and trends within it.

Perhaps it is no longer a "serious trend within the movement", but you can't possible say that it no longer exists at all.
Yes anarchism has many different trends and tendencies. No I can't prove that there doesn't exist a group of people who believe that anything is possible.
However, considering how hard it is to find anyone who believes that it is possible, I have to say, no it isn't a serious trend, if it exists at all.

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, there has been a bit of misunderstanding here. I was always talking about anarchism, as distinct from communism. Because anarchists aim for a free society, they don't aim for communism. (It just so happens that there are a good many who think that communism is the economic model for a free society.)

So yeah, straight to anarchism, no way.

How is communism not what anarchists aim for? How is communism not a free society?

And if anarchism is distinct from communism, why is there a major trend in anarchist theory which calls itself anarcho-communism?

[Kropotesta]

Funny, I was just looking through the wikipedia entry on the history of anarchist-communism and it basically proves what MIA said on the subject, while also providing sources:


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism)

There you go, the anarcho-kiddie was wrong, big surprise there.
Beens anarchist-communism wasn't a philosophical ideology during the english revolution, I am not wrong. Of course they bared great similarites though.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you stopped referring to me as an anarcho kiddie:cool:



I don't believe that all modern anarcho-communists agree on there being some sort of transition period though.
OK then, why don't you start a poll?

[apathy maybe]

How is communism not what anarchists aim for? How is communism not a free society?

And if anarchism is distinct from communism, why is there a major trend in anarchist theory which calls itself anarcho-communism?

Not all anarchists think the same thing will create a free society, that's why there are trends, such as anarchist communism, within anarchism. Thus, communism is distinct from anarchism in that regard.

Communism is an economic system, theoretically you could have a political structure that enforces conformity, or has some form of social hierarchy, while keeping the economic system.

Anarchism is against enforced conformity or social hierarchy, thus another way that anarchism and communism don't equate to the same thing.

[Random Precision]

That's not very nice. Do you normally attack people that don't understand the meaning of what you say? That's not very productive.

Neither is trying to engage us with your crap about how "the structure of our language is so vague" and patronizing bullshit like "Ideology must be quite comfortable". Piss off.

[Mersault]

Neither is trying to engage us with your crap about how "the structure of our language is so vague"

You don't have to engage with me if you don't want or indeed with anyone else who finds the structure of your language vague. You can wallow in your inaccessible tower as much as you want. Us normal people will just have to get on with living, I suppose.


and patronizing bullshit like "Ideology must be quite comfortable". Piss off.I'm confident that you feel comfortable with your ideology.

[Random Precision]

You don't have to engage with me if you don't want or indeed with anyone else who finds the structure of your language vague. You can wallow in your inaccessible tower as much as you want. Us normal people will just have to get on with living, I suppose.

So you come to this forum with an avatar of Michel Foucault and a username taken from Camus' The Stranger, in a postmodern rant about the "structure of our language" being "so vague", and then call us elitists?

Pot. Kettle. Black.


I'm confident that you feel comfortable with your ideology.

I'm equally confident that you're comfortable with the post-modern-anti-structural-thought-system-whatever the fuck you like to call it. Bullshit academic musings that have no meaning for "normal people" and never will.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Of course, the peasants wanted Kerensky gone just as much as the workers, because the Provisional Government was bent on continuing Russia' involvement in the disastrous war, and wasn't making any steps toward land reform that the peasants desperately needed. But October was primarily a workers' revolution.

*shrugs* Wouldn't disagree that most people wanted Kerensky gone. He was kind of an idiot. Though I'm not sure the workers and peasants of all of eastern europe were too happy about ending the war via handing them over to the wolves.




Here I have something for you to read: http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)

So instead of addressing my arguments you have decided to provide a run of the mill Trot polemic? Makhno is only one of the points I brought up. The Bolsheviks were jailing and summarily executing many people, often political prisoners of some kind. But hey if you can go back on the ole trutsy hit piece, why bother? Just ignore my points.




Like I said, it's a good thing you'll never lead a revolution. They ain't as pretty as you'd like them to be.

This isn't addressing the point. Conscription means that you do not have the popular support to sustain the revolution. If you lack popular support, then there is no revolution, just another palace coup.

[Mersault]

So you come to this forum with an avatar of Michel Foucault and a username taken from Camus' The Stranger, in a postmodern rant about the "structure of our language" being "so vague", and then call us elitists?

Perhaps you're confused? I'm not talking about internet persona's, I'm talking about the meaning of Trotskyism and anarchism. I'm not really sure there's any relevance to the fact I have a personal avatar with a picture of Foucault or that I've named my username after a Camus character (who actually features in a few of his books). Could you please explain what the relevance is, how that makes me elitist and indeed how it makes Trotskyism or anarchism any more accessible?


I'm equally confident that you're comfortable with the post-modern-anti-structural-thought-system-whatever the fuck you like to call it.

No, I wouldn't say I was. Do you think it's appropriate to tell someone what he is without understanding the person beliefs. I have taken the time to understand Trotskyism.

You seem to have taken on rather a defensive attitude towards me. It seems an unusual way to engage your ideas with someone. Do you not like being criticised?


Bullshit academic musings that have no meaning for "normal people" and never will.

I thought Marxists admired academics?

I agree. Although you have no idea what I "believe", I think it's fair to say that a lot of the books I read and appreciate are quite academic, but then again so are the many theoretical works by Marx or Bakunin.

[Random Precision]

Perhaps you're confused? I'm not talking about internet persona's, I'm talking about the meaning of Trotskyism and anarchism. I'm not really sure there's any relevance to the fact I have a personal avatar with a picture of Foucault or that I've named my username after a Camus character (who actually features in a few of his books). Could you please explain what the relevance is, how that makes me elitist and indeed how it makes Trotskyism or anarchism any more accessible?

You accused me of "wallowing in an inaccessible tower". My point is that you are in no position to accuse others of doing that. Unless there's some postmodern objection to the existence of hypocrisy. :rolleyes:


No, I wouldn't say I was. Do you think it's appropriate to tell someone what he is without understanding the person beliefs. I have taken the time to understand Trotskyism.

Really. How many works by Trotsky have you read? What about books on the 20th-century history of Russia? The degeneration of the Third International?


I thought Marxists admired academics?

I agree. Although you have no idea what I "believe", I think it's fair to say that a lot of the books I read and appreciate are quite academic, but then again so are the many theoretical works by Marx or Bakunin.

Don't know too much about Bakunin, but the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. that focused on practical action. This is why Marx objected to the label "philosopher". Remember the 15th thesis on Feuerbach?

But anyway, fair enough. In what ways are the disciples of Foucault working to change the world?

[Mersault]

You accused me of "wallowing in an inaccessible tower".

Yes, I know. My question was how my personal internet persona makes me elitist or makes Trotskyism and anarchism anymore accessible?


My point is that you are in no position to accuse others of doing that.

I'm not really sure what that means, but in any case I have accused of it and you don't seem to dsiagree.


Unless there's some postmodern objection to the existence of hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

Are you confident you understand what postmodernism is?


Really. How many works by Trotsky have you read? What about books on the 20th-century history of Russia? The degeneration of the Third International?

Again, I'm not see the relevance here. If I was to say 3 books, what difference would that actually make. You have an interesting debating style.


But anyway, fair enough. In what ways are the disciples of Foucault working to change the world?

I'm not a disciple of Foucault, whatever that means.

"Change the world". That's a grand statement. But this is my point. You've not established what the world is and what change means. I have been asking you, but you seem more interested in my reading achievements and avatar...

[Module]

You've not established what the world is and what change means.
The world is .. the earth, the people on it, the societies on it, etc. etc.
Change means .. to make something different from what it was before.
Sorted, now? :lol:
Seriously, though. I don't mean to be rude but we don't need any of this semantics bullshit trying to pass off as relevant argument.

[black magick hustla]

Language is the way in which we communicate everything that we conceive. If you deconstruct the language used by people to describe or defend their ideologies you can see that it's meaningless in the sense that it makes it interpretable in many ways. It's not very clear and shrouded in pseudo-science and assumption.

I think that argument is quite valid concerning dialectical materialism and traditional philosophy, but I think historical materialism is not "meaningless". I don't like putting "historical materialism" in the same level of "science" as physics and chemistry, simply because the former one is not as precise. however, I don't think it is meaningless and certainly, the language used to describe it is not as ambiguous as you make it seem. Certainly, the meaning of historical materialism is much more clear, than say, focault.

However, as I told you before, the "moral principles" behind my politics are completely subjective and cannot be defended objectively. The only way I can convince someone with my politics is only if they already hold a predisposition for my moral framework. All philosophical methods designed to find some moral truth, whether christianity, platonism, the categorical imperiative etc - are meaningless.

[Mersault]

The world is .. the earth, the people on it, the societies on it, etc. etc.
Change means .. to make something different from what it was before.
Sorted, now? :lol:

So, Trotskyists and anarchists want to make the people and societies on Earth different?

That's a pretty big assumption. Do you think you understand what truth is or is this an experiment?


Seriously, though. I don't mean to be rude but we don't need any of this semantics bullshit trying to pass off as relevant argument.

I'm merely trying to understand what you people are talking about.

[black magick hustla]

So, Trotskyists and anarchists want to make the people and societies on Earth different?


I know you are trying to be a smartass but "change the earth" is a pretty straightforward sentence considering the context of it. nobody "dissects" it except you because people understand it means a radical socio-economic change on the way international society is structured. When we talk, we tend to use idioms and metaphors and not very precise statements. We don't talk like mathematicians do and yet language is generally surprisingly clear and effective.

[Module]

So, Trotskyists and anarchists want to make the people and societies on Earth different?

That's a pretty big assumption. Do you think you understand what truth is or is this an experiment?
It's not an assumption - the people on this website are communists. Communists want to make people and societies on Earth different.
If the Trotskyists and anarchists, and anybody here didn't want to change the world, they simply wouldn't be here, and wouldn't be Trotskyists or anarchists.



I'm merely trying to understand what you people are talking about.Well, there are plenty of resources on this website for you to educate yourself on Trotskyists and anarchists.

[Mersault]

I know you are trying to be a smartass but "change the earth" is a pretty straightforward sentence considering the context of it. nobody "dissects" it except you because people understand it means a radical socio-economic change on the way international society is structured. When we talk, we tend to use idioms and metaphors and not very precise statements. We don't talk like mathematicians do and yet language is generally surprisingly clear and effective.

I'm not attempting to be a "smart ass", I am simply trying to understand the meaning of what you are saying. You want to create "radical socio-economic change", but then again so do libertarians in America and even Islamisists.

[Mersault]

It's not an assumption - the people on this website are communists. Communists want to make people and societies on Earth different.

You have assumed first of all that the world needs to change and secondly you have assumed that changing it to communism is both desired and desirable. They're pretty big assumptions as far as I can see.


If the Trotskyists and anarchists, and anybody here didn't want to change the world, they simply wouldn't be here, and wouldn't be Trotskyists or anarchists.Indubitably, but that's not really relevant to what I'm saying. I understand that you want to "change the world" but what is the meaning of what you wish to change it to?


Well, there are plenty of resources on this website for you to educate yourself on Trotskyists and anarchists.I'm not talking about the obvious things. I understand what Trotskyism and anarchism is, I want to know what they mean. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult question to proposition?

[Module]

You have assumed first of all that the world needs to change and secondly you have assumed that changing it to communism is both desired and desirable. They're pretty big assumptions as far as I can see.
We desire it, we see it as desirable. If we didn't we wouldn't be communists. Not an assumption.


Indubitably, but that's not really relevant to what I'm saying. I understand that you want to "change the world" but what is the meaning of what you wish to change it to?It's the question you asked.
The meaning of what I wish to change it to? A communist economic system; socio-political equality.


I'm not talking about the obvious things. I understand what Trotskyism and anarchism is, I want to know what they mean. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult question to proposition?Is it difficult? You're trying to make difficult something which really is quite simple.
I suggest you get off your high horse; especially considering it was you that said "You can wallow in your inaccessible tower as much as you want. Us normal people will just have to get on with living, I suppose."
You won't earn much respect here by being a pretentious condescending wanker, let alone a hypocrite.
Maybe I should ask you "What is normal?", because it seems to me the 'normal' people around here are perfectly capable of understanding this, even if you're not. :lol:

[nuisance]

A reply to Axel1917 in the "Why anarchism sucks" thread.

"Top this off with the fact that every citation they use against Lenin is nothing more than a regurgitation of lies you find in bourgeois textbooks."

Examples of this would be nice ;)

"And well, history has proven anarchism to be ineffective countless times, and history has taken its revenge on anarchism"

Opposed to 'communism', which has been really successful.

"with it largely being confined to angry youths that outgrow it by the time they finish college."

Are you actually involved in any leftist groups? Jeez that is a horribly wrong statement!

"And when anarchism is involved in the class struggle, it is economist, i.e. IWW"

News flash, the IWW is not anarchist, and infact distants itself from anarchism. Yes, anarchists are members of the IWW, however it is not an anarchist organistation.

"Hell, I will go as far to say that anarcho-syndicalism in general is a form of economism."

I'm intrigued to how you came to this point of view, so why?

[Unicorn]

I think people are attracted to anarchism because it promises so much. Wouldn't it be wonderful to skip the transition phase and live in a communist society? Sadly, it takes much so much time to build a socialist society and achieve a worldwide revolution that I won't live long enough to see the transition to communism.

[nuisance]

I think people are attracted to anarchism because it promises so much. Wouldn't it be wonderful to skip the transition phase and live in a communist society? Sadly, it takes much so much time to build a socialist society and achieve a worldwide revolution that I won't live long enough to see the transition to communism.Again the ill-formed belief that anarchism doesn't accept the need for a sort of a transitional stage. Just because we don't adovcate a state, doesn't mean that we think it shall be possible to achieve communism straight from revolution. There are many threads that subject here already, please read them.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I think people are attracted to anarchism because it promises so much. Wouldn't it be wonderful to skip the transition phase and live in a communist society? Sadly, it takes much so much time to build a socialist society and achieve a worldwide revolution that I won't live long enough to see the transition to communism.

Anarchists are against a transitional state, not a transition in general, you silly goose.

[Unicorn]

Anarchists are against a transitional state, not a transition in general, you silly goose.
Humm... I admit my knowledge of anarchism is lacking but nobody can really say anything authoritative about that ideology.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Humm... I admit my knowledge of anarchism is lacking but nobody can really say anything authoritative about that ideology.


Class struggle anarchists, the real ones who are organized, have dealt with this matter pretty authoritatively, starting with Kropotkin and then on.

[Lamanov]

Anarchists and Marxists have the same goal; a communist society, we only differ on how we believe we will get there. Anarchists believe that no transition period is necessary, that centuries of class-society can be gotten rid of right away, that a de-centralized federation of communes (which is pretty vague in and of itself, the system used by Makhno was very different from the system used by the Spanish anarchists, so no one really knows what exactly they're talking about) can hold out against the overthrown bourgeoisie and the bourgeois still in power in other countries.

This only tells us that you have no idea whatsoever on how anarchist perceive revolutionary transition, and that they do have it for that matter.

What the fuck does it mean "communes can hold out against the bourgeoisie"? What the fuck is that? The idealistic power of a "commune" can fight back the bourgeoisie? No, my dear comrade. Workers' militias with guns in hand under the control of these "communes" (workers' councils) fight off the bourgeois.

Second, anarchists don't believe you can just "wipe out" entire structure and ways of functioning of class society. There are some anarchists who believe in "collectivist" transition period. Many others, such as myself, believe that the transition period will be the toughest of all, when organisation of the anti-state power of the councils must be created.

It is also not true that these concepts were never discussed. In Spain 1935-6 there was a whole thousand pages series of "anticipationist" discussions published by the anarchist press, and several books that deal with these issues. Most notable one by Abad de Santillan, After the Revolution.

Unlike you trotskyist fans of state capitalism, we do believe, however, that we must immediately abolish several backbones of capitalist society, namely wage labor and bourgeois state machinery. (Lenin, on the other hand, kept both: he turned bourgeois state into a bolshevik state, and kept wage labor in tacked.)


Yup, which is pretty much why I don't bother getting into debates with anarchists here anymore.

That, or we just don't wan to debate you, because you're irrelevant.


Hell, I will go as far to say that anarcho-syndicalism in general is a form of economism.

That would be because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And do your fucking homework: IWW is not an anarcho-syndicalist organisation.

[Q]

Besides that you're full of bullshit, what are you doing in the Trotskyist subforum?

[OI OI OI]

Unlike you trotskyist fans of state capitalism, we do believe, however, that we must immediately abolish several backbones of capitalist society, namely wage labor and bourgeois state machinery. (Lenin, on the other hand, kept both: he turned bourgeois state into a bolshevik state, and kept wage labor in tacked.)

How can you abolish wages in a society of scarcity (ie the society after the revolution).
How did Lenin keep the bourgeois state machinery? Direct control of the Soviets (workers councils) is bourgeois? that's just insane...



That, or we just don't wan to debate you, because you're irrelevant.

I think that LZ is one of the most serious posters on revleft and his arguments against anarchism hold a lot of validity. He is certainly not irrelevant.

[Lamanov]

Besides that you're full of bullshit, what are you doing in the Trotskyist subforum?

Oh, shit! That's right. Wow! Sorry, I will not bother you any longer. :blink:


How can you abolish wages in a society of scarcity (ie the society after the revolution).

You abolish wage labor! Unless you do, capitalist relations remain. You don't abolish distribution or means to simplify it.


How did Lenin keep the bourgeois state machinery? Direct control of the Soviets (workers councils) is bourgeois? that's just insane...

Soviets filled up with non-recallable bolshevik "delegats" were mere executives of decisions delivered on party congresses, Politburo and the government or VCIK.


I think that LZ is one of the most serious posters on revleft and his arguments against anarchism hold a lot of validity. He is certainly not irrelevant.

I meant Trotskyists.

[OI OI OI]

You abolish wage labor! Unless you do, capitalist relations remain. You don't abolish distribution or means to simplify it.

But wages are a means of simplifying distribution of goods ..........


Soviets filled up with non-recallable bolshevik "delegats" were mere executives of decisions delivered on party congresses, Politburo and the government or VCIK.
The workers state which was healthy started to degenerate even before Lenin's death but that does not mean that the Soviets were bourgeois state machinery. They degenerated because of the backwardness of Russia and its isolation amongst other reasons. To say that the Soviets were bourgeois state machinery is idiotic

[Q]

Oh, shit! That's right. Wow! Sorry, I will not bother you any longer. :blink:

Thank you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As an intruder myself, I think DJ-TC was referring to labour credit (back then called "labour-time vouchers"). They do not circulate, and they expire, thereby eliminating the formation of capital.

[OI OI OI]

As an intruder myself, I think DJ-TC was referring to labour credit (back then called "labour-time vouchers"). They do not circulate, and they expire, thereby eliminating the formation of capital.Yes we should also use magic and instead of producing goods in factories we would make them appear with a spell .

It is not capital that we fear it is the lack of workers democracy created by certain objective conditions. We need capital for developping the means of production by re-investing the surplus value .
Now either it is labour credit or money if the objective conditions exist a bureaucratic and parasitic class is going to exist. Either we want it or not .

[Die Neue Zeit]

Please, don't spoil this thread. Do it like Black & Red did; make a thread in the general forum or - and I use the words of JR - "If you want to join and address ... [a particular subject], go right ahead, but please leave your ... [everything but trotskyist] shoes at the door (at least you can wear them again outside the group)."

:tt2:

I don't recall saying that. :confused: Oh wait, I remember: that was when I invited you. :D


We need capital for developing the means of production by re-investing the surplus value.

No we don't (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm). You're suggesting a false dilemma between capital accumulation and Lassalleanism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html).

[Black Sheep]

[/i]Which basically means that some anarchists accept the idea of a vanguard in theory but not in practice.

In theory anarchists are revolutionary, too, but in practice they're usually reactionary.

That statement requires that the mode of organization of the vanguard party is a must,which requires some proof.

There are some ups and downs to that mode of organization, and weighing them leads to to a decision of whether to utilize it or not.

Anyway,claiming that any vanguard not organized in a party (let alone a New Type Communist Party) is reactionary, well that is obsurd,as long as you don't adequately support your claim.

edit: damn, i necro'd it , ididnt notice the date of the last post.