Transition

[Pogue]

How do we avoid the authoritarian state capitalist development often seen after the implementation of some form of Marx-Leninism, when we're in the transitional stage from Capitalism to Communism, otherwise known as Socialism? Because I like the ML idea of a workers state to fend of the anti-socialist agressors, etc, but don't like the room for it being hijacked.
And Anarchism - whats the transitional stage? How does it defend against capitalism/fascism? If this turns into another pathetic slagging off contest or debate between two thread hijackers, then I wont be happy :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Yehuda Stern]

There is no magic solution. The only way for a revolutionary proletarian regime to remain healthy is to extend the revolution all over the world. Each victory assists not only the existing workers' states but the revolution in other countries as well.

[Decolonize The Left]

How do we avoid the authoritarian state capitalist development often seen after the implementation of some form of Marx-Leninism, when we're in the transitional stage from Capitalism to Communism, otherwise known as Socialism? Because I like the ML idea of a workers state to fend of the anti-socialist agressors, etc, but don't like the room for it being hijacked.
And Anarchism - whats the transitional stage? How does it defend against capitalism/fascism? If this turns into another pathetic slagging off contest or debate between two thread hijackers, then I wont be happy :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Most communists who advocate a transitional stage between capitalism and communism will argue that this stage must be defended by the people against the anti-revolutionary aggressors. Some will argue for the formation of militias, others for the intervention of the Vanguard party.

As for anarchists, there is no such thing as a 'transitional stage.' If anarchism and communism advocate a society based around the principal: to each according to their need, from each according to their ability, such a society is brought about through the individual decision to engage in such a lifestyle everyday. Thus, the 'revolution' is constantly occurring, and anarchists have no need for abstract, future-oriented planning and speculation.

- August

[GPDP]

As for anarchists, there is no such thing as a 'transitional stage.' If anarchism and communism advocate a society based around the principal: to each according to their need, from each according to their ability, such a society is brought about through the individual decision to engage in such a lifestyle everyday. Thus, the 'revolution' is constantly occurring, and anarchists have no need for abstract, future-oriented planning and speculation.

Isn't that lifestyle anarchism? Because from what I can gather, most of us do advocate a transitional stage.

In before this turns into another "transition or no transition" debate.

[Qwerty489]

That is because anarchists are naive ultra-leftists and Utopians with absolutely no plan, they have nothing in common with us scientific socialists who actually want to build communism.

[Decolonize The Left]

Isn't that lifestyle anarchism? Because from what I can gather, most of us do advocate a transitional stage.

Perhaps you are correct. I was under the impression that the main difference between anarchism and communism was the debate over a transitional stage towards the end goal of communism/anarchism ('to each according to need, from each according to ability'). I am aware that there are many different modes of thought within each of these over-arching theories, but to generalize (as we are all working towards the same thing) I thought that was simple enough.


That is because anarchists are naive ultra-leftists and Utopians with absolutely no plan, they have nothing in common with us scientific socialists who actually want to build communism.

I have no interest in your worthless remarks of slander.

- August

[gla22]

When the revolution occurs I would enact a bunch of rights, one being the right for a community to secede from all or parts of governmental oversight.

[Decolonize The Left]

When the revolution occurs I would enact a bunch of rights, one being the right for a community to secede from all or parts of governmental oversight.

Dear friend, when the revolution occurs (if it is indeed a mass movement) there will be no need for a 'declaration of rights' as you will be already be free of 'governmental oversight.'

- August

[Qwerty489]

An anarchist 'revolution' wouldn't last a week, anarchists are so weak and liberal that the bourgeois counter-revolution would sweep them out in no time at all.

Anarchism is actually very close to fascism and social-democracy in rhetoric because it appeals 'to the people as a whole' and not to the working class, it also appeals to bourgeois notions of 'rights' and 'freedoms' (see 'bourgeois rights' and 'bourgeois freedoms') rather than to class rule.

By preference anarchists appeal to 'pure democracy', 'workplace self-management' and all these other airy-fairy Utopian concepts.


"We cannot speak of 'pure democracy' so long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy".
(V.I. Lenin: "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", in: "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 129).
"The bourgeoisie finds it advantageous and necessary to conceal the bourgeois character of modern democracy from the people and to depict it as democracy in general, or as 'pure democracy'...
The bourgeoisie is obliged to be hypocritical and to describe the (bourgeois) democratic government as 'popular government', or democracy in general or pure democracy, when as a matter of fact it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the mass of the toilers".
(V.I. Lenin: "Democracy' and Dictatorship", in: ibid.; p. 219, 220).

[Decolonize The Left]

An anarchist 'revolution' wouldn't last a week, anarchists are so weak and liberal that the bourgeois counter-revolution would sweep them out in no time at all.

Anarchism is actually very close to fascism and social-democracy in rhetoric because it appeals 'to the people as a whole' and not to the working class, it also appeals to bourgeois notions of 'rights' and 'freedoms' (see 'bourgeois rights' and 'bourgeois freedoms') rather than to class rule.

By preference anarchists appeal to 'pure democracy', 'workplace self-management' and all these other airy-fairy Utopian concepts.


Your first statement is without justification and therefore worthless slander. Your second statement makes broad generalizations in an attempt to appear thoughtful and carefully written.
And then, you quote Lenin in an attempt to justify yourself? :lol:

- August

[mykittyhasaboner]

An anarchist 'revolution' wouldn't last a week, anarchists are so weak and liberal that the bourgeois counter-revolution would sweep them out in no time at all.
what about Catalonia?



Anarchism is actually very close to fascism and social-democracy in rhetoric because it appeals 'to the people as a whole' and not to the working class, it also appeals to bourgeois notions of 'rights' and 'freedoms' (see 'bourgeois rights' and 'bourgeois freedoms') rather than to class rule.
right so because anarchists advocate rights and freedom, we want an oppressive fascist regime? your not really making any sense.

[F9]

And Anarchism - whats the transitional stage?

Transitional stage as for us Anarchists is the period where when change from capitalism directly to Anarchism!As for me i see the transitional stage a part of the revolution,the revolution wont stop when the capitalist forces resign or get down but when we get totally clear from capitalism and we set the bases to continue with Anarchism!


How does it defend against capitalism/fascism?

We try to destroy capitalism, so and the fascists, during the revolution so they wont come back against us(we DONT kill people just to be capitalists to be clear or from their differential on ideas).To be the proper result the revolution should be worldwide so the capitalists and counter-revolutionaries get defeated all over the world so there wont be any need of afraid of intervations from other capitalists countries!
Although if there is still the danger of other capitalists countries which havent thrown down be comrades the defence of communities would be a matter which would be decided how we react.Maybe some defending equipment will produced so we quruntee the safe of the people and their freedom!And in a great need people would protect thereselwes and their communities even if they need to get weapons in their hands again(volunteering of course).

Fuserg9:star:

[mykittyhasaboner]

And Anarchism - whats the transitional stage? How does it defend against capitalism/fascism?
id say the transition would have to be the rationing of needs that are scarce, according to who needs them the most, and how the product is used. there would probably still be markets early on, possibly the implementation of labor vouchers.

to defend against counter-revolution, I would propose militias formed in each community. weapon and ammunition distribution would most likely be collectivized, as there is plenty of that stuff.;)

[Qwerty489]

what about Catalonia?


right so because anarchists advocate rights and freedom, we want an oppressive fascist regime? your not really making any sense.
You know little of real politics it seems. Fascist never claimed they wanted to hand out oppression even though it's what they did. Fascism claimed to be a 'third way' between capitalism and communism, but was in fact just a disguise for bourgeois dictatorship.

Anarchist third-positionists often use such rhetoric, usually saying they represent a middle ground from 'Stalinism' and capitalism.

Emotional appeals to 'freedom' and 'democracy' stink of bourgeois politics to anyone who has smelt that stench before. Anarchists are weak on the class struggle and their non-support of ALL authority means they don't support the authority of a RULING WORKING CLASS, they are therefore counter-revolutionary class enemies.

[F9]

Qwerty just FUCK OFF you and the shits you have in your mind!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Fuserg9:star:

[Decolonize The Left]

You know little of real politics it seems. Fascist never claimed they wanted to hand out oppression even though it's what they did. Fascism claimed to be a 'third way' between capitalism and communism, but was in fact just a disguise for bourgeois dictatorship.

Anarchist third-positionists often use such rhetoric, usually saying they represent a middle ground from 'Stalinism' and capitalism.

Emotional appeals to 'freedom' and 'democracy' stink of bourgeois politics to anyone who has smelt that stench before. Anarchists are weak on the class struggle and their non-support of ALL authority means they don't support the authority of a RULING WORKING CLASS, they are therefore counter-revolutionary class enemies.

I would first like to point out the the original poster requested that this thread not be hijacked, which has subsequently been done due to your inability to formulate coherent arguments. But in the interest of bettering our cause, I will address your comments.

Firstly, if there was in fact a revolution and classes were dissolved (which I assume you support), then there would be no classes and therefore could be no "RULING WORKING CLASS." It's irrelevant. Think about it for a second before you respond...

Secondly, anarchists are indeed highly skeptical and often overtly oppose all forms of authority - and for good reason. Authority leads to justified power, justified power leads to abuse. Again, take a minute to follow the logic of my argument please.

Thirdly, you claim that anarchists claim a middle ground between stalinism and capitalism. Without any source, this claim is again... worthless slander. BUT, you have also failed to note that Stalinism (otherwise known as authoritarian dictatorship) and capitalism are not the opposite ends of the political spectrum. In fact, political theory cannot be graphed on a one-dimensional line, but rather needs a second axis. Hence your claim about anarchists vying for some 'middle ground' is not only unjustified, but also entirely false as it fails to grasp the basic rudiments of political theory.

- August

[mykittyhasaboner]

You know little of real politics it seems. Fascist never claimed they wanted to hand out oppression even though it's what they did. Fascism claimed to be a 'third way' between capitalism and communism, but was in fact just a disguise for bourgeois dictatorship.
so fascists deceive people into believing in fascism. what does this have to do with anarchism?


Anarchist third-positionists often use such rhetoric, usually saying they represent a middle ground from 'Stalinism' and capitalism.anarchist third positionists? :lol:


Emotional appeals to 'freedom' and 'democracy' stink of bourgeois politics to anyone who has smelt that stench before.so your arguing against freedom and democracy?


Anarchists are weak on the class struggle and their non-support of ALL authority means they don't support the authority of a RULING WORKING CLASS, they are therefore counter-revolutionary class enemies.wrong, some anarchists oppose coercive and compulsory authority. but opposing all authority isnt so bad either, as extreme authority as August stated usually leads to unjust oppression.

PS: Sorry HLVS, but Qwuerty is stating some pretty non sensical arguments so we have to refute them because their false.

[Pogue]

Come on guys, I genuinely want to learn about this stuff, not read another argument which does not belong in this thread! Please take this argument you're having into private messages, so I can better understand the transitional phase.

[Decolonize The Left]

Come on guys, I genuinely want to learn about this stuff, not read another argument which does not belong in this thread! Please take this argument you're having into private messages, so I can better understand the transitional phase.

I understand this, in fact I noted this in my last post. I will try to simplify further:

'Socialism' is both an ideology (could also be referred to as 'welfare capitalism') and a stage in the movement from capitalism to communism according to Marxist theory. To address your original question of authoritarian development during this stage, I would say the following.

There are several ways to respond to reactionary backlash towards a revolution. There is 1) armed conflict, 2) propaganda, 3) non-violent methods of persuasion. It is most likely that all three of these methods will need to be employed at one time or another.

If you are a fan of the worker's state, then you must take with it the risk of it being hi-jacked. The only way this would not happen, and this is quite idealistic, is to have all the workers be fully conscious of their positions. Some might argue that if this is the case then a worker's state would not be necessary in the first place due to the overwhelming class consciousness rendering the state obsolete.

- August

[Niccolò Rossi]

As for anarchists, there is no such thing as a 'transitional stage.'

Any (level-headed) anarchist would tell you otherwise...


The only way this would not happen, and this is quite idealistic, is to have all the workers be fully conscious of their positions.

Would you care to explain what exactly you mean by 'workers be fully conscious of their positions'? Also, why is this idealistic?

If by conscious you meant class conscious, I think it is a necessity for the the whole working masses for any revolution worthy of the title of 'proletarian' and any hope at a successful transition. You can not hope to build socialism with a small base of class conscious party members, the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.


Some might argue that if this is the case then a worker's state would not be necessary in the first place due to the overwhelming class consciousness rendering the state obsolete.

Why someone would argue such a ridiculous case is beyond me. Even if/when the whole of the working masses have a revolutionary class consciousness the 'state' will still be necessary to prevent counter-revolutionary actions by the remnants of the bourgeoisie.

[KC]

If by conscious you meant class conscious, I think it is a necessity for the the whole working masses for any revolution worthy of the title of 'proletarian' and any hope at a successful transition.

There is never a time when the entire working class will be class conscious; the more backward elements will always remain so, and the more extreme elements will even support counterrevolution. Because of the different levels of development of consciousness in the proletariat, a complete class consciousness of the entire class is impossible.

[Decolonize The Left]

Any (level-headed) anarchist would tell you otherwise...

Is that so? I beg to differ. Anarchist theory does not necessitate a transitional stage between capitalism and communism/anarchism known as 'socialism.' The primary reason for this is that anarchists are generally highly skeptical of authority and hierarchy, and to organize a 'worker's state' would almost necessary imply some sort of hierarchical authority (such as the vanguard, for example). As far as I understand, anarchism calls for the revolution of the working class against the state and capitalist economics, but does not posit any sort of step-by-step guideline for the masses. In other words, anarchist theory sees the revolution as a constant process which does not have any definite beginning or end.


Would you care to explain what exactly you mean by 'workers be fully conscious of their positions'? Also, why is this idealistic?

I mean exactly what I said. "Workers being fully conscious of their positions" as proletariat; i.e. class consciousness.


If by conscious you meant class conscious, I think it is a necessity for the the whole working masses for any revolution worthy of the title of 'proletarian' and any hope at a successful transition. You can not hope to build socialism with a small base of class conscious party members, the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.

This is highly idealistic, to the point of being absurd for the following reason:

There is never a time when the entire working class will be class conscious; the more backward elements will always remain so, and the more extreme elements will even support counterrevolution. Because of the different levels of development of consciousness in the proletariat, a complete class consciousness of the entire class is impossible.



Why someone would argue such a ridiculous case is beyond me. Even if/when the whole of the working masses have a revolutionary class consciousness the 'state' will still be necessary to prevent counter-revolutionary actions by the remnants of the bourgeoisie.

Here you have just posited a claim with no justification. You claim that a 'state' will be necessary, but that is purely your opinion. I have stated that this sort of state may not be necessary for several reasons:
1) If, as you claim, all the workers are class conscious, then there would be no need for a 'worker's state' as the workers themselves are capable of sustaining socialism without the help of any sort of state (remember? they're class conscious to the extreme).
2) A 'worker's state' is vaguely contradictory to the basic assumptions of communism, namely that the state is a coercive institution. I'm aware that a worker's state is different than the capitalist state, but it is coercive none-the-less.
3) Forming a state with a hierarchical authority is only opening the doors for corruption and abuses of power (I believe history is on my side here...).
4) Should the revolution be understood by the majority of individuals, and its justification felt throughout the working class, there ought to be enough motivation to withstand a counter-revolutionary offense.

At the risk of this quickly becoming my own personal speculations, I will end here.

- August

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Is that so? I beg to differ. Anarchist theory does not necessitate a transitional stage between capitalism and communism/anarchism known as 'socialism.' The primary reason for this is that anarchists are generally highly skeptical of authority and hierarchy, and to organize a 'worker's state' would almost necessary imply some sort of hierarchical authority (such as the vanguard, for example). As far as I understand, anarchism calls for the revolution of the working class against the state and capitalist economics, but does not posit any sort of step-by-step guideline for the masses. In other words, anarchist theory sees the revolution as a constant process which does not have any definite beginning or end.

- August

You need to read this thread where we anarchists unequivocally state the opposite of your suppositions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/addressing-anarchist-communists-t83038/index.html). Now please stop telling anarchists what anarchists believe, it is rather frustrating.

[Decolonize The Left]

You need to read this thread where we anarchists unequivocally state the opposite of your suppositions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/addressing-anarchist-communists-t83038/index.html). Now please stop telling anarchists what anarchists believe, it is rather frustrating.

Well, if you would read carefully what I had previously written (instead of reacting without thought), you would have seen that in no sense did I speak for "we anarchists." I mentioned on several occasions that "anarchist theory does not necessitate..."; And I wrote that anarchists "generally are..."; and to top it all off, I wrote "As far as I understand, anarchism...".

Did you even read my post before 'telling me stop telling you what you believe'? That's what is rather frustrating. And even furthermore, if you disagree with my opinion you are free to discuss whatever issues you may have in a dignified manner - no need to post a quick link to an article full of bickering by two individuals. I'm always happy to have a dialogue, but I don't appreciate you not paying close attention to my word choice and then generalizing my words into an 'us vs. them' situation.

- August

[Niccolò Rossi]

There is never a time when the entire working class will be class conscious; the more backward elements will always remain so, and the more extreme elements will even support counter-revolution. Because of the different levels of development of consciousness in the proletariat, a complete class consciousness of the entire class is impossible.

There are a few issues with this statement and my own I would like to address.

Firstly, the word 'whole' is inappropriate. I understand that not ever individual can posses a 'revolutionary class consciousness'. As you noted certain elements will inevitably play into the hands of reaction. However I stand strongly by the statement that the working masses must posses a 'revolutionary class consciousness' for there to be any hope of a successful transition and socialism.

"The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself"- Marx & Engels from Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/17.htm). No elite, class conscious vanguard/vanguard party can hope to drag the masses toward liberation, it must be their own doing (Note, this in no way implies that a. The vanguard is not an inevitable and necessary outgrowth of the class struggle of the proletariat b. That the working masses will emancipate themselves 'spontaneously')


Anarchist theory does not necessitate a transitional stage between capitalism and communism/anarchism known as 'socialism.'

I think you are slightly confused. Ask any of the anarcho-communists on the board and they do not reject a 'transitional period'. Your mistake is you confuse 'transitional period' with a transitional 'workers state'. The Anarchists do not see a state existing during their 'transition period' as they define state in a manner different to Marxists. This difference in definition is essential to any debate or discussion on Anarchism and Marxism.

Anarchists define the state in keeping with the definition proposed by Max Weber, the same used by mainstream political scientists today. To the anarchist, the state is: "a centralized, hierarchical, governing institution which maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force".

Marxists, as you aught to know, use a completely different definition. The define the state as: "an organ of one class's repression of other classes".

When the anarchists say they reject the state in a transitional period it is important to apply their definition. When a Marxist advocates a workers state, it is likewise essential to apply their definition of the state.


The primary reason for this is that anarchists are generally highly sceptical of authority and hierarchy, and to organize a 'worker's state' would almost necessary imply some sort of hierarchical authority

I disagree. A 'workers state' need not be hierarchical or centralised. The state (in the Marxist sense of the word) can take on any number of different forms, so long as it is an organ of class rule. The state organ appears different in different nations, societies and modes of production because it reflects the differing needs and roles the state is to play and which class' rule it is exercising. The proletariat, (will be) unlike all hitherto ruling classes a majority. The state will no longer be an organ for the supremacy of the minority to the majority, but of the majority in 'exterminating' the a minority. Thus we can conclude that since the task of such a state will be different and the class who's rule it is exercising is of a fundamentally different character the state will take on a different form than it has in hitherto existing class society.



(such as the vanguard, for example).

What does the 'vanguard' have to do with the state post-revolution? Do you mean the vanguard party? If so, the vanguard party only serves a role pre-revolution. As I mentioned above, the emancipation of the proletariat will be the act of the proletariat itself, it can not be dragged into the 'promise land' by some Moses (to use the words of Eugene Debs).


This is highly idealistic, to the point of being absurd

As I've said above, the word 'whole' is out of place, but To say that the proletariat need be dragged to it's liberation by a vanguard party is even more idealistic, we've all seen the consequences.


1) If, as you claim, all the workers are class conscious, then there would be no need for a 'worker's state' as the workers themselves are capable of sustaining socialism without the help of any sort of state (remember? they're class conscious to the extreme).

Me thinks you don't know how to define the 'state'. Even if in your words " the workers themselves are capable of sustaining socialism" they will only be able to sustain it my means of coercion, thus a state (in the Marxist sense).


2) A 'worker's state' is vaguely contradictory to the basic assumptions of communism, namely that the state is a coercive institution. I'm aware that a worker's state is different than the capitalist state, but it is coercive none-the-less.

Of course it's contradictory to communism, you can't have communism whilst the state and class remnants still exist. But until the bourgeoisie are liquidated workers must (and will) inevitably use coercive force to defend their gains, this is a state (in the Marxist sense of the word), whether or not they realise it or not (i.e. use the Anarchist definition)


3) Forming a state with a hierarchical authority is only opening the doors for corruption and abuses of power (I believe history is on my side here...).

I agree completely, please note the definition of the 'state' (in the Marxist sense) allows for a decentralised and non-hierarchical state.


4) Should the revolution be understood by the majority of individuals, and its justification felt throughout the working class, there ought to be enough motivation to withstand a counter-revolutionary offence.

To repeat myself once again, just in case you aren't following. Whether or not the working masses realise the institution they forge spontaneously is a 'state' or not, it is an inevitability.

[Decolonize The Left]

There are a few issues with this statement and my own I would like to address.

Firstly, the word 'whole' is inappropriate. I understand that not ever individual can posses a 'revolutionary class consciousness'. As you noted certain elements will inevitably play into the hands of reaction. However I stand strongly by the statement that the working masses must posses a 'revolutionary class consciousness' for there to be any hope of a successful transition and socialism.

"The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself"- Marx & Engels from Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/17.htm). No elite, class conscious vanguard/vanguard party can hope to drag the masses toward liberation, it must be their own doing (Note, this in no way implies that a. The vanguard is not an inevitable and necessary outgrowth of the class struggle of the proletariat b. That the working masses will emancipate themselves 'spontaneously')

I accept your clarification regarding the use of the word "whole." I fully understand the argument that the majority, or as you have said "the masses," must be fully committed and understanding of the revolution. I also accept this argument as it seems to me to be the most logical and coherent.

I do disagree with your claim that the vanguard party is "an inevitable and necessary outgrowth of the class struggle of the proletariat." I don't see how one can make such an absolutist claim when the 'revolution' (conceived of as a mass movement by the proletariat) has not happened, nor seems to be on the horizon (although this latter claim can certainly be debated).


Your mistake is you confuse 'transitional period' with a transitional 'workers state'.

You are absolutely correct.


Anarchists define the state in keeping with the definition proposed by Max Weber, the same used by mainstream political scientists today. To the anarchist, the state is: "a centralized, hierarchical, governing institution which maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force".

Marxists, as you aught to know, use a completely different definition. The define the state as: "an organ of one class's repression of other classes".

While I accept that these two views of the state may be differentiated, I do not necessarily see them as mutually exclusive. It makes perfect sense to me to see the Marxist definition of the state be applied through the means elaborated in the anarchist definition. After all, you are speaking of the "repression" of an entire class. If you can explain to me how such a large scale repression (or oppression if you prefer) can occur without a hierarchical system of authority, I'm listening. Note: I'm aware that you somewhat answered this in your following section, which I will respond to now.


The state (in the Marxist sense of the word) can take on any number of different forms, so long as it is an organ of class rule.

This is obviously true. My point was not that it must take a hierarchical form, but that it is logically highly probable and I have yet to be convinced otherwise.


The proletariat, (will be) unlike all hitherto ruling classes a majority. The state will no longer be an organ for the supremacy of the minority to the majority, but of the majority in 'exterminating' the a minority. Thus we can conclude that since the task of such a state will be different and the class who's rule it is exercising is of a fundamentally different character the state will take on a different form than it has in hitherto existing class society.

I fully agree, and am in no way claiming that a proletarian state (to use the Marxist definition) will be identical, or even similar to, the current capitalist/imperialist state. But what I am saying is that with such a large amount of land, and such a large group of people, I don't see how the "extermination" of the capitalist class (or the "repression" if you prefer) can occur without a hierarchical system of authority...


I agree completely, please note the definition of the 'state' (in the Marxist sense) allows for a decentralised and non-hierarchical state.

I am certain it does, and I wish with all my heart that it will. But I cannot claim logically that I believe this to be probable. I can't see how one can coordinate violence on the scale upon which we speak without some sort of vast hierarchical network of authority whereby the "extermination" of the capitalist class is made efficient (note: here I leave aside the argument as to whether or not violence ought to be employed).

On pains of repeating myself when I feel as though my objections have been made clear, I will end here. On a side note, I would like to thank you for conducting yourself with integrity and respect in this discussion.

- August

[Niccolò Rossi]

I do disagree with your claim that the vanguard party is "an inevitable and necessary outgrowth of the class struggle of the proletariat." I don't see how one can make such an absolutist claim when the 'revolution' (conceived of as a mass movement by the proletariat) has not happened, nor seems to be on the horizon (although this latter claim can certainly be debated).

You raise a very legitimate point. I make the claim that the vanguard party is "an inevitable and necessary outgrowth of the class struggle of the proletariat" on the basis of the uneven development of class consciousness (as pointed out by Zampano). This uneven development, caused by factors such as education, ideology (whether that of the ruling class or the revoltuionary class), material living conditions and so many interconnecting others, results (almost) inevitably in class consciousness among a minority of workers. It is the task of this minority to imbue all other working 'masses' with such a revolutionary class consciousness, without which a sucessful revolutionary struggle can not be waged.

History has shown us that events of intense crisis and acute material stress, revolutionary class consciousness can appear on a wider scale (not necessarily a 'mass scale'), but this is by no means a justification of any form of 'spontaneity'. All class conscious workers (members of the vanguard) have a 'duty', whether in times of relative stability or crisis, to imbue class consciousness amongst others by means of education and propaganda.



While I accept that these two views of the state may be differentiated, I do not necessarily see them as mutually exclusive.


I agree. Matter of fact, Marxism and Anarchism (not just their definitions of the 'state') are themselves not mutually exclusive either.



It makes perfect sense to me to see the Marxist definition of the state be applied through the means elaborated in the anarchist definition.


It may be possible theoretically, but practically impossible. The proletariat (generally speaking) can not employ a state organ structured for the perpetual rule of minority exploiting class (eg. The capitalist state machinery, standing army, parliaments). The proletarian state must be geared not toward the continuation of class rule by a minority, but rather, the abolition of a class rule by the majority. These two tasks require completely different state machinery.



After all, you are speaking of the "repression" of an entire class. If you can explain to me how such a large scale repression (or oppression if you prefer) can occur without a hierarchical system of authority, I'm listening.


I personally lack the ability to explain so thoroughly, but since you are interested I suggest you do some reading on Council Communism (http://libcom.org/thought/council-communism-an-introduction), especially the works of Pannekoek (http://marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/index.htm) and Mattick (http://marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/index.htm) on Workers' Councils.

[Decolonize The Left]

All class conscious workers (members of the vanguard) have a 'duty', whether in times of relative stability or crisis, to imbue class consciousness amongst others by means of education and propaganda.

I was not aware that the Vanguard Party consisted solely of "all class conscious workers." I was under the impression that there existed class conscious workers, and on top of that - the Vanguard Party (that party which directs and coordinates the workings of the class conscious workers)...


Matter of fact, Marxism and Anarchism (not just their definitions of the 'state') are themselves not mutually exclusive either.

Indeed they are not, in fact I view them as almost identical. It is one of my primary goals on this forum to logically and coherently argue that communists and anarchists need not beat each other up over theoretical nonsense when we ought to be working together.


The proletariat (generally speaking) can not employ a state organ structured for the perpetual rule of minority exploiting class (eg. The capitalist state machinery, standing army, parliaments). The proletarian state must be geared not toward the continuation of class rule by a minority, but rather, the abolition of a class rule by the majority. These two tasks require completely different state machinery.

I follow your thought, but here you have begun with an empirical statement and followed with a normative one. This is not completely coherent. I understand your claim that there exist substantive differences between a proletarian/worker's state and a capitalist one, no objections here, but I am skeptical of the notion that those in charge of the proletarian state will not employ hierarchical and perhaps even authoritarian means to achieve their goals. To this you may respond that the workers will obviously be in charge, as we are using the Marxist definition here, and perhaps in light of this I would merely re-iterate my last objection. I will do my best to explore the work you have offered as that was your response.

- August

[gla22]

Dear friend, when the revolution occurs (if it is indeed a mass movement) there will be no need for a 'declaration of rights' as you will be already be free of 'governmental oversight.'

- August

That is depending on what type of revolution we are having. i support both the socialist and anarchist model. Whatever works at achieving the stateless classless society, our common goal.

[Decolonize The Left]

That is depending on what type of revolution we are having. i support both the socialist and anarchist model. Whatever works at achieving the stateless classless society, our common goal.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the post-revolutionary condition of the people will be the stateless, classless, society of which you speak. I refer here to the anarchist definition of state, not the Marxist definition.

And I too shall support whatever model comes into being so long as it is launched by the people themselves, though I shall make my arguments as I see appropriate.

- August

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well, if you would read carefully what I had previously written (instead of reacting without thought), you would have seen that in no sense did I speak for "we anarchists." I mentioned on several occasions that "anarchist theory does not necessitate..."; And I wrote that anarchists "generally are..."; and to top it all off, I wrote "As far as I understand, anarchism...".

Did you even read my post before 'telling me stop telling you what you believe'? That's what is rather frustrating. And even furthermore, if you disagree with my opinion you are free to discuss whatever issues you may have in a dignified manner - no need to post a quick link to an article full of bickering by two individuals. I'm always happy to have a dialogue, but I don't appreciate you not paying close attention to my word choice and then generalizing my words into an 'us vs. them' situation.

- August

Actually its, more or less, a poll of anarcho communists on revleft. Nearly every anarcho communist agrees that a transition is necessary. No one takes that "zero transition" stuff seriously in any sector of the movement. There is no need for a dialogue here as anarchists clearly state the necessity for transition. We've already decided the point.

We are against a "transitional state" of course, but that's another entirely. So yeah, stop talking about "what anarchists generally are" when they generally aren't that. Jesus! You don't see me telling you about how you should run a vanguard party.

[Decolonize The Left]

Actually its, more or less, a poll of anarcho communists on revleft. Nearly every anarcho communist agrees that a transition is necessary. No one takes that "zero transition" stuff seriously in any sector of the movement. There is no need for a dialogue here as anarchists clearly state the necessity for transition. We've already decided the point.

We are against a "transitional state" of course, but that's another entirely. So yeah, stop talking about "what anarchists generally are" when they generally aren't that. Jesus! You don't see me telling you about how you should run a vanguard party.

Seeing as how I never mentioned anything regarding the poll itself, I don't see why you need to defend it 'against' me... Furthermore, I do not take RevLeft to be the be-all-end-all of radical theory, nor do I believe every anarchist to be posting here or voting on polls - it is foolish to believe otherwise (think about it).

And there is always a need for dialogue. Your absolutist position is frightening given the fact that I have mentioned on numerous occasions that I believe a 'transition period' to be inevitable - I merely redefine it as a constant period rather than a set time between capitalism and communism (this naturally seems foolish to me as we cannot predict the relatively distant future in any sort of reliable fashion).

And finally, you badger me about speaking for anarchists when I have clearly not done so, and then you have the audacity to actually do so yourself. Look:

We've already decided the point.

We are against a "transitional state" of course, but that's another entirely.
Your hypocrisy is quite unsettling...

- August

[Niccolò Rossi]

I was not aware that the Vanguard Party consisted solely of "all class conscious workers." I was under the impression that there existed class conscious workers, and on top of that - the Vanguard Party (that party which directs and coordinates the workings of the class conscious workers)...

I see what's wrong. You are confusing the 'vanguard' and the 'vanguard party'. The 'vanguard' is that section of the proletariat who are at the forefront of the movement in terms of class consciousness. The 'vanguard party' is an organisation of (certain) members of the 'vanguard' united on the basis of a particular theory and practice, toward a set of political tasks and goals.

The 'vanguard' is an inevitability, the 'vanguard party' a possibility.


I am skeptical of the notion that those in charge of the proletarian state will not employ hierarchical and perhaps even authoritarian means to achieve their goals. To this you may respond that the workers will obviously be in charge, as we are using the Marxist definition here, and perhaps in light of this I would merely re-iterate my last objection.

I will indeed make such a response. The very existence of 'those in charge' indicates a hierarchical state organ, what the Anarchists imagine by the 'workers state'. The working masses have no use for such a centralised and hierarchical state where power rests in the hands of representatives alienated from the masses.


Your hypocrisy is quite unsettling...

How is JHG being hypocritical? Anarchists agree with a transitional period but not a transitional state. His statement is only hypocritical only when one takes the Marxist definition over that of the anarchists.

[Decolonize The Left]

I see what's wrong. You are confusing the 'vanguard' and the 'vanguard party'. The 'vanguard' is that section of the proletariat who are at the forefront of the movement in terms of class consciousness. The 'vanguard party' is an organisation of (certain) members of the 'vanguard' united on the basis of a particular theory and practice, toward a set of political tasks and goals.

The 'vanguard' is an inevitability, the 'vanguard party' a possibility.

I see your point quite clearly - thank you for clarifying.


How is JHG being hypocritical? Anarchists agree with a transitional period but not a transitional state. His statement is only hypocritical only when one takes the Marxist definition over that of the anarchists.

JHG's hypocrisy has nothing to do with his opinion on a transitional period. His hypocrisy comes from his badgering me over my speaking for all anarchists (when I had never done so, and even clarified this point in a previous post) and following this unfounded slander with a speech on behalf of other anarchists through the use of the prefix "we" on repeated occasions and the implications of me not being one of 'us' (referring to anarchists).

I do not take kindly to unfounded unproductive divisive slander on the part of my comrades, and also do not remain silent when it is thrown in my face.

- August

[Pogue]

Thanks guys, I really needed someone to help me with this, and instead you do excactly what I asked for you not to do and hijack the thread with more of your secterian theoretical bullshit.

For fucks sake.

[RedAnarchist]

Thanks guys, I really needed someone to help me with this, and instead you do excactly what I asked for you not to do and hijack the thread with more of your secterian theoretical bullshit.

For fucks sake.

Well, you can blame Qwerty489 for that, hes the sectarian troll that derailed this thread.

[F9]

Thanks guys, I really needed someone to help me with this, and instead you do excactly what I asked for you not to do and hijack the thread with more of your secterian theoretical bullshit.

For fucks sake.

even though that there was some hijack we did answer your questions,just go back see them and bring them up if you want with your questions!;)

Fuserg9:star:

[Niccolò Rossi]

Thanks guys, I really needed someone to help me with this, and instead you do excactly what I asked for you not to do and hijack the thread with more of your secterian theoretical bullshit.

I thought about this whilst I was posting, and if you look back over what I wrote their is something useful you can take out of it. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was not aware that the Vanguard Party consisted solely of "all class conscious workers." I was under the impression that there existed class conscious workers, and on top of that - the Vanguard Party (that party which directs and coordinates the workings of the class conscious workers)...

I see what's wrong. You are confusing the 'vanguard' and the 'vanguard party'. The 'vanguard' is that section of the proletariat who are at the forefront of the movement in terms of class consciousness. The 'vanguard party' is an organisation of (certain) members of the 'vanguard' united on the basis of a particular theory and practice, toward a set of political tasks and goals.

The 'vanguard' is an inevitability, the 'vanguard party' a possibility.

To both of you, I offer a "rediscovered" approach: the "vanguard" and the "vanguard party" act most effectively when they are identical, especially during the revolutionary epoch:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-revolutionary-t83064/index.html

To illustrate both this purpose and revolutionary-Marxism-as-merger, “circles of class consciousness” will be used, based on Kautsky’s “Circles of Awareness” (Lars Lih’s illustrative summary in Lenin Rediscovered of the final chapter of Kautsky’s The Class Struggle). A “Marxism” purged of reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism becomes practically revolutionary when all circles almost collapse into one gigantic circle of full class consciousness:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=66&pictureid=493

[Qwerty489]

Well, you can blame Qwerty489 for that, hes the sectarian troll that derailed this thread.
I would call myself a class partisan, not a sectarian, you see:

Anarchists = bourgeois class enemy

You're no different than a fascist.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I would call myself a class partisan, not a sectarian, you see:

Anarchists = bourgeois class enemy

You're no different than a fascist.

No, in fact, you are sectarian and does not provide any back up. You even fail at explaining the equation explanation. Just because you said it doesn't make it true or relevant. You even show that you have no fucking clue what anarchism is about.

[RedAnarchist]

I would call myself a class partisan, not a sectarian, you see:

Anarchists = bourgeois class enemy

You're no different than a fascist.

Well, the way you post makes me think of you as a sectarian, and I bet many others here feel the same way.

Do you know a guy named Bogovich, by any chance?

Actually, anarchism is the absolute opposite of fascism.

[Kami]

I would call myself a class partisan, not a sectarian, you see:

Anarchists = bourgeois class enemy

You're no different than a fascist.

If you had a clue about anarchism, you'd at the very least know it to be a worker's movement. spouting shit about it being bourgeois does not make it so.

None of us have any problem with you criticising anarchism, but if you insist on doing so while exhibiting a total ignorance of what it is, and continue to paint a workers movement as class enemies, then you'll remain nothing but a sectarian troll.

At the very least, explain why you think anarchism is bourgeois.

[Decolonize The Left]

If you had a clue about anarchism, you'd at the very least know it to be a worker's movement. spouting shit about it being bourgeois does not make it so.

None of us have any problem with you criticising anarchism, but if you insist on doing so while exhibiting a total ignorance of what it is, and continue to paint a workers movement as class enemies, then you'll remain nothing but a sectarian troll.

At the very least, explain why you think anarchism is bourgeois.

Pardon my ignorance if this is a common occurrence, but could it not be that Qwerty's whole goal in making nonsensical, childish, uninformed, comments is to disrupt the discussions on this board?

- August

[Andres Marcos]

If you had a clue about anarchism, you'd at the very least know it to be a worker's movement. spouting shit about it being bourgeois does not make it so.

None of us have any problem with you criticising anarchism, but if you insist on doing so while exhibiting a total ignorance of what it is, and continue to paint a workers movement as class enemies, then you'll remain nothing but a sectarian troll.

At the very least, explain why you think anarchism is bourgeois.

anarchism is not bourgeosie it is petty-bourgeoisie and at times even lumpen-proletariat. The notion that anarchism is a ''workers movement'' is not established in facts, it throughout its history found support among artists, writers, petty-bourgeois reactionaries(like Kropotkin and Proudhon[Prince Kropotkin was an apologist for imperialist war, and Proudhon was a big time sexist]), and lumpens(carrying out assasinations, bombings, beatings, and other acts of lumpen individual terrorism etc. the most famous is Nestor Makhno).

The notion that Marxists who are scientific socialists who demand the expropriation of ALL property are sectarians for opposing petty-bourgeois utopian socialists is absurd, anarchism is unscientific, and against TDoP therefore it must be opposed if the proletariat is to succed. Marxism from its very beginning was opposed to the Bakunites:

Bakunin's enthusiasm for the 'propaganda of the deed'
" . . . swept Europe and America at the turn of the century. . . . Even Malatesta, Kropotkin and Emma Goldmann were tempted by the thought that assassinating the rich and powerful would lead to a workers' revolt".
(Alan Bullock & Stephen Trombley (Eds.): op. cit.; p. 30).
In fact,
". . . incidents attributed to anarchists include the attempted assassination of German Emperor William I in 1878; the attempt on the life of the German princes in 1883; and the assassinations of President Sadi Carnot of France in 1894, of the Empress Elizabeth of Austria in 1898, of King Humbert I of Italy in 1900, and of US President McKinley in 1901".
('Encyclopedia Americana', Volume 1; New York; 1977; p.778).


In contrast, the Communist International
" . . . decisively rejects individual terrorism. In rejecting this method of struggle, it is guided exclusively by the principles of revolutionary expediency. This has nothing in common with the petty-bourgeois attitude to the revolutionary use of force. . . . Communists reject the employment of individual terror since individual acts which attempt to take the place of the mass struggle can only demoralise our movement, split our forces and diminish our striking power".
(Theses on Current Questions of the International Commmunist Movement, 6th ECCI Plenum, in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 257).


" . . . Marx opposed this anarchist nonsense from the first day it was put forward . . . by Bakunin. The whole internal history of the International Workingmen's Association is evidence of this. From 1867 onwards the anarchists were trying, by the most infamous methods, to conquer the leadership of the International; the main hindrance in their way was Marx".
(Friedrich Engels: Letter to Philipp van Patten, 18 April 1883, in: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: op. cit.; p. 268).

" . . . was the expulsion, at the Hague Congress, Sept. 1872, of the Anarchists from the International, and the man who did most to secure that expulsion was Marx". (Friedrich Engels: 'On the Occasion of Karl Marx's Death, in: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels & Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Anarchism and Anarcho-sydicalism'; Moscow; 1977; p. 172).


and Engels bluntly depicts it as the creation of
" . . . would-be great men who would like on the cheap to play an important role. It seems as if anarchism were specially made for this purpose".
(Friedrich Engels: Letter to Johann Becker, 16 December 1882, in: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels & Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid,; p. 170).


We really don't have to get in the anarchist glorification of petty-bourgeois property either, you see Marxism is not against only the bourgeoisie we are against ALL Private property, whereas anarchism historically was never opposed to petty-bourgeois property, may not be the ase for some anarchists of today, but your utopian and childish contempt for all authority and seeing the state as ABOVE classes is ridiculous and must be opposed by scientific socialists who appreciate theory, and realize the state is neccessary to counter the resistance of the bourgeosie towards socialism whereas anarchists toss it into the wind.

[Kami]

anarchism is not bourgeosie it is petty-bourgeoisie and at times even lumpen-proletariat. The notion that anarchism is a ''workers movement'' is not established in facts, it throughout its history found support among artists, writers, petty-bourgeois reactionaries(like Kropotkin and Proudhon[Prince Kropotkin was an apologist for imperialist war, and Proudhon was a big time sexist]), and lumpens(carrying out assasinations, bombings, beatings, and other acts of lumpen individual terrorism etc. the most famous is Nestor Makhno).

You misrepresent, and conviniently ignore that which doesn't fit your picture. How about the spanish civil war? Or were the communes of anarchist workers petit-bourgeious as well?



The notion that Marxists who are scientific socialists who demand the expropriation of ALL property are sectarians for opposing petty-bourgeois utopian socialists is absurd, anarchism is unscientific, and against TDoP therefore it must be opposed if the proletariat is to succed. Marxism from its very beginning was opposed to the Bakunites:

Your claims of Marxism being "science" should be taken with a pinch of salt, to say the least. It's as unscientific as any other political theory, no matter how much you distort the definition of science to try and make it fit.
That aside, you here show that you are sectarian; putting the interests of your particular flavour of proletarian movement before the good of the workers themselves.

All you prove in the next few statements is that Anarchism isn't Communism. Thank you, captain obvious. I'm afraid disagreeing with marx doesn't make you wrong.



We really don't have to get in the anarchist glorification of petty-bourgeois property either, you see Marxism is not against only the bourgeoisie we are against ALL Private property, whereas anarchism historically was never opposed to petty-bourgeois property, may not be the ase for some anarchists of today, but your utopian and childish contempt for all authority and seeing the state as ABOVE classes is ridiculous and must be opposed by scientific socialists who appreciate theory, and realize the state is neccessary to counter the resistance of the bourgeosie towards socialism whereas anarchists toss it into the wind.
You have the nerve to call us utopian, all the time ignoring that whenever a state has been established, it concentrates its efforts into sustaining itself and its own interests at the expense of everyone else. Scientific indeed.

I advise that you are more likely to be taken seriously if you stop using petit-bourgeious as a word to mean something you don't like. It refers to the self-employed, that's it. You just come of as spouting nonsense using it the way you have been.

[RedAnarchist]

Pardon my ignorance if this is a common occurrence, but could it not be that Qwerty's whole goal in making nonsensical, childish, uninformed, comments is to disrupt the discussions on this board?

- August

I'm fairly sure that it is. I bet he has something to do with either Bogovich or Marsella.

[apathy maybe]

I'm fairly sure that it is. I bet he has something to do with either Bogovich or Marsella.

And I'm fairly sure that it isn't Marsella, because Mars isn't a Stalin-droid of any sort, and wouldn't pretend to be one.

If Marsella was going to troll, she would do it by attacking authoritarians, not by pretending to be one.

[RedAnarchist]

And I'm fairly sure that it isn't Marsella, because Mars isn't a Stalin-droid of any sort, and wouldn't pretend to be one.

If Marsella was going to troll, she would do it by attacking authoritarians, not by pretending to be one.

Sorry, I meant Kromando, not Marsella.:blushing:

[Andres Marcos]

You misrepresent, and conviniently ignore that which doesn't fit your picture. How about the spanish civil war? Or were the communes of anarchist workers petit-bourgeious as well?

no sir, I did not conveniently ''leave anything'' nor did I ''misrepresent'' anything. The Spanish anarchist communes are a PRIME example of the petty-bourgeois nature of anarchism, and lets examine it. The anarchists tend to demonize ''forced collectivization'' and glorify their ''voluntary' collectivization which is far from the truth. The Spanish communes were as much a choice to the rural proletariat as one can choose whether to eat or starve to death(and at times the Catalonian anarchists even forced by use of guns or Republican edicts on ''voluntary'' collectivization...voluntary indeed), it was a choice to only the petty-bourgeois farmer in Spain, you see the rural proletariat has NO LAND so what choice does he have whether to collectivize or not? If the anarchist solution is to give the rural proletariat land he once again does not become a proletarian anymore but a petty-bourgeoisie who owns a means of substenance because he owns property! the petty-bourgeois spanish farmer never had to work for the boss, why? he was his own boss. The anarcho-syndicalists used this same broad brush to paint unions of the petty-bourgeoisie(like artists, writers, farmers, and other people who are self-employed) as ''working class".



Your claims of Marxism being "science" should be taken with a pinch of salt, to say the least. It's as unscientific as any other political theory, no matter how much you distort the definition of science to try and make it fit.
It seems the only person here who is distorting science is yourself. Here is the definition of science:

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

It only takes a person of true ignorance to claim Marxism is about as ''unscientific'' as anarchism, or libertarian political theory, first off unlike anarchism Marxism adheres to the Scientific Method when it approaches problems 1. it observes 2. comes with a hypothesis 3. uses deductive logic and reason to take a scientific guess on the outcome 4. Tests its expirements through practice 5. makes conclusions aka theories, which should be applicable to those SAME situations. THAT is the definition of science.



That aside, you here show that you are sectarian; putting the interests of your particular flavour of proletarian movement before the good of the workers themselves. Lets make something clear I am not going to sit here and support every movement which claims to sport a red flag, historically you anarchists define ''workers'' not as ONLY people who sell their labor to others and who own NO means of production, but lumpens, and self-employed petty-bourgeoisie. Secondly it is impossible for Marxists to be ''sectarian'' to anarchists based on both being ''proletarian'' movements(which isnt true), you anarchists define proletarians as people who a. own means of production, but do not rely on the labor of others or b. anyone who is poor, sells drugs for a living, prostitutes, and other lumpens.


All you prove in the next few statements is that Anarchism isn't Communism. Thank you, captain obvious. I'm afraid disagreeing with marx doesn't make you wrong.
No disagreeing with Marx does not make you wrong disagreeing with objective facts DOES, the petty-bourgeois self employed artisans, farmers, and the lumpens are NOT proletarians as the anarchists like to claim, just because the petty-bourgeoisie ''works'' through his own labor does not make him proletarian, the petty-bourgeois can set his own hours and does not sell his labor power to others and therefore is not a prole.


You have the nerve to call us utopian, all the time ignoring that whenever a state has been established, it concentrates its efforts into sustaining itself and its own interests at the expense of everyone else. Scientific indeed.yes I have the ''nerve'' to call you utopian because that is exactly what anarchists are! They seem to think all their woes can be destroyed by eliminating the state over night, that you can magically suppress the bourgeosie by just ralying everyone up and that we will all live in paradise without using the state(which can be the tool of suppressing the bourgeoisie) is precisely what makes you utopian. This statement does as well:


whenever a state has been established, it concentrates its efforts into sustaining itself and its own interests at the expense of everyone else. Scientific indeed.first off this is a classic example of anarchist disdain for ALL types of states be that bourgeoisie or proletarian, second off, like a classical anarchist you erroneous claim the state serves its ''own interest'' at the ''expense of everyone else", this is wrong, please do tell how the state ''oppresses'' the bourgeoisie rather than serve their interest, and please give a rational(and by rational I dont mean based on your personal disgust with the state) assertion that the proletariat cannot use the state to suppress the bourgeoisie from coming back to power and serve its interest?



I advise that you are more likely to be taken seriously if you stop using petit-bourgeious as a word to mean something you don't like. It refers to the self-employed, that's it. first off it does not only mean the ''self-employed", the petty-bourgeoisie can ALSO be small exploiters who happen to work with their workers(think of a floor manager) or self-employed which is precisely what the anarchists define as ''working class".



You just come of as spouting nonsense using it the way you have been.First off, I believe it was you who said just in case you forgot:



None of us have any problem with you criticising anarchism...If you think objective facts are ''total non-sense'' then you seriously need to establish yourself with what is ''common sense" the fact that you are in denial of anarchism's role throughout history and its petty-bourgeois nature is your problem not mine, it is common knowledge amongst Marxists that the opposition to anarchism has nothing to do with ''sectarianism'' but the fact that anarchism is not proletarian

"At the end of 1868 the Russian, Bakunin, entered the International with the aim of forming inside it a second International called the "Alliance of Social-Democracy," with himself as leader. He--a man devoid of theoretical knowledge--put forward the pretension that this separate body was to represent the scientific propaganda of the International, which was to be made the special function of this second International within the International.

His programme was a superficially scraped together hash of Right and Left--EQUALITY Of CLASSES (!), abolition of the right of inheritance as the starting point of the social movement (St. Simonistic nonsense), atheism as a dogma to be dictated to the members, etc., and as the main dogma (Proudhonist), abstention from the political movement.
-Friedrich Engels"

You sir cannot refute anything I said and that is shown by your lack of a credible defense or even refutation of the truth behind the anarchist ''definition of classes"(which is solely based on whether one ''works'' or not; not whether he works and owns no means of production to sustain himself), you attempt to smear those who rightfully point out that anarchists consider petty-bourgeoisie as ''proletarian'' as being sectarian, when I am in fact entirely correct, the petty-bourgeiosie is NOT proletarian.

[Niccolò Rossi]

For fucks sake, are you that think brained!


yes I have the ''nerve'' to call you utopian because that is exactly what anarchists are! They seem to think all their woes can be destroyed by eliminating the state over night, that you can magically suppress the bourgeosie by just ralying everyone up and that we will all live in paradise without using the state(which can be the tool of suppressing the bourgeoisie) is precisely what makes you utopian.

Anarchists and Marxists have two very different definitions of the 'state'. I've explained with numerous time in other thread which I'm sure you've read through. There are definitely legitimate criticisms which can be made against both Anarchist theory and the tradition of Anarchism in practice, but until you get your definitions straight you can not hope to make any legitimate attack on Anarchist theory.


first off this is a classic example of anarchist disdain for ALL types of states be that bourgeoisie or proletarian,

The anarchists criticise the 'proletarian state' only in so far as it is an contradiction in terms (please note the Anarchist definition of state)

Some of what you are saying is of value, however it is smeared by your own confusion and your hysterical and misplaced 'attacks' on Anarchism.

Also, instead of trying to 'prove' the Anarchist to be a crock of shit, how about you get back to the question of the OP and try to explain how to prevent the hijacking of the workers state, considering the dismal record of the 'anti-revisionists'.

[Andres Marcos]

but until you get your definitions straight you can not hope to make any legitimate attack on Anarchist theory.

where was I ever trying to ''define'' the anarchist definition of the state? I never made such a claim, so your ''criticism'' is mute, I called the anarchist utopian from his childish and naive rejection of ALL types of authority, by putting ideals above reality is pure non-sense.




The anarchists criticise the 'proletarian state' only in so far as it is an contradiction in terms (please note the Anarchist definition of state)and this is assuming Marxists take the point of view anarchists take to the absence of the state. Marxists unlike anarchists do not believe the state should be ''abolished'' but rather it withers away. There is NO contradiction in these terms, Marxism defines the state as one which is A. used to oppress other classes from the class in power or B. used to resist the exploiting classes from coming to power(the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) once the violent revolution is victorious in the principal capitalist nations and the lesser capitalist states make a ''peaceful''(from pressure by the socialist states) abdication of power to the proletariat and after years maybe hundreds of years of socialist repression against the remnants of the bourgeosie does the state ''wither'' away, it serves no other purpose since there would be no more bourgeoisie.

engels sums it up the best:

"The proletariat seizes the state power and transforms the means of production in the first instance into state property. But in doing this, it puts an end to itself as proletariat, it puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms; its puts an end also to the state as state. Former society, moving in class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, an organization of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its external conditions of production; that is, therefore, mainly for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, villeinage or serfdom, wage labor) determined by the existing mode of production. The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its summation in a visible corporation; but it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself, in its epoch, represented society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our epoch, of the bourgeoisie. When ultimately it becomes really representative of society as a whole, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no longer any class of society to be held in subjection; as soon as, along with class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production hitherto, the collisions and excesses arising from these have also been abolished, there is nothing more to be repressed which would make a special repressive force, a state, necessary. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of society as a whole -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not 'abolished,' it withers away. It is from this standpoint that we must appreciate the phrase 'a free people's state' -- both its temporary justification for agitational purposes, and its ultimate scientific inadequacy -- and also the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight." (Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science [Anti-D&uumlhring ], pp.301-03, third German edition.)

THAT is no contradiction of aims because Communists do not wish to ''abolish'' the state.



Some of what you are saying is of value, however it is smeared by your own confusion and your hysterical and misplaced 'attacks' on Anarchism.
This is everything that is wrong with these boards, when a person makes legitimate criticisms(as opposed to the REAL and hysterical attacks by many shown in the various "Stalin killed my daddy...what a bastard" type threads) they are ''sectarians" and "hysterical".



Also, instead of trying to 'prove' the Anarchist to be a crock of shit, how about you get back to the question of the OP and try to explain how to prevent the hijacking of the workers state, considering the dismal record of the 'anti-revisionists'.I didnt have to ''try" nor do I think its a "crock of shit"(do not confuse REAL criticism for the umost hatred of leftist groups...I criticize the cuban state but I do think they do some good, that also applies to every leftist group)
the answer has already been answered by Yehuda Stern:


There is no magic solution. The only way for a revolutionary proletarian regime to remain healthy is to extend the revolution all over the world. Each victory assists not only the existing workers' states but the revolution in other countries as well.There is little one can add to that as it is entirely correct Lenin and Stalin both maintain that the revolution can ONLY be successful if it touches down it at least the "principal capitalist nations"(at first) after which the peaceful transition to socialism is possible(although it really is not ''peaceful'' as the minor capitalist states will be isolated and under pressure to abdicate their power) and if the revolution is victorious in only one nation at a time then that nation must do its utmost as being the bastion of the socialist world and resist tooth and nail the capitalist states(which is why it is utterly stupid for ''leftists'' not to defend[you can still criticize] the Cubans and the DPRK...who do you think it benefits if these states fall?) As for the ''dismal record of the anti-revisionists" ill say this at least they had a record, and im not saying this out of spite im sayin it because just as one can learn from the the Paris Commune, one can learn from the Soviet Union and the other socialist states, history shows that the change from one social system to a more progressive one, is often not merely a long process, but a process interrupted by one or more steps backward.

[F9]

i am getting bored of such positions really,stalin-kiddies jump over and say there stupids .anarchism is that... is utopian.....,they kill you,they are petty-bourgeois.... ,they that etc!And you are saying nothing,you are just saying the usual stupidnes :Anarchists are utopians because we need the state and we love it and they wont manage to get it down,EVIL KIDS!
how can we advocate bourgeois and be one too:blink:?if Anarchists are bourgeois what are you?you seperate peole in the ussr for being members of your party,you seperate people from what job they were doing,you just tried to overthrow capitalism and you build another one,you just keep opressed people!how can you have communism when not everyone take what he needs?how can you have communism when there are some elite members?
Tell you the truth,you are the utopians because you will never manage to have communism when there is a party above the people,people will feel it and you will have 0 result!

Fuserg9:star:

[Andres Marcos]

i am getting bored of such positions really,stalin-kiddies jump over and say there stupids .anarchism is that... is utopian.....,they kill you,they are petty-bourgeois.... ,they that etc!And you are saying nothing,you are just saying the usual stupidnes First off man I could care less if criticism does not excite you, im not the one who says the anarchists are bourgeoisie(meanwhile people like you claim Communists are!), I said it is a petty-bourgeoisie and lumpen ideology and it is! If you want to ignore that then fine, just tell me a good reason why anarcho-syndicalists in Spain and the anarchists in Russia thought that the farmers(not poor peasentry but people who owned production), artisans, self empolyed people, homeless, prostitutes, squatters etc. were ''proletarian'' and how it is 'stupid'' to point that out? Lastly, don't call me a "stalin-kiddie", I am not some kid who jacks off to DPRK propaganda, nor am I some 14 yo anarcho-punk who jams to sex-pistols and RAM, I did not insult you so please at least extend that same courtesy.


how can we advocate bourgeois and be one too:blink:?Like I said, I never said you were bourgeoisie. The anarchist disdain for the state can be traced to the squeeze put on the petty-bourgeoisie who can never seize the state, they are oppressed by the capitalists and will get their property seized by the proletariat. Secondly, if you did not know there ARE workers who also go against their interest as well, its not impossible for workers to hate communism and embrace the bourgeoisie, and it is also not impossible for that to happen vice-versa(all of the famous ''leftist thinkers'' with the exception of probably Stalin, fucik etc. were from the upper classes.) communists do not only have to come from the working class. Yes the petty-bourgeoisie IS oppressed by capitalism but that does NOT mean they are proletarians like the anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Ferrer claimed.



...your party,you seperate people from what job they were doing,you just tried to overthrow capitalism and you build another one,you just keep opressed people!how can you have communism when not everyone take what he needs?how can you have communism when there are some elite members?

the "State being above classes"? there is NO SUCH THING the bourgeosie CONTROLS the state it is NOT oppressed by it, the bureacracy IS NOT A CLASS it is a tool of the state. Secondly the state is NOT something exclusive to capitalists in fact it existed BEFORE capitalism, you provide no proof just opinions on how it is ''impossible'' for the proletariat to make a state of their own. This notion of ''elitism" is entirely despicable you are directly insulting well intentioned people(people in Communist parties) who dedicate their entire lives, gave their lives, and will give their lives to help fighting for the proletariat. talking about contradictory aims how does one reconcile anarchism with Che Guevara(an Argentine "Stalinist") and I ask this because your forum name is "Fuserg"(Fuser being the name and G standing for Guevara) which was a nickname Ernesto went by.



Tell you the truth,you are the utopians because you will never manage to have communism when there is a party above the people,people will feel it and you will have 0 result!

Fuserg9:star:You jsut completely skidded past what I said, we dont believe communism can be achieved by ABOLISHING the state! Why? because the state is used to reppress or resist other classes. After the victory of the revolution in the entire world and years of struggle the state will wither away because it has no other purpose!

[F9]

first of all i excuse myself for the "attack" to you,i am not in a great mood!
i never said that communists are bourgeois,i would be stupid if i would do this,i AM a communist!anyway as usual because i dont like getting in controversials,i accept opposite opinion and i accept disagreement!

Fuserg9:star:

[Niccolò Rossi]

where was I ever trying to ''define'' the anarchist definition of the state? I never made such a claim, so your ''criticism'' is mute, I called the anarchist utopian from his childish and naive rejection of ALL types of authority, by putting ideals above reality is pure non-sense.

This is the problem. You haven't even bothered to define what you are talking about. Instead you've jumped head first into a childish pissing contest without even getting together a solid and coherent defintion of what you are criticising.


and this is assuming Marxists take the point of view anarchists take to the absence of the state. Marxists unlike anarchists do not believe the state should be ''abolished'' but rather it withers away. There is NO contradiction in these terms, Marxism defines the state as one which is A. used to oppress other classes from the class in power or B. used to resist the exploiting classes from coming to power(the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) once the violent revolution is victorious in the principal capitalist nations and the lesser capitalist states make a ''peaceful''(from pressure by the socialist states) abdication of power to the proletariat and after years maybe hundreds of years of socialist repression against the remnants of the bourgeosie does the state ''wither'' away, it serves no other purpose since there would be no more bourgeoisie.

Wow, thanks for typing all that for nothing. Did you even read what I wrote. I realise that in the Marxist definition of the 'state' a workers state is not a contradiction. On the other hand, when we use the definition of the 'state' provided by Anarchists, there can be no such thing as a 'workers state'.


This is everything that is wrong with these boards, when a person makes legitimate criticisms(as opposed to the REAL and hysterical attacks by many shown in the various "Stalin killed my daddy...what a bastard" type threads) they are ''sectarians" and "hysterical".

The manner in which you are conducting you criticism is far from 'legitimate'. If you are so eager to brand Anarchism as utopian and want to have a real debate about the subject (which I'd love to see) please do so in the RevoltuionaryLeft.com user group. ApathyMaybe has suggested just such a topic for a debate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-competitions-t78373/index2.html) and I'm sure you'd be the perfect match.

[Andres Marcos]

This is the problem. You haven't even bothered to define what you are talking about. Instead you've jumped head first into a childish pissing contest without even getting together a solid and coherent defintion of what you are criticising.

First off Zeitgeist, I was never even talking about the anarchist notion of the state(other than the ridiculous belief that it is above classes) but its petty-bourgeois definitions of what is ''proletariat".




Wow, thanks for typing all that for nothing. Did you even read what I wrote. I realise that in the Marxist definition of the 'state' a workers state is not a contradiction. On the other hand, when we use the definition of the 'state' provided by Anarchists, there can be no such thing as a 'workers state'.

Wow, thanks for not bothering to get what I was saying, I was talking of the anarcho-syndicalist position of self-employed people, lumpens etc. being ''proletarian", I really just glanced at the state, i only mentioned it in a mere 5 lines with Kami until you had to go and quote those same 5 lines as if that was ALL I was talking about.




The manner in which you are conducting you criticism is far from 'legitimate'.

I believe it would be said differently had I used the words ''fuck'', ''****'', and ''stalinist" in every 5th word and I was talking about pro-Stalin, Pro-Mao or pro-Hoxha people. So far this basis can be thrown out as I have made no hostile remarks and have provided a case WHY I believe anarchism is(which I originally said is erroneous for it defining the working petty-bourgeoisis as ''proletarian") and I have merely been responded to with matters of opinion and how I am a ''sectarian" and "hysterical" and nothing else to back up the case for anarchism.



If you are so eager to brand Anarchism as utopian and want to have a real debate about the subject (which I'd love to see) please do so in the RevoltuionaryLeft.com user group. ApathyMaybe has suggested just such a topic for a debate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-competitions-t78373/index2.html) and I'm sure you'd be the perfect match.

good, ill join that group and i am up for that debate, so long as these debates are devoid of the constant ''fucks'', "****s", and "you are an idiot" remarks which are demonstrative in nearly all debates on here.

[F9]

talking about contradictory aims how does one reconcile anarchism with Che Guevara(an Argentine "Stalinist") and I ask this because your forum name is "Fuserg"(Fuser being the name and G standing for Guevara) which was a nickname Ernesto went by.


Oh i missed this part.Yes i am aware that Fuser was a nickname of che,and i know the story behind it,thats where i saw it,i like it, and take it.My nickname is Fuserg9 no Fuserg,g doesnt represent Guevara,it represents GATE and the 9 after which makes GATE9(football fans)!
and also as i said in a topic which i think drosera put up with the same exactly matter,i have put that he didnt really stand with stalin,he did criticize him,i hdont remember anywhere calling himself a Stalinist.I just like his dream but a little more expand he dreamed a free amaerica,i want a free world.He was a rebel,he knew what he represented,he was fighting for fairness,ok he did and his mistake,everyone does.And he was from the few people that didnt like authoritys and benneficials but all he wanted was to be in the frontline to fight for the revolution!I got way offtopic sorry but i had to answer!

Fuserg9:star:

[Decolonize The Left]

I said it is a petty-bourgeoisie and lumpen ideology and it is!
Care to justify that highly contestable claim?


If you want to ignore that then fine, just tell me a good reason why anarcho-syndicalists in Spain and the anarchists in Russia thought that the farmers(not poor peasentry but people who owned production), artisans, self empolyed people, homeless, prostitutes, squatters etc. were ''proletarian'' and how it is 'stupid'' to point that out?
Allow me to provide a couple of definitions of "proletariat":
1. the class of wage earners, esp. those who earn their living by manual labor or who are dependent for support on daily or casual employment; the working class.
2. the class of workers, esp. industrial wage earners, who do not possess capital or property and must sell their labor to survive.
It seems as though the anarchist definition of "proletariat" is not the same as a more strict communist definition. Anarchists seem to be willing to allow for a larger revolutionary base (namely, those not in possession of capital). I do not see artisans, homeless, small farmers, homeless, prostitutes, and squatters as the enemy... Why? Because they are not contributing to the oppression of the working class.


The anarchist disdain for the state can be traced to the squeeze put on the petty-bourgeoisie who can never seize the state, they are oppressed by the capitalists and will get their property seized by the proletariat.
Again, a mighty claim with little justification...


the "State being above classes"?
There is no relation from this supposed quote to the actual quoted text, nor to Fusur's previous post. It would be beneficial to your position to not put words in people's mouths....


First off Zeitgeist, I was never even talking about the anarchist notion of the state(other than the ridiculous belief that it is above classes) but its petty-bourgeois definitions of what is ''proletariat".
Anarchists do not define the state as "above" classes. It is defined as an institution.

- August

[Niccolò Rossi]

First off Zeitgeist, I was never even talking about the anarchist notion of the state (other than the ridiculous belief that it is above classes)

Me thinks you went further than that, debating the legitimacy of the workers state whilst still managing to confuse your definitions:


yes I have the ''nerve'' to call you utopian because that is exactly what anarchists are! They seem to think all their woes can be destroyed by eliminating the state over night, that you can magically suppress the bourgeosie by just ralying everyone up and that we will all live in paradise without using the state(which can be the tool of suppressing the bourgeoisie) is precisely what makes you utopian.


Wow, thanks for not bothering to get what I was saying, I was talking of the anarcho-syndicalist position of self-employed people, lumpens etc. being ''proletarian", I really just glanced at the state, i only mentioned it in a mere 5 lines with Kami until you had to go and quote those same 5 lines as if that was ALL I was talking about.


I don't necessarily have a problem with the rest of what you wrote. What stuck out like a sore thumb was your discussion regarding the state. Is it not ok to object to this point, or do I have to respond to your every line?


good, ill join that group and i am up for that debate, so long as these debates are devoid of the constant ''fucks'', "****s", and "you are an idiot" remarks which are demonstrative in nearly all debates on here.

I assure you the debate will not turn into another pissing contest like the majority we see so commonly on the main boards. This is my entire point, don't bother debating it over here, debate it in a controlled environment where we can really see what your argument is made of.

[Sendo]

anarchism, as I understand it, is about building the future society so that you don't need vanguards to build the democratic organs, you already have mass consiousness, community involvement, unions, etc. Then you proceed to destroy the largest soures of power (corporations) by pushing the state in a certain direction. After corporate power is sufficiently suppressed you just "secede" a la Catalonia. You say, "Yeah, we don't need Washington anymore, we have enough 'our society' already built. So we're not going to pay taxes to feed the fat cats in Washington. And as far as the factories go, our workers will just seize them and make their managers work side-by-side with everyone else for the same pay."

I am not a anarchist expert, and my reading is minimal. But that's a simple, down-to-earth way I figure. i I saw it more as a continual struggle with some elements of lifestyle anarchism while the conditions for anarchism get better and better through struggle and education. I know a guy who stayed at a permaculture commune for a week and it sounds like as we approach more and more of a food crisis, this place will be a model. Not to say that it will persuade the bourgeoisie, but maybe persuade ordinary people to say another way is possible and perhaps act on it. I say it takes all types working together, and at least it's better than sitting in a bookstore having squabbles with other leftists while we fantasize about our dreamy, ideal "proletarian dictatorship army" Anarchists are far more than naive idealists; they accomplish something, even if only small societies for a few, it's something tangible.

[Decolonize The Left]

anarchism, as I understand it, is about building the future society so that you don't need vanguards to build the democratic organs, you already have mass consiousness, community involvement, unions, etc. Then you proceed to destroy the largest soures of power (corporations) by pushing the state in a certain direction. After corporate power is sufficiently suppressed you just "secede" a la Catalonia. You say, "Yeah, we don't need Washington anymore, we have enough 'our society' already built. So we're not going to pay taxes to feed the fat cats in Washington. And as far as the factories go, our workers will just seize them and make their managers work side-by-side with everyone else for the same pay."

I am not a anarchist expert, and my reading is minimal.

While interesting, your outline of anarchism is rather sparse. Several issues jump out immediately:
1) Anarchists are opposed to the state from the get-go. Hence anarchists do not require awaiting the massive development of class consciousness, all oppositions to the state in all forms are acknowledged as positive.
2) Anarchists do not with to "push the state in a certain direction," rather, to destroy it.
3) Anarchists do not with to "secede" (although some groups may advocate this), rather to convert what is currently an oppressive society ridden with domination and conflict into a society of free equals based around the principles of necessity.
4) Anarchists do not wish to have any form of "working beside managers for the same pay." Most do not advocate "payment" for labor, rather a society based around the maxim: 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'

- August

EDIT: On a side note, I should like to recommend "Anarchism" by Emma Goldman, as well as "What is Anarchism?" by Alexander Berkman. These are basic anarchist texts with easy theory (especially the latter - very simple and straight forward).

[Andres Marcos]

Care to justify that highly contestable claim?

well I presented it from the anarchist perspective that those who own means of production and who do not exploit labor are "proletarian" or those who are just generally poor are ''proletariat"(like the lumpens).


Anarchists do not define the state as "above" classes. It is defined as an institution.

Thats not what Bakunin or Proudhon thought. In his criticism of Marxism Bakunin writes:

"anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved."

That is a demonstration on the ''state being above class", an institution that can "never" be in control of workers, modern anarchists MIGHT not believe that but certainly its big thinkers did, and Im willing to bet a big number today do as well.


I do not see artisans, homeless, small farmers, homeless, prostitutes, and squatters as the enemy... Why? Because they are not contributing to the oppression of the working class.
Thats not what Im saying, Communists recognize that a good portion of the lower stratum of the petty-bourgeoisie can reach to the side of the proletariat as it is exploited by capitalism, Lenin said that one cannot simply repress the petty-bourgeois there are too many of them, you have to wage struggle with them and attempt to educate them to socialism. I object to exactly how they are ''proletariat'' since they are in possession of their own means of survival while the proletariat is not. As for the lumpens I do not see them going en masse to the side of the proletariat other than the homeless or even possibly exploited women prostitutes, the other lumpens are predators of the working class.

@ fuser


i have put that he didnt really stand with stalin,he did criticize him,i hdont remember anywhere calling himself a Stalinist.although I dont want to go into Guevara too much, there is no basis in which he could not ''stand Stalin", Guevara called himself Stalin II and had said he became a Communist because of Stalin and that no one should tell him not to read Stalin(the Cuban govt. under pressure from the Soviets were hostile to Stalin and discouraged Guevara from reading it which he did not obey). I dont remember him criticizing Stalin, in fact Communists who like Stalin should self-criticize Stalin a little more so that we dont engage in mistakes of the past, although it surely makes me uncomfortable doing that in these boards.

[Sendo]

Most of my understanding of modern, non-prim anarchism comes from Chomsky. He seems to advocate a short-term utilization of the state and support of its good functions (like Social Security and taxing of the rich) and unlike in Bakunin's time, I believe that private power is truly more powerful than the state is. Anarchism is anti-hierarchy, and that of course includes corporations. I feel that "the private tyrranies" are great and powerful and pull the strings of Washington. Washington has the napalm and bombers but it's controlled remotely by the business sector.

[F9]

First off man I could care less if criticism does not excite you, im not the one who says the anarchists are bourgeoisie(meanwhile people like you claim Communists are!), I said it is a petty-bourgeoisie and lumpen ideology and it is! If you want to ignore that then fine, just tell me a good reason why anarcho-syndicalists in Spain and the anarchists in Russia thought that the farmers(not poor peasentry but people who owned production), artisans, self empolyed people, homeless, prostitutes, squatters etc. were ''proletarian'' and how it is 'stupid'' to point that out? Lastly, don't call me a "stalin-kiddie", I am not some kid who jacks off to DPRK propaganda, nor am I some 14 yo anarcho-punk who jams to sex-pistols and RAM, I did not insult you so please at least extend that same courtesy.

ok now i can answer better!:)
did i talk anywhere for a proletarian revolution?or a revolution is only available to proletarians?thats discrimination!of course and we will try to get in our side the petty-bourgeois,and if they understand what we want and what we say,they can join us.They might be no proletarians BUT if they have simillar ideas and goals with us can join us.We never reject anyone.In a revolution everyone is equal,there wont be no proletarians,no petty bourgeoise,just comrades and counter-revolutionaries!I refuse to seperate te people in the revolution and after the revolution of what they were in the past!It is the idea that really counts.What is the point of just saying that we allied with those people?not allying and not trying to introduce them to Anarcism,the result even if we won the revolution we would end up no one know what to do,we want equality and Anarchism,if some people dont know what it is how they will stand for it?and if they dont know about it why thwy wont join the counter-revolutionaries?


Like I said, I never said you were bourgeoisie. The anarchist disdain for the state can be traced to the squeeze put on the petty-bourgeoisie who can never seize the state, they are oppressed by the capitalists and will get their property seized by the proletariat. Secondly, if you did not know there ARE workers who also go against their interest as well, its not impossible for workers to hate communism and embrace the bourgeoisie, and it is also not impossible for that to happen vice-versa(all of the famous ''leftist thinkers'' with the exception of probably Stalin, fucik etc. were from the upper classes.) communists do not only have to come from the working class. Yes the petty-bourgeoisie IS oppressed by capitalism but that does NOT mean they are proletarians like the anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Ferrer claimed.

as i said and thats all the meaning of what i am saying there wont be proletarians and bourgeoise during revolution,i dont care what others say even when i "admire" them.i have my own opinon!




the "State being above classes"? there is NO SUCH THING the bourgeosie CONTROLS the state it is NOT oppressed by it, the bureacracy IS NOT A CLASS it is a tool of the state. Secondly the state is NOT something exclusive to capitalists in fact it existed BEFORE capitalism, you provide no proof just opinions on how it is ''impossible'' for the proletariat to make a state of their own. This notion of ''elitism" is entirely despicable you are directly insulting well intentioned people(people in Communist parties) who dedicate their entire lives, gave their lives, and will give their lives to help fighting for the proletariat. talking about contradictory aims how does one reconcile anarchism with Che Guevara(an Argentine "Stalinist") and I ask this because your forum name is "Fuserg"(Fuser being the name and G standing for Guevara) which was a nickname Ernesto went by.

i answered this and you can see and what i write in the topic drosera oppened!


You jsut completely skidded past what I said, we dont believe communism can be achieved by ABOLISHING the state! Why? because the state is used to reppress or resist other classes. After the victory of the revolution in the entire world and years of struggle the state will wither away because it has no other purpose!

you now that we dissagree with the state, and our possitions on this so there is no point on this,would just let us to usuall dissagrement and i dont like getting bettwen such things!


Fuserg9:star:

[Decolonize The Left]

well I presented it from the anarchist perspective that those who own means of production and who do not exploit labor are "proletarian" or those who are just generally poor are ''proletariat"(like the lumpens).

The fact that an ideology may identify a group of people as sharing possible interests as another does not make it subject to the first group. In other words, since anarchism has the ability to reach beyond strict class lines and label members of the petty-bourgeoisie "proletarian" - as opposed to those who are strictly proletariat - this does not necessitate that it it therefore a "petty-bourgeoisie ideology" as you have claimed. In fact, that is merely a bit of slander and childish name-calling that you have added to an otherwise perfectly coherent ideology.


Thats not what Bakunin or Proudhon thought. In his criticism of Marxism Bakunin writes:

"anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved."

That is a demonstration on the ''state being above class", an institution that can "never" be in control of workers, modern anarchists MIGHT not believe that but certainly its big thinkers did, and Im willing to bet a big number today do as well.


Thank you for sharing that quote. For my own reading, could you link it please, or cite it?

I would like to point out that your quote can be read/interpreted in different ways. A "dictatorship" is obviously form of government, and given that it followed the word "state", we ought to conclude that state is used here as the grounds for government. In other words, the state is an institution which allows the government to seize hold of the legitimate use of force.

You will also note that Bakunin did not say that the "state would be in control of the workers" as you have claimed. Enslavement takes many forms, it can even be voluntary. It seems, given that Bakunin first claims that freedom is the aim, that he is referring to "enslavement" as the barriers to freedom - namely, the use of the state for oppressing a group of people.


Thats not what Im saying, Communists recognize that a good portion of the lower stratum of the petty-bourgeoisie can reach to the side of the proletariat as it is exploited by capitalism, Lenin said that one cannot simply repress the petty-bourgeois there are too many of them, you have to wage struggle with them and attempt to educate them to socialism. I object to exactly how they are ''proletariat'' since they are in possession of their own means of survival while the proletariat is not. As for the lumpens I do not see them going en masse to the side of the proletariat other than the homeless or even possibly exploited women prostitutes, the other lumpens are predators of the working class.

You are correct that the petty-bourgeoisie do not meet the strict Marxist definition of proletariat, no doubt. Definitions are precise and ought to remain so. Earlier in this post I referred to them as "proletarian" in an attempt to emphasize their ability to cross-over (so to speak), and I don't have a problem with the use of this new term unless you raise some objections.

- August

[Andres Marcos]

@ comrade Fuser



did i talk anywhere for a proletarian revolution?or a revolution is only available to proletarians?thats discrimination!

Comrade, ALL revolution is about discrimination that is why there is a revolution and not a peaceful transfer of power. Revolution is the most authoritarian seizure of power.



of course and we will try to get in our side the petty-bourgeois,and if they understand what we want and what we say,they can join us.They might be no proletarians BUT if they have simillar ideas and goals with us can join us.We never reject anyone.For that I have no objection, Lenin said the lower stratum of the petty-bourgeoisie can come en masse to the side of the proletariat, but that does not mean they are for socialism as they are against the bourgeoisie, therefore what is the solution? repress them? you cannot possibly do that, we must educate them to the side of the proletariat, as they will still have their class habits even during the building of socialism.



In a revolution everyone is equal,there wont be no proletarians,no petty bourgeoise,just comrades and counter-revolutionaries!This is my objection you cannot possibly think the petty-bourgeoisie should be allowed its property without struggle do you? You have to educate the petty-bourgeoisie to form cooperatives which is the first step to their education and assimilation to the proletariat.



I refuse to seperate te people in the revolution and after the revolution of what they were in the past!As long as they are making honest efforts towards socialism and trying to learn about it and do not only say it(this is the neccesity of the proletarian state not only of fighting back the reaction but to educate the masses like the petty-bourgeoisie).

[Andres Marcos]

@ comrade August



The fact that an ideology may identify a group of people as sharing possible interests as another does not make it subject to the first group. In other words, since anarchism has the ability to reach beyond strict class lines and label members of the petty-bourgeoisie "proletarian" - as opposed to those who are strictly proletariat - this does not necessitate that it it therefore a "petty-bourgeoisie ideology" as you have claimed. In fact, that is merely a bit of slander and childish name-calling that you have added to an otherwise perfectly coherent ideology.What harm is there in defining things the way they are? If we are not going to use labels the way the anarchists use them then there should be no use of of the word "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" as used in present. The petty-bourgeoisie is not proletarian, sure it does work but the proletarian owns NO MEANS OF production while the petty-bourgeoisie does, to try to say "we(the petty-bourgeoisie) are no different than you(the proletariat)" while there is STILL the promotion of private property going on is bound to create problems in the future as there has never been a case when the petty-bourgeoisie is satisfied "staying as the petty-bourgeoisie", and without proper Communist education in trying to make them proletarian there is no hope they will be a trusted ally of the proletariat without engaging in struggle with them. The accusation of "slander" can be an opinion unless you know that these are petty-bourgeoisie tactics that they use to advocate class peace(and im not just talking about the anarchists, the fascist bourgeoisie used to do this when they tried to rally the petty-bourgeoisie to their cause by saying there is no class struggle and that we are "against monopoly capitalism"[note im not comparing anarchism to fascism just demonstrating its a tactic the petty-bourgeoisie use and fascists came first in mind partiucularly national "Socialism" type fascism]).


Thank you for sharing that quote. For my own reading, could you link it please, or cite it?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm


You will also note that Bakunin did not say that the "state would be in control of the workers" as you have claimed. Enslavement takes many forms, it can even be voluntary. It seems, given that Bakunin first claims that freedom is the aim, that he is referring to "enslavement" as the barriers to freedom - namely, the use of the state for oppressing a group of people.very well we can use another quote:


They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

— Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchism

Bakunin clearly thinks the state is an institution independent of class and rejects its use to resist the reaction.


It seems, given that Bakunin first claims that freedom is the aim, that he is referring to "enslavement" as the barriers to freedom - namely, the use of the state for oppressing a group of people
Well in actuality I believe Bakunin was using the whole ''freedom is the aim" and "enslavement is the means" to be sarcastic. either way we can speak of no freedom while a state exists ONLY class democracy. Marxists maintain this is not something that is we exactly desire but see as neccesary(it should be noted a lot of Engels' writings show a lot of disdain for the state but sees it as necessary to prevent something much worse...)

This is from Lenin's The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
[quote]
To attain this it is necessary to carry out at least three main tasks that confront the dictatorship of the proletariat "on the morrow" of victory:
a) to break the resistance of the landlords and capitalists who have been overthrown and expropriated by the revolution, to liquidate every attempt on their part to restore the power of capital;
b) to organize construction in such a way as to rally all the working people around the proletariat, and to carry on this work along the lines of preparing for the elimination, the abolition of classes;
c) to arm the revolution, to organize the army of the revolution for the struggle against foreign enemies, for the struggle against imperialism.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to carry out, to fulfil these tasks.


"The transition from capitalism to communism," says Lenin, "represents an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch has terminated, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope is converted into attempts at restoration. And after their first serious defeat. the overthrown exploiters -- who had not expected their overthrow, never believed it possible, never conceded the thought of it -- throw themselves with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold. into the battle for the recovery of the 'paradise' of which they have been deprived, on behalf of their families, who had been leading such a sweet and easy life and whom now the 'common herd' is condemning to ruin and destitution (or to 'common' labour . . .). In the train of the capitalist exploiters follow the broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie, with regard to whom decades of historical experience of all countries testify that they vacillate and hesitate, one day marching behind the proletariat and the next day taking fright at the difficulties of the revolution; that they become panic stricken at the first defeat or semi-defeat of the workers, grow nervous, rush about, snivel, and run from one camp into the other." (See Vol. XXIII, p. 355)

Secondly, It is correct the proletarian state is NOT free it is DEMOCRATIC, because the exploiters still exist Lenin in his pamphlet The State and Revolution says:



The theory of "pure" democracy is the theory of the upper stratum of the working class, which has been broken in and is being fed by the imperialist robbers. It was brought into being for the purpose of concealing the ulcers of capitalism, of embellishing imperialism and lending it moral strength in the struggle against the exploited masses. Under capitalism there are no real "liberties" for the exploited, nor can there be, if for no other reason than that the premises, printing plants, paper supplies, etc., indispensable for the enjoyment of "liberties" are the privilege of the exploiters. Under capitalism the exploited masses do not, nor can they ever, really participate in governing the country, if for no other reason than that, even under the most democratic regime, under conditions of capitalism, governments are not set up by the people but by the Rothschilds and Stinneses, the Rockefellers and Morgans. Dcmocracy under capitalism is capitalist democracy, the democracy of the exploiting minority, based on the restriction of the rights of the exploited majority and directed against this majority. Only under the proletarian dictatorship are real liberties for the exploited and real participation of the proletarians and peasants in governing the country possible. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy is proletarian democracy, the democracy of the exploited majority, based on the restriction of the rights of the exploiting minority and directed against this minority. The state is a machine in the hands of the ruling class for suppressing the resistance of its class enemies. In this respect the dictatorship of the proletariat does not differ essentially from the dictatorship of any other class; for the proletarian state is a machine for the suppression of the bourgeoisie. But there is one substantial difference. This difference consists in the fact that all hitherto existing class states have been dictatorships of an exploiting minority over the exploited majority, whereas the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the exploited majority over the exploiting minority.
Briefly, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule -- unrestricted by law and based on force -- of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, a rule enjoying the sympathy and support of the labouring and exploited masses. (Lenin, The State and Revolution)
From this follow two main conclusions:

First conclusion : The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be "complete" democracy, democracy for all, for the rich as well as for the poor; the dictatorship of the proletariat "must be a state that is democratic in a new way (for* the proletarians and the non-propertied in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against* the bourgeoisie)." (See Vol. XXI, p. 393.)[1] The talk of Kautsky and Co. about universal equality, about "pure" democracy, about "perfect" democracy, and the like, is a bourgeois disguise of the indubitable fact that equality between the exploited and exploiters is impossible. The theory of "pure" democracy is the theory of the upper stratum of the working class, which has been broken in and is being fed by the imperialist robbers. It was brought into being for the purpose of concealing the ulcers of capitalism, of embellishing imperialism and lending it moral strength in the struggle against the exploited masses. Under capitalism there are no real "liberties" for the exploited, nor can there be, if for no other reason than that the premises, printing plants, paper supplies, etc., indispensable for the enjoyment of "liberties" are the privilege of the exploiters. Under capitalism the exploited masses do not, nor can they ever, really participate in governing the country, if for no other reason than that, even under the most democratic regime, under conditions of capitalism, governments are not set up by the people but by the Rothschilds and Stinneses, the Rockefellers and Morgans. Dcmocracy under capitalism is capitalist democracy, the democracy of the exploiting minority, based on the restriction of the rights of the exploited majority and directed against this majority. Only under the proletarian dictatorship are real liberties for the exploited and real participation of the proletarians and peasants in governing the country possible. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy is proletarian democracy, the democracy of the exploited majority, based on the restriction of the rights of the exploiting minority and directed against this minority.

Second conclusion : The dictatorship of the proletariat can not arise as the result of the peaceful development of bourgeois society and of bourgeois democracy; it can arise only as the result of the smashing of the bourgeois state machine, the bourgeois army, the bourgeois bureaucratic apparatus, the bourgeois police.