anti-authoritarians - In response to uneducated "redcanada"

[TheBolshevikButcher]

It is very clear since I have been away that most of you little boys on this web-site are still ignorant to the teachings of marxism, leninism, communism, etc..
All of you autonomist(anti-authoritarians) are going against the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. So what I am saying is you are not communists as all of you claim to be but pathetic little social-democrats.

As qouted by Engels:
"The Anti-authoritarians demand that the politcal state should be abolished at once, even before the social conditions which brought it into being have been abolished. They demand that the first act of social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. A revolution is undoubtedly the most authoritarain thing there is. And the victictorious party, if it not wish to have fought in vain, must maintain its rule by means of terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Therefore either one of two things is possible: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they are saying, and in this case they sow nothing but confusion, or they do know, and in this case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."

Well there you go, Engels said it himself. You anti-authoritarians are confused or betraying the proletariat with your nonsense. You so called "Communists" need to educate yourselfs more before you write your bullshit! The first step to full and true communism is through authoritarianism.

[Just Joe]

you got a link for that quote?

[sliktrik]

YES COMMUNISM, my own antidemocracy is the only life for me, even if it kills me, my bestfriend is my guns, only cold metal.

[TheBolshevikButcher]

Quote: from Just Joe on 7:34 pm on Feb. 7, 2003
you got a link for that quote?


The articale appeared in "Neue Zeit". Also Lenin has it qouted in " The State And Revolution".

[Som]

Ah, its great that you can take things out of context to suit your purposes.

As well as treating the words of marx and engels like some irrefutable altar to be worshiped at.

Engels was talking specifically about Anarchists, which is quite clear by 'They demand that the first act of social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.' So that quote means absolutly nothing with all the democratic socialists and any other statists.

Though like most of Engels arguments against the anarchists, its fairly weak.

[Just Joe]

i searched and found a short article from Engels on authority. its where your quote comes from but the full version is here:

http://eserver.org/marx/1872-on.authority.txt

its an argument against anarchists who want to destroy the state right away. i was suprised to read about him advocating 'terror' though. that should not be advocated in peace time. words shoudn't be taken as gospel though. i think basic Marxism is a set of theories, beliefs and doctrines that can be aplied either way you interpret them. i think though that replacing one ruling class with another is defeating the object.

[James]

i imagine this was aimed at Bakunin and his mates.

[Mazdak]

LOL, i bet half the anarchists here dont even know who bakunin is.

[Eastside Revolt]

Strongarming is needed in some cases. But pure, consant authoritorianism is wrong in whatever form. You can interpret "The State And The Revolution" however you like. I personally agree with Marx that the revolution should create a dictatorship of the proletariat not a dictatorship of the vanguard.

[Revolution Hero]

Welcome back TheBolshevikButcher, if you are The Butcher I used to know!

Though Engels criticized anarchists, the teaching of Marx, Engels and Lenin has nothing in common with social- democracy in its modern meaning. Don’t social- democrats advocate multi- party bourgeois parliamentary system? Don’t they advocate the coexistence of exploiters with exploited? Don’t they stand for peaceful and slow transition of capitalism into socialism and slow progress, which will not bring to anything progressive? Yes, they do.
Marxism- Leninism advocates ONE PARTY SYSTEM (ONECOMMUNIST PARTY), it supports the oppression of exploiters by those who were exploited and the revolutionary change of one system by the other. Thus, Marxism- Leninism has nothing in common with modern conception of social- democracy.
I will not be surprised if social- democrats will openly attack Marxism- Leninism now…

[James]

lol, true true Mazy.

From what i gather though, Bakunin and his friends were trying to take over Marx and Engels organisation (in their eyes), so they basically started slagging each other off. Which ended in Bakunin and co. being thrown out of the org. I can't remember the name though now... i'll find it later

[Eastside Revolt]

Quote: from redcanada on 10:28 pm on Feb. 7, 2003
Strongarming is needed in some cases. But pure, consant authoritorianism is wrong in whatever form. You can interpret "The State And The Revolution" however you like. I personally agree with Marx that the revolution should create a dictatorship of the proletariat not a dictatorship of the vanguard.


And also, you still haven't explained anything about the right that authoritorians think they have to make everyone's decisions for them, often (with the exceptionn of Castro) opressing the very people who originally supported them.

[Valkyrie]

"From what i gather though, Bakunin and his friends were trying to take over Marx and Engels organisation (in their eyes), so they basically started slagging each other off. Which ended in Bakunin and co. being thrown out of the org. I can't remember the name though now... i'll find it later "


It was the First International, James. (hmmm, see, the anarchists do know their shit,,, but you all seem to be shaky on Marxism if the First International evades your mind!) Bakunin and friends did not try to "take it over" but had a mutual falling out over how the International was operating and of course over strategy.

You can read about the rest here:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...tionalhist.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/firstinternationalhist.html)

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/bak47.html



(Edited by Paris at 1:50 am on Feb. 9, 2003)

[ID2002]

...nothing wrong with a strong central government. As long as it doesn't abuse its people....its all fine. Personally, I like the freedoms in Canada, but I would like to see more emphasis on Socialist ideology and activism against the US policies. I feel the we as a country should be more involved with CUBA, and other socialist countries. We should have military relations with CUBA...meaning that we can send troops to help out in an emergency or do military exercises with them.

...an idea...


(Edited by ID2002 at 4:09 am on Feb. 9, 2003)

[Guest1]

Bullshit, if the people have a concern, they cower in fear until they're discovered and disappeared.

The problem with your authoritarian communism is the same as the problem with capitalism. Both, if we are to believe the proponents, work perfectly. Both, in a world of nice, altruistic leaders, are just dandy. In capitalism, we allow a small minority to have all the power and assume that they will act in the best interests of the rest of mankind, driving developements with the environment, etc... Same thing with authoritarian communism. Problem is, more often than not, power corrupts. So why should we put people in that situation?

I say, the system that works best is the one that you admit doesn't. I admit that an extremely democratic, de-centralized, bottom up communism (or socialism until such time as we can achieve the necessary conditions for the equitable redistribution) will not work. It will never be perfect, but then again, it's a political system for human beings. Anything that involves humanity will never be perfect. It's the one system that strips people of their monetary advantage and ability to exploit as well as their political advantage. If one man in this system decides he wants to harm the people, he can shout as much as he wants, but he has no more constitutional power than hundreds of other politicians.

That's the idea. Spread the wealth, to the people, and bring the power to the people. This is not a revolucion for the politicians after all. Having one party is like playing russian roulette. If you have the perfect party, great! Unfortunately, there's 5 other loaded chambers.

[James]

Paris,

OK, i've re-read part of the page.

1864 Marx formed the International Working Men's association (IWMA), which then became known as the first international (IWMA was the name i was trying to think of). And Bakunin and co were thrown out in 1872.

And as i said, it seemed to Engels and Marx that Bakunin were trying to take it over - thus why they were thrown out. It seemed this way to E and M because Bakunin and friends were setting up a secret international within the international.

[Valkyrie]

James,

You're just fact-fudging, and putting your own sly dogmatic spin on it.

Bakunin stayed with the principles of the International within the purpose and spirit of why and how it was formed in the first place.

The resolutions were changed without full congressional vote, taking autonomy away from the Federations and placing power soley into the hands of the General Council, which were the few. Bakunin protested against it as it went against giving power to the proletariat. The Internationals of Spain and Italy had the policy of autonomy; as well as the Internationals of Belgium, Switerzland and France also preferring policy.

Thus, Marx moved to have Bakunin expelled on the grounds of voicing dissent. When that didn't pan out, nor the original resolutions reinstated giving back autonomy to the federations,--- only then did the anarchists break and form their own International.

And even after that internal split, the anarchist not once denounced or dissassociated from Marx's economic theories. It's where power is vested that they had a problem with... and still do.


"Instead of a general congress of the International, the General Council, controlled by Marx and his friend Engels, in September 1871 convened a secret conference in London, attended almost entirely by partisans of Marx. The conference adopted resolutions destroying the autonomy of the sections and federations of the International and giving the General Council powers that violated the fundamental statutes of the International and the conference." (Guillaume, J. "Michael Bakunin: A Biographical Sketch", in Dolgoff, Bakunin on Anarchism, p.44.) The General Council convened a general congress in September, 1872, held in the Hague. The sixth congress of the International opened in Genva on September 1, 1873, but the anarchist followers of Bakunin had established an alternative anarchist International in 1872 at St Imier in Switzerland. "