authoritarian vs libertarian commies' dispute

[Black Sheep]

Firstly,sorry if i have been flooding the learning section with threads lately, but too many questions come up..:unsure:

This thread's question is why is there so much 'hatred' and dispute amongst the two groups mentioned in the title.
I.e., there was a riot in my country about the government's reforms, and AGAIN there were clashes in the riot between the syndicate of the communist party and the anti-authoritarian groups.

I understand that the differences in opinions in class struggle are great, but critique can always be made in a civil manner amongst the revolutionaries, and isn't the common enemy capitalism?

The ideological collisions between authoritarians and anti-authoritarian communists seem to be greater than the collision with each group with capitalism itself!

[ComradeOm]

Short answer: Because pointless bickering is always easier than attempting meaningful change

[Incendiarism]

The anarchists will say: "The authoritarians have betrayed the cause time and time again *points to civil war spain and russia*"

The marxists will say: "The anarchists are reactionaries and no anarchist society would be able to sustain itself in a world of imperialist governments"

Rinse wash repeat

[Knight of Cydonia]

This thread's question is why is there so much 'hatred' and dispute amongst the two groups mentioned in the title
why there's so much hatred? because (libertarian communist) anarchists do not submit to a higher authority, any kind of it. and because authority, has been an instrument of the capitalist and the state.

[F9]

you know that those who acted against the communists,authoritarians whatever you want call them ,are NOT libertarian communists neither anarchists,are just chaotic kids who act in the name of "anarchism" but eventually have nothing to do with Anarchism.

Fuserg9:star:

[trivas7]

why there's so much hatred? because (libertarian communist) anarchists do not submit to a higher authority, any kind of it. and because authority, has been an instrument of the capitalist and the state.
I find this simplistic and a bit disingenuous. The truth of the matter we all are a bit authoritarian and libertarian simultaneously. Each person does her own balancing act.

[Psy]

What there is differing view of the best path to revolution. The conventional Marxist path to revolution is to organize organize, organize, organize some more so when a revolution is sparked off like in Paris May 1968 and the workers look at the vanguard for guidance the vanguard can teach the masses (note the vanguard also has to learn from the rest of the working class but that is another topic).

The more anarchist Marxists don't like the idea of a vanguard and expect working class to lead themselves even when the bulk of the working class just gained their class consciousness.

[trivas7]

The more anarchist Marxists don't like the idea of a vanguard and expect working class to lead themselves even when the bulk of the working class just gained their class consciousness.
An anarchist Marxist IMO is an oxymoron. :D

[Psy]

An anarchist Marxist IMO is an oxymoron. :D
I said more anarchist.

[Black Sheep]

you know that those who acted against the communists,authoritarians whatever you want call them ,are NOT libertarian communists neither anarchists,are just chaotic kids who act in the name of "anarchism" but eventually have nothing to do with Anarchism.

Fuserg9:star:
i find that hard to believe
because i imagine an anarchist will fight against all "oppression"


The truth of the matter we all are a bit authoritarian and libertarian simultaneously.
Yeah but there are some lines which when u cross u aren't a marxist/anarchist

[F9]

i find that hard to believe
because i imagine an anarchist will fight against all "oppression"


of course and we fight against all oppressions but that doesnt mean when i see a Stalinist in the street i will go and beat the hell out of him.I appreciate most of Communists,and thats why i am in here even if i know i have different views from them,i see that we fight for almost the same thing!
People who go for the fights are not Anarchists,we have said this and before,there are just morons calling themselves such and they think that they should beat the hell out of cops and all authority's.

Fuserg9:star:

[Niccolò Rossi]

An anarchist Marxist IMO is an oxymoron. :D

An Anarcho-Marxist, yes, but surely not a Libertarian-Marxist with Anarchist sympathies.

[RHIZOMES]

The anarchists will say: "The authoritarians have betrayed the cause time and time again *points to civil war spain and russia*"

The marxists will say: "The anarchists are reactionaries and no anarchist society would be able to sustain itself in a world of imperialist governments"

Rinse wash repeat

Pretty much. :lol:

I disagree vehemently with anarchism, but I am friends/associates with a lot of anarchists in the Auckland far left scene. If I was in a riot I wouldn't be the one starting the clashes.


An Anarcho-Marxist, yes, but surely not a Libertarian-Marxist with Anarchist sympathies.

I would say that even though the term "Libertarian-Marxist" isn't oxymoronical, a lot of the views of people who call themselves that are. :lol:

[apathy maybe]

Firstly,sorry if i have been flooding the learning section with threads lately, but too many questions come up..:unsure:

This thread's question is why is there so much 'hatred' and dispute amongst the two groups mentioned in the title.
I.e., there was a riot in my country about the government's reforms, and AGAIN there were clashes in the riot between the syndicate of the communist party and the anti-authoritarian groups.

I understand that the differences in opinions in class struggle are great, but critique can always be made in a civil manner amongst the revolutionaries, and isn't the common enemy capitalism?

The ideological collisions between authoritarians and anti-authoritarian communists seem to be greater than the collision with each group with capitalism itself!
I did have an answer for this question, but I forgot it. I think it was something along the lines of the "authoritarian" types want something that is completely against what the libertarian types want. Auth scum want to set up a centralised state which will crush all attempts to move faster towards a future perfect society. So screw them, they are just as much the enemy when they do that, as the capitalists now.

An anarchist Marxist IMO is an oxymoron. :D
Not so. Many anarchists on this board accept large chunks of Marxist theory, and there are many Marxists who accept large chunks of anarchist theory. But more to the point, there are Marxists who are anarchists in all but name, and there are lots of them.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I can't rest my suspicions of why people find Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha praiseworthy.

[Robespierre2.0]

Because anarchism doesn't work. Anarchists do little more than throw poop at cops and accuse every successful revolutionary movement of 'betraying the workers'.

[F9]

Because anarchism doesn't work. Anarchists do little more than throw poop at cops and accuse every successful revolutionary movement of 'betraying the workers'.

at least we throw them,you just need to stop gathering them from down!;)

Fuserg9:star:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Because anarchism doesn't work. Anarchists do little more than throw poop at cops and accuse every successful revolutionary movement of 'betraying the workers'.

I'd take the EZLN, Catalonia, or the Free Territory over the Soviet Union and Albania any day, thank you very much.

[Psy]

at least we throw them,you just need to stop gathering them from down!;)

Fuserg9:star:
Annoying police is one thing, crushing capitalist forces requires a disciplined and organized fighting force. When failure is no longer an option because you are defending occupied means of production then you can't have fighters just doing their own thing (being anarchists) and everyone in a unit has to act as a single unit with no room for Anarchist individualism.

[Sendo]

I don't subscribe exclusively in either direction, but definitely lean more towards libertarianism over Leninist super-central bureaucracies. Having said that, the anarchists are definitely the better arguers in these debates. The authoritarians make straw men out of anarchists and just ignore mentions of stuff like Catalonia. It really comes down to a difference between those who would rather stay pure and risk military defeat and those who will do anything to preserve any leftist gains at any cost.

[F9]

Annoying police is one thing, crushing capitalist forces requires a disciplined and organized fighting force. When failure is no longer an option because you are defending occupied means of production then you can't have fighters just doing their own thing (being anarchists) and everyone in a unit has to act as a single unit with no room for Anarchist individualism.

one question.
What are you talking about???

Fuserg9:star:

[Psy]

one question.
What are you talking about???

Fuserg9:star:

That the capitalist forces a highly organized and disciplined. It is illogical to think even with superior numbers we can defeat capitalist forces without also being organized and disciplined.

[trivas7]

[...] It really comes down to a difference between those who would rather stay pure and risk military defeat and those who will do anything to preserve any leftist gains at any cost.
What! -- you've just shifted the deckchairs to read 'pure' and 'compromised' instead of libertarian-authoritarian. :laugh:

[apathy maybe]

I don't subscribe exclusively in either direction, but definitely lean more towards libertarianism over Leninist super-central bureaucracies. Having said that, the anarchists are definitely the better arguers in these debates. The authoritarians make straw men out of anarchists and just ignore mentions of stuff like Catalonia. It really comes down to a difference between those who would rather stay pure and risk military defeat and those who will do anything to preserve any leftist gains at any cost.

Trouble is, by attempting to "preserve any leftist gains at any cost", you loose those very gains you fight to keep.

You cannot create a centralised state, and then expect to bring about a state-less society. History has shown, time and again, that centralised states (I am not talking about decentralised, actually worker controlled "states" here, anarchists don't tend to think of these as states at all) reenforce themselves, and do not "whither away".

So yeah, by introducing a strong state to fight to keep "any leftist gains at any cost", you automatically lose the fight for communism.

[Djehuti]

I don't like the authoritarian / libertarian dichotomy, I am authoritarian and libertarian but don't call myself any of that, how does that fit?

[Black Sheep]

I don't like the authoritarian / libertarian dichotomy, I am authoritarian and libertarian but don't call myself any of that, how does that fit?

well,isn't it the main division amongst our ranks?

[Big Red]

its because authoritarian Marxists are more in line with stalinists views which are in no way shape or form communists, infact the opposite is true. beurocratic communism or better known as STATE capitalism is even worse then regular capitalism if you ask me. meaning that only the state controls the means of productions as in more "democratic" capitalism where you could at least own a mom and pop buisness by yourself wherease in state capitalism the government owns every inch of the means of production. basically what it comes down to is communism is inherently anarchist in theory being as in a communist society there is no STATE no currency just COMMUNAL economics which might be why, Apathy Maybe, that Marxists and Anarchists alike can have strong ideological ties, because their idealogies are so similiar! but these so called "authoritarian communists" or state capitalist vise versa are completely antagonistic of both said dogma's so yes the common enemy is capitalism but in no way shape or form is "authoritarian Communists" not capitalist, just a different mold of it, which might be why those two groups fought.

[Tower of Bebel]

IMO the "split" between "libertarian" and authoritarian communists (not anarchists) is based on failures in the past to overcome the difficulties that arise from the devision of labour within the working class movement. the devision is one between base and "leadership"; One between masses and bureaucracy. So to me it is more of an organizational mater than something ideological (e.g. anarchists oppose all authority over ..., imperialism as a world epoch, etc.). Theoretical differences catch up with reality; They are created because of this reality.
I'm not sure about the anarchists. Though passive support of Russian anarchists during the October Uprising and the formation of the provisional Bolshevik government leads me to think that also the split between anarchists and marxists is mainly based on the question of how does the workers' movement overcome those organizational difficulties.

[F9]

That the capitalist forces a highly organized and disciplined. It is illogical to think even with superior numbers we can defeat capitalist forces without also being organized and disciplined.

who said anything that you can go by your own and defeat the capitalists forces?
But to be organized,and "disciplined" dont requires state or authority's if thats what you mean.

Fuserg9:star:

[Psy]

who said anything that you can go by your own and defeat the capitalists forces?
But to be organized,and "disciplined" dont requires state or authority's if thats what you mean.

Fuserg9:star:

And how would Anarchists deal with a global civil-war if they win a global revolution? How would tanks be build and how will tank battles be performed under Anarchism? Basically how would Anarchists run revolutionary armies on a scale much larger then the CNT and POUM combined?

[F9]

And how would Anarchists deal with a global civil-war if they win a global revolution? How would tanks be build and how will tank battles be performed under Anarchism? Basically how would Anarchists run revolutionary armies on a scale much larger then the CNT and POUM combined?

civil-war comes during revolution,no after.i think...?
how would tanks will build?in the way that they build now,whats the difference?but anyway,after the global revolution there wont be needed tanks.Under global Anarchism why would we wanted tanks to performed?
We wont "run" anything,everyone "runs" himself,thats how and the revolution army will be "runed".

Fuserg9:star:

[Psy]

civil-war comes during revolution,no after.i think...?

Just like after the October Russian revolution the capitalist class will counter-attack once it licks its wounds after a global revolution.



how would tanks will build?in the way that they build now,whats the difference?but anyway,after the global revolution there wont be needed tanks.Under global Anarchism why would we wanted tanks to performed?

To crush the capitalist counter-attack. Do you think the ruling class after being thrown out of power would just accept it? Do you think they will not turn to the fascists as a last ditch effort to restore their order?



We wont "run" anything,everyone "runs" himself,thats how and the revolution army will be "runed".

Fuserg9:star:

Armies don't just run themselves, they are very hierarchal in nature and have to be so units hundreds miles appart can be coordinated.

[F9]

Just like after the October Russian revolution the capitalist class will counter-attack once it licks its wounds after a global revolution.

no they wont.octoger revolution wasnt global,we are talking for global rev now,dont we?So that time capitalists they may found supplies from other places where capitalists were controlling.Though now we are talking for a society after a global revolution were we succeded.In this case whatever they would do would fail miserable.Why?Because how could capitalists after a succed revolution where we managed to destroy all of their supplies in weapons,and we took most of them,we destroy most of them on our way.Dont forget they would be wounded too after the revolution not only us.So after loosing all those army the had,they left only with small supplies,commnity will crush them completely.You see my meaning!



To crush the capitalist counter-attack. Do you think the ruling class after being thrown out of power would just accept it? Do you think they will not turn to the fascists as a last ditch effort to restore their order?


Of course and they would not accept it!And of course they would try recruit as much people as possible,but the power from that moment,will be on our side,the will left with small amount of guns etc.In the very first years i think ill be impossible for them to act,but if they make the "mistake" and postponed it,many of them i can see joining the communities after all,and view its possitives.The remainings wont be and a huge threating.



Armies don't just run themselves, they are very hierarchal in nature and have to be so units hundreds miles appart can be coordinated.

Armies dont,people do.Organizing dont requires authority,but comradeship,and thats all about our goal.You can still coordinated,i dont see what makes it different with "authority".

Fuserg9:star:

[Psy]

no they wont.octoger revolution wasnt global,we are talking for global rev now,dont we?So that time capitalists they may found supplies from other places where capitalists were controlling.Though now we are talking for a society after a global revolution were we succeded.In this case whatever they would do would fail miserable.Why?Because how could capitalists after a succed revolution where we managed to destroy all of their supplies in weapons,and we took most of them,we destroy most of them on our way.Dont forget they would be wounded too after the revolution not only us.So after loosing all those army the had,they left only with small supplies,commnity will crush them completely.You see my meaning!

Just because there is a successful global revolution doesn't mean we have destroyed the capitalist armies and their stockpiles, it just means we have secured the means of production and have forced the capitalist armies to retreat away from the cities. For in example in the USA troops still loyal to the US capitalist class retreating to bases in rural areas that are still in their zones of control.



Of course and they would not accept it!And of course they would try recruit as much people as possible,but the power from that moment,will be on our side,the will left with small amount of guns etc.In the very first years i think ill be impossible for them to act,but if they make the "mistake" and postponed it,many of them i can see joining the communities after all,and view its possitives.The remainings wont be and a huge threating.

That is assume they have no stockpile of arms and supplies to draw upon.




Armies dont,people do.Organizing dont requires authority,but comradeship,and thats all about our goal.You can still coordinated,i dont see what makes it different with "authority".

Fuserg9:star:

Armies are highely centralized, in war centralized command structures does have the advantage of coordinating large number of units over a vast area.

[F9]

Just because there is a successful global revolution doesn't mean we have destroyed the capitalist armies and their stockpiles, it just means we have secured the means of production and have forced the capitalist armies to retreat away from the cities. For in example in the USA troops still loyal to the US capitalist class retreating to bases in rural areas that are still in their zones of control.

succesfull global revolution is when counter-revolutionaries,capitalists etc have no "zones of control" no one hasnt got anything(property).We dont stop when we manage to control the means of production,or when the counter-revs retreat.I see the revolution as the "transistory stage",so we have to qurantee the success and the safety.So yes we wont let them go away and take there arms together,they can go away but all of their supplies are staying,or else we are chasing them.



That is assume they have no stockpile of arms and supplies to draw upon.
Of course,we are assuming now,we dont "predict future".;)




Armies are highly centralized, in war centralized command structures does have the advantage of coordinating large number of units over a vast area.

No its not,and it isnt needed.When the people "wake up",and throw everything down,we have nothing to fear.
Some people will take the responsibility(not authority) of cordinate bettwen us,you see organization and coordination as action of centralized command team.We dont.

Fuserg9:star:

[Psy]

succesfull global revolution is when counter-revolutionaries,capitalists etc have no "zones of control" no one hasnt got anything(property).We dont stop when we manage to control the means of production,or when the counter-revs retreat.I see the revolution as the "transistory stage",so we have to qurantee the success and the safety.So yes we wont let them go away and take there arms together,they can go away but all of their supplies are staying,or else we are chasing them.

Odds are after we get to the point of securing cities and industry we'd be too weak to take on the armies out in open field. Defeating capitalist armies in cities is one thing, defeating capitalist armies in wide open farm land is another as all of a sudden their tanks have tons of room to move and they can fire at you past the horizon which they couldn't do in urban areas.



No its not,and it isnt needed.When the people "wake up",and throw everything down,we have nothing to fear.
Some people will take the responsibility(not authority) of cordinate bettwen us,you see organization and coordination as action of centralized command team.We dont.

Fuserg9:star:
You do realize the capitalist could make the civil-war the most bloody conflict on Earth to date? That even with our superior numbers that tactical nukes could be dished out like candy by both sides (both by us and by the capitalists) that for the worse case scenario (nuclear civil-war) we are talking about decision needed to be made and carried out in minutes else we would lose.

[F9]

Odds are after we get to the point of securing cities and industry we'd be too weak to take on the armies out in open field. Defeating capitalist armies in cities is one thing, defeating capitalist armies in wide open farm land is another as all of a sudden their tanks have tons of room to move and they can fire at you past the horizon which they couldn't do in urban areas.


You do realize the capitalist could make the civil-war the most bloody conflict on Earth to date? That even with out superior numbers tactical nukes could be dished out like candy by both sides (both by us and by the capitalists) that for the worse case scenario (nuclear civil-war) we are talking about decision needed to be made and carried out in minutes else we would lose.


yes i do realize what it could be,but from now on only assumes we can make,so i dont have anything more to add on the conversation.

Fuserg9:star:

[nuisance]

Odds are after we get to the point of securing cities and industry we'd be too weak to take on the armies out in open field. Defeating capitalist armies in cities is one thing, defeating capitalist armies in wide open farm land is another as all of a sudden their tanks have tons of room to move and they can fire at you past the horizon which they couldn't do in urban areas.
The aim is expropriate the means of production, opposed to the general strike. Thus we would now have control of the arms manufacturing units and beable to produce our own weapons, as well as taking weapons from army bases, as happened in the Spanish civil war.
Also, it is unlikely that the entire army are going to open fire on their relatives. Therefore the threat is largely from foreign armies coming into the fray.

You do realize the capitalist could make the civil-war the most bloody conflict on Earth to date? That even with our superior numbers that tactical nukes could be dished out like candy by both sides (both by us and by the capitalists) that for the worse case scenario (nuclear civil-war) we are talking about decision needed to be made and carried out in minutes else we would lose.
Nuke use isn't highly likely, as where they drop these bombs, they are going to make massive destruciton on behalf of both sides, due to the nature of the war. Unless you suspect that each side is going to only inhabit certain areas of the globe.

[Psy]

The aim is expropriate the means of production, opposed to the general strike. Thus we would now have control of the arms manufacturing units and beable to produce our own weapons, as well as taking weapons from army bases, as happened in the Spanish civil war.

True



Also, it is unlikely that the entire army are going to open fire on their relatives. Therefore the threat is largely from foreign armies coming into the fray.

There are those in armies that are fanatically loyal to the ruling class like the SS of the Nazi army.



Nuke use isn't highly likely, as where they drop these bombs, they are going to make massive destruciton on behalf of both sides, due to the nature of the war. Unless you suspect that each side is going to only inhabit certain areas of the globe.
I said tactical nukes, they are low yield nuclear bombs that are designed to take out formations of enemy troops. During the cold war they were developed to get around M.A.D but since both sides had tactical nukes it created another dimension to M.A.D

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nuclear weapons?

If you're going to turn the Earth into a burnt crisp, I think I'll pass on your revolution.

[Psy]

Nuclear weapons?

If you're going to turn the Earth into a burnt crisp, I think I'll pass on your revolution.
I said worse case scenario.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If any potential revolution is simply a matter of "our weapons vs. theirs", we're going to lose.

Luckily, though, it's not that simple.

[nuisance]

There are those in armies that are fanatically loyal to the ruling class like the SS of the Nazi army.
Past revolutions are littered with examples where the national army refused to fire on its own, when they saw that people patently reject what was happening. Also, for social revolution to take place, we have to set about propagating our ideas and creating strong communities and workplaces of resistance, this we see and downturn in nationalism and the things that prop up discrimination.

[Psy]

If any potential revolution is simply a matter of "our weapons vs. theirs", we're going to lose.

Luckily, though, it's not that simple.
True but I was talking about a counter-attack after a revolution. That even if we have a global revolution those most loyal to the ruling class could regroup and a global civil-war could break out of us vs what remained of the old ruling class. This could even take the form of low intensity warfare with the CIA still being active and their paramilitary forces terrorizing rural areas.

[Psy]

Past revolutions are littered with examples where the national army refused to fire on its own, when they saw that people patently reject what was happening. Also, for social revolution to take place, we have to set about propagating our ideas and creating strong communities and workplaces of resistance, this we see and downturn in nationalism and the things that prop up discrimination.
True but there are also those fanatically loyal to the state, for example I doubt any of the paramilitary forces of the CIA will change to our side.

[nuisance]

True but there are also those fanatically loyal to the state, for example I doubt any of the paramilitary forces of the CIA will change to our side.
We don't expect them to, but I doubt that they are majority.

[Psy]

We don't expect them to, but I doubt that they are majority.
But that would still be a sizable force, think of all the imperialist thugs that do horrific things for their capitalist masters who are going to worry about a noose around their neck after a world revolution. Thus why I think there a possibility of be a global civil-war after a global revolution.

[nuisance]

But that would still be a sizable force, think of all the imperialist thugs that do horrific things for their capitalist masters who are going to worry about a noose around their neck after a world revolution. Thus why I think there a possibility of be a global civil-war after a global revolution.
With revolution will come war, unfortunatly this is pretty much an inevitability. It's our place to help people organise resisitance for themselves and spread our ideas to encompass as many people as possible, after all everyone is going to be involved. As I said, the main threat is that of foreign armies coming into other countries, as the national army refuses to fight their own, this has been proved throughout history.
The social revolution is a process, not an act.

[bootleg42]

Firstly,sorry if i have been flooding the learning section with threads lately, but too many questions come up..:unsure:

This thread's question is why is there so much 'hatred' and dispute amongst the two groups mentioned in the title.
I.e., there was a riot in my country about the government's reforms, and AGAIN there were clashes in the riot between the syndicate of the communist party and the anti-authoritarian groups.

I understand that the differences in opinions in class struggle are great, but critique can always be made in a civil manner amongst the revolutionaries, and isn't the common enemy capitalism?

The ideological collisions between authoritarians and anti-authoritarian communists seem to be greater than the collision with each group with capitalism itself!

After reading the first three pages, I can say that both sides are on crack. Both are talking of revolutions that will not happen in our lifetimes and these sort of revolutions may never happen the way you all are saying period.

Why not do this simple thing.......ask and carry out what the poor and oppressed populations want!!!! We know plenty of this information, though polls in western countries, and actions of poor lower classes in the third world. If you'd know what poor people want, you'd know they're NOT looking to a revolution and the idea of the state itself being destroyed at anytime. It is nuts to them and rightfully so. The majority of the people want non-violent means to achieve better and more just lives for themselves and populations are always resisting and they tend to try to make government work for themselves.

This is where the revolutionary left fails. They're not with the people, being with them. Communists want to led the masses, Anarchists want the masses to led themselves (more logical I'd say) but none are asking and pushing through what people want (reformists).

So when I'm in Bolivia, I'm trying to help the C.O.B. get their demands and help the people get the I.D.H. money spread and the "renta dignidad". When I'm in Venezuela, I'm trying to get the councils more power and whatever I'm asked to do by the actual people in towns, I'll do it. When I'm in the U.S., I'm trying to get everyone universal private power-less healthcare because that's what, according to polls, everyone wants. No where in my agenda am I talking about some violent revolution because people haven't wanted it.

[Big Red]

I agree with bootleg theorising about possible strategic tactics for a imaginary post revolution scenario is both rediculous and pointless as not only do the masses not want revolution now but the idea that you could successfully predict the outcome of these imaginary battles and scenarios is not possible or worthwhile

[nuisance]

I agree with bootleg theorising about possible strategic tactics for a imaginary post revolution scenario is both rediculous and pointless as not only do the masses not want revolution now but the idea that you could successfully predict the outcome of these imaginary battles and scenarios is not possible or worthwhile
Yes, we should let revolution take everyone by surprise and not have any basic idea of securing victory.
:rolleyes:
Fact is that we are pushing for social revolution. We can't advocate such an idea if we cannot take from history the errors made, and then how we can be successful. Basically a revolutionary oraganisation cannot be so if it does not have a plan for creating the necessary conditions for revolution, aswell as being successful. Also, who is going to take a organisation seriously when posed with the question, "what are you going to do in this revolution?", huh? Reply, "we haven't thought of that yet as we don't think it's necessary".

[Psy]

Yes, we should let revolution take everyone by surprise and not have any basic idea of securing victory.
:rolleyes:
Fact is that we are pushing for social revolution. We can't advocate such an idea if we cannot take from history the errors made, and then how we can be successful. Basically a revolutionary oraganisation cannot be so if it does not have a plan for creating the necessary conditions for revolution, aswell as being successful. Also, who is going to take a organisation seriously when posed with the question, "what are you going to do in this revolution?", huh? Reply, "we haven't thought of that yet as we don't think it's necessary".

Yet it is the past why Marxist see that the revolutionary army should be a ugly hammer to crush the capitalist forces period, that the revolutionary army has no need to be a model of socialism as its role is to crush capitalist armies as effectively as possibly.

[Big Red]

its one thing to theorize about tactics and fighting techniques but another to try and think about post revolutionary counter attacks by the ex-ruling elite. how can you predict what society,government,and economics will look like post revolution?

[Psy]

its one thing to theorize about tactics and fighting techniques but another to try and think about post revolutionary counter attacks by the ex-ruling elite. how can you predict what society,government,and economics will look like post revolution?

The counter attack will happen shortly after a successful revolution as the ex-ruling class won't have time on their side, thus what is left of the old state power will have no choice but counter attack as soon as possible. We won't have surprise attacks from secret military bases occurring years after the revolution, or capitalist backed terrorist attacks years after the revolution, such counter attacks would occur right on the heels of a successful revolution.

We might not know what the capitalist will throw at us but we can safely bet that we won't have to wait long after a successful revolution to find out.

[Black Sheep]

After reading the first three pages, I can say that both sides are on crack. Both are talking of revolutions that will not happen in our lifetimes and these sort of revolutions may never happen the way you all are saying period.

Why not do this simple thing.......ask and carry out what the poor and oppressed populations want!!!! We know plenty of this information, though polls in western countries, and actions of poor lower classes in the third world. If you'd know what poor people want, you'd know they're NOT looking to a revolution and the idea of the state itself being destroyed at anytime. It is nuts to them and rightfully so. The majority of the people want non-violent means to achieve better and more just lives for themselves and populations are always resisting and they tend to try to make government work for themselves.

This is where the revolutionary left fails. They're not with the people, being with them. Communists want to led the masses, Anarchists want the masses to led themselves (more logical I'd say) but none are asking and pushing through what people want (reformists).

So when I'm in Bolivia, I'm trying to help the C.O.B. get their demands and help the people get the I.D.H. money spread and the "renta dignidad". When I'm in Venezuela, I'm trying to get the councils more power and whatever I'm asked to do by the actual people in towns, I'll do it. When I'm in the U.S., I'm trying to get everyone universal private power-less healthcare because that's what, according to polls, everyone wants. No where in my agenda am I talking about some violent revolution because people haven't wanted it.

I can't say that i agree..Isn't acting according to the circumstances solely opportunism?
Regardless of the opinion of the people,our basic goals and "theoretical values" should remain unchanged.
Of course we could go with the will of the people in matters of not too much importance, but being reformist because, as you say, it is the will of the people is kinda silly..
We have to educate the people and propagandize our ideas,because after critical thinking we have concluded that we have to act this or that way to make our lives better, not get 'carried away' by petty bourgeoisie ideologies..

[dread...]

I can't say that i agree..Isn't acting according to the circumstances solely opportunism?
Regardless of the opinion of the people,our basic goals and "theoretical values" should remain unchanged.
Of course we could go with the will of the people in matters of not too much importance,

No. This is a major problem with anarchists and the far left - in order to build support for our organisations and their ideas we first have to demonstrate our ability to listen to people's desires - and then how application of our tactics can actually help them get what they want - real concrete improvements in our day to day lives being what most people want. That then creates a space for us to discuss the other aspects of our politics.


We have to educate the people and propagandize our ideas,because after critical thinking we have concluded that we have to act this or that way to make our lives better, not get 'carried away' by petty bourgeoisie ideologies..

Why should people listen to us, unless we have demonstrated that we are effective at helping to bring about real changes - however small?

[Herman]

I like anarcho-syndicalism, due to some concepts which I find fascinating (self-management for example).

However, i'm the kind of person who likes a transitional approach to the disappearance of the state.

I dislike centralized power. I like decentralized power in the form of either a federation or confederation.

[Wake Up]

I can't say that i agree..Isn't acting according to the circumstances solely opportunism?
Regardless of the opinion of the people,our basic goals and "theoretical values" should remain unchanged.
Of course we could go with the will of the people in matters of not too much importance, but being reformist because, as you say, it is the will of the people is kinda silly..
We have to educate the people and propagandize our ideas,because after critical thinking we have concluded that we have to act this or that way to make our lives better, not get 'carried away' by petty bourgeoisie ideologies..


A lot of the revolutionary left act like arrogant preachers in the way they talk,
saying things like getting people on 'our side' is so so wrong. 'our side' IS the peoples side.

Education is paramount, but so is helping the people. It may be 'petty bourgeois reformist' but you miss the point that it is still HELPING the people.

When people say what they want the revolutionary left often says 'you don't want that you want this'.

Bootleg42's post is the best I've read on here so far, and it does not involve one bit of jargon and technobabble.
It is next to impossible to get to the root of the problem instantly, so we must help ease the pain.

[Psy]

A lot of the revolutionary left act like arrogant preachers in the way they talk,
saying things like getting people on 'our side' is so so wrong. 'our side' IS the peoples side.

Education is paramount, but so is helping the people. It may be 'petty bourgeois reformist' but you miss the point that it is still HELPING the people.

When people say what they want the revolutionary left often says 'you don't want that you want this'.

Bootleg42's post is the best I've read on here so far, and it does not involve one bit of jargon and technobabble.
It is next to impossible to get to the root of the problem instantly, so we must help ease the pain.
Contradictions exist in the minds of proletariat caused by their extremely limited class consciousness interacting with their capitalist indoctrination.

You also have to understand there would be no advanced warning of a revolution situation, it is not that in past revolutionary situations the vanguard made the masses militant, what happened was the old social order slowly rotted away till all it took was a event to cause the masses to take to the street against the social order.

The very fact that the masses are dropped into a revolution due to the social order collapsing on them, means they are dropped into a revolutionary situation with little knowledge. Should we listen to workers? Of course we should, we are totally blind if we don't but remember the bulk don't read Marx and are totally ignorant of how capitalism really works.

[Wake Up]

Right lets use an analogy then....

Man goes to the doctor, having found a lump in his body.
Doctor breaks the bad news that he has cancer.
Doctor says " Well we haven't found a cure yet so you just have to sit it out till we do"
Man " Can't i have Chemotherapy or somein??"
Doctor, " Well theres really no point, as we can't really get to the root of the problem. We could ease you pain, but hey what do you know about it?
Man "Thanks for nothin doc...."



The best way to get to a revolution is to educate the masses. But the masses are often not concerned about a revolution, they want a quick fix to ease their financial problems.
"After the revolution" doesn't wash with people I've found as a revolution is so far from peoples mind.

We are revolutionary, but in the meantime we need to be reformists.
While we are reforming, therefore helping out the working class, we can educate on leftist theory. Not to mention build up much needed report amongst the community, who just think of the Soviet Union when they think of communism.

[Psy]

They are not concerned with a revolution because they look at the social order and it looks strong. They look at the oppression RNC protests and it looks like the ruling class is getting more confident, in reality the oppression of the RNC protests is a sign of the opposite that the ruling class is actually worried that the smallest spark can cause the whole social order to burn down. That the ruling class looks at these protests in great fear and the rate of profits are so bad they can't buy off the masses.

That is not to say the social order will come crashing down any time soon only that it is already showing sign of great weakness, and is clear the ruling class is well aware that the social order now is far weaker then it was during the 60's.

[nuisance]

This is relevant, why the Friends of Durruti found that the Spanish revolution failed.


How do we account for the fact that in the July revolution we saw a repetition of the errors we have criticised hundreds and hundreds of times? How come we did not hold out for social revolution in July? How come workers' organisations failed to assume maximum control of the country?

The vast majority of the working population stood by the CNT. Inside Catalonia, the CNT was the majority organisation. What happened, that the CNT did not makes its revolution, the people's revolution, the revolution of the majority of the population?

What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty; but when all is said and done, we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to give substance to the popular effusion which erupted inside our organisations. By not knowing what to do, we handed the revolution on a platter to the bourgeoisie and the marxists who support the farce of yesteryear. What is worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space; to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror.

The conclusion is that organisations aiming for revolution need to be well versed in the proceedures to be taken at the time of revolution. I feel that the AF's pamphlet The Role of the Revolutionary Organisation (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/roro.html) maps the basics of this out well.

[Black Sheep]

But the masses are often not concerned about a revolution, they want a quick fix to ease their financial problems.
Very interesting,i hadn't thought about it that way..

But shouldn't one of our primary goals is to make them see the big picture?

[Wake Up]

Very interesting,i hadn't thought about it that way..

But shouldn't one of our primary goals is to make them see the big picture?


One of them yes. But not the only one.


I like to think of reformism as the painkillers, while the revolution is the cure.
But we are on a long waiting list....

[bootleg42]

I can't say that i agree..Isn't acting according to the circumstances solely opportunism?

Then the majority of the population are opportunist???? I'll just support whatever the people support.


Regardless of the opinion of the people,our basic goals and "theoretical values" should remain unchanged.

Dogma I'd say. The opinion of the people should be not only what fuels us but it should dictate the way we go as a movement (if it still exists).


Of course we could go with the will of the people in matters of not too much importance, but being reformist because, as you say, it is the will of the people is kinda silly..

This is very anti-democratic. You're no different than liberal intellectual Walter Lippmann who hated democracy and believed that people should not have control of their lives, but that a special intelligent group of educated people should more or less decide how people should live. You're no different, only that the values you want to force are different.


We have to educate the people and propagandize our ideas,because after critical thinking we have concluded that we have to act this or that way to make our lives better, not get 'carried away' by petty bourgeoisie ideologies..

"WE" have concluded you say but HAVE THE PEOPLE COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AS YOU????? Here's the easy answer.....no. Sure they've been propagandized by corporate private media but even so, little by little, they tend to gain THEIR OWN OPINIONS that, more and more everyday, go in contrast to what private power wants. Hell people in the U.S. have been wanting national healthcare for DECADES even with private power and media making the issue taboo.

[bootleg42]

The best way to get to a revolution is to educate the masses. But the masses are often not concerned about a revolution, they want a quick fix to ease their financial problems.
"After the revolution" doesn't wash with people I've found as a revolution is so far from peoples mind.

As it should not be in our minds as well. We should just aim to strengthen democracy. And I'm not talking about that "vote for your president every 4 years and vote for your senator/congressman every 2 years" bull shit. I'm talking about people having their own democratic culture, meaning that people are getting informed, and most important people are involved in creating their own communities. If people have a democratic culture (even if nameless), then propaganda from private power (whether it be from the market or media) will not work. Then we the people will be freer human beings. Humanity (not the elites and private power) will then take itself from there, "revolution" or not.


We are revolutionary, but in the meantime we need to be reformists.
While we are reforming, therefore helping out the working class, we can educate on leftist theory. Not to mention build up much needed report amongst the community, who just think of the Soviet Union when they think of communism.

I agree but lets stop using the words "revolutionary" and "reformists". I explained already above.

[bootleg42]

The very fact that the masses are dropped into a revolution due to the social order collapsing on them, means they are dropped into a revolutionary situation with little knowledge. Should we listen to workers? Of course we should, we are totally blind if we don't but remember the bulk don't read Marx and are totally ignorant of how capitalism really works.

Maybe your also ignorant on how capitalism works. The western world and developed countries don't have actual capitalism. They have a variant state-capitalism system. Please don't take it as an insult and don't think I'm promoting actual capitalism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Maybe your also ignorant on how capitalism works. The western world and developed countries don't have actual capitalism. They have a variant state-capitalism system.

Sorry, come again? Could you explain the difference between "actual capitalism" and "state capitalism".

[bootleg42]

Sorry, come again? Could you explain the difference between "actual capitalism" and "state capitalism".

Well ask the far-right free-market libertarians and they'll tell you, correctly, that we don't live in actual capitalism. NOT THAT I'M ADVOCATING IT. In capitalism, the state does not bail out major corporations and saves them or gives them subsidies the way the western countries did and still do (see Bear Sterns and Fannie Mae). Also in capitalism (the theory at least) private power is supposed to invent everything. A good research in most modern main technology shows that the state (in the western countries) invented almost all the technology (including that computer you're using right now) that private power sells today.

Plus just take a look at the one model the western states used to develop, the keynesian model. It is a model very much against ACTUAL capitalism, and FOR the state-capitalist model carried out in the most developed countries.

In fact this shows how hypocritical stance the imperialist countries (mainly the U.S.) have. They use development models that basically are anti-free-market capitalist models FOR THEM, but they force ACTUAL capitalism on other third world countries (see latin america 1980-2000).

Again I say all this WHILE NOT ADVOCATING actual capitalism. I just want to make the point that developed western countries are state-capitalist and NOT actual capitalist (anymore).

[Niccolò Rossi]

Well ask the far-right free-market libertarians and they'll tell you, correctly, that we don't live in actual capitalism

Since when do Marxists use capitalism is the sense that libertarians do?
No particular (capitalist) economic policy is any sense of the word, more or less capitalist. Whether it be Laissez-faire, Keynesian or State Monoply, Capitalism is capitalism.

[Black Sheep]

Then the majority of the population are opportunist???? I'll just support whatever the people support.
What the hell?YES,the majority of the people ARE opportunist and,in the environment they live in and bcoz of their economic status, are unable to criticize the current economic system and see the way out.In the US,you would go 'with the will of the people' and support the democrats/republicans?What the hell?


Regardless of the opinion of the people,our basic goals and "theoretical values" should remain unchanged
Dogma,huh? So the core of the anti-capitalist ideology is a bunch of subjective fairy-tale, handed-down-from-god bullshit?Dogma!?


This is very anti-democratic. You're no different than liberal intellectual Walter Lippmann who hated democracy and believed that people should not have control of their lives, but that a special intelligent group of educated people should more or less decide how people should live. You're no different, only that the values you want to force are different.
Again,going with the 'current',just because it is popular, will ensure that it is the right path?The majority is always RIGHT?I m not saying that "oh,i am right and fuck what the majority says", i m not talking about democracy,i m talking about whether the opinion of the majority of a group of people is the objectively correct one.