Engels to anarchists

[OI OI OI]

I just read this passage by Engels on State and Revolution by Lenin and I think its just great and I thought we should have a discussion on it.









"Had the autonomists contented themselves with saying that the social organization of the future would allow authority only within the bounds which the conditions of production make inevitable, one could have come to terms with them. But they are blind to all facts that make authority necessary and they passionately fight the word.
"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.
"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction

[Os Cangaceiros]

*Yawn*

The old "libertarian socialists are against any and all authority" strawman.

With a little "libertarian socialists are counterrevolutionaries who are betraying the proletariat" caveat at the end. Very nice, very nice.

[RHIZOMES]

*Yawn*

The old "libertarian socialists are against any and all authority" strawman.

With a little "libertarian socialists are counterrevolutionaries who are betraying the proletariat" caveat at the end. Very nice, very nice.

I think OI OI OI posted it so he can see what an anarchist's response to it would be... Well I'm interested anyway.

[OI OI OI]

The old "libertarian socialists are against any and all authority" strawman.

Unfortunately there are many people like that on revleft.

[revolution inaction]

Read this
http://anarchism.ws/faq/secH4.html
particular this part
http://anarchism.ws/faq/secH4.html#sech47

[OI OI OI]

Read this
http://anarchism.ws/faq/secH4.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://anarchism.ws/faq/secH4.html)
particular this part
http://anarchism.ws/faq/secH4.html#sech47 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://anarchism.ws/faq/secH4.html#sech47)

Repost the relevant parts as a response to the OP .(Copy paste)

So we can all comment and have a discussion.
By giving links you don't give the opportunity of widespread discussion.

[Tower of Bebel]

Read this
http://anarchism.ws/faq/secH4.html
particular this part
http://anarchism.ws/faq/secH4.html#sech47
I don't know about their criticism of Engels. Anarchists are right to say that they do not oppose all authority, because they endorse one aspect of authority which is "something which everyone agrees with", the expert, the right person, ..., etc.
But Engels talks about the other type of authority: something not everyone agrees with; Something materialist and coercive like the (workers') State, the social revolution, etc. Anarchist reject this kind of authority (or at least, that's what I noticed during one of the last big threads on anarchism, the "state" and marxism).
I don't think Engels misses the point - though he exaggerates a bit and his writing seams very polemical in character -, but I think the writer of this criticism misses the point made by Engels. Worse, the last part even suggest that Engels' uncautious use of the word population means he - the capitalist - ignores the class character of a proletarian revolution. Yet, Engels speaks of revolution in general, which means it could be a "feudal", bourgeois, proletarian or any other revolution.

[Djehuti]

I believe that Engels is right, but I don't know any anarchist of today that would mind using any kind of authority, force and coercion in the revolutionary process.

[OI OI OI]

but I don't know any anarchist of today that would mind using any kind of authority, force and coercion in the revolutionary process.

You ll be surprised how many of them exist on revleft therefore in real life as well

[Raúl Duke]

*Yawn*

The old "libertarian socialists are against any and all authority" strawman.

With a little "libertarian socialists are counterrevolutionaries who are betraying the proletariat" caveat at the end. Very nice, very nice.

lol

same reaction

[The Feral Underclass]

I think this term "authority" as in "I have the authority on..." is a red herring and is used to confound argument in place of substance. When anarchists say they are against all authority it means that they are against all authority over and anyone who attempts to broach this semantic rubbish is either an idiot or an opportunist.

Engels critcism as with Stalin's and all the others was based on misunderstanding, misrepresentation and ignorance.

[OI OI OI]

it means that they are against all authority over
What do you mean?
So the proletairat cannot have authority over the bourgeoisie?
If that is it the criticisms remain valid..

[The Feral Underclass]

What do you mean?
So the proletairat cannot have authority over the bourgeoisie?
If that is it the criticisms remain valid..

But what does having the authority over the bourgeoisie mean?

You see revolution in terms of obtaining power and authority when in fact revolution is about liberation and self-defence. The methods by which we liberate ourselves and form a workers society should reflect that.

[OI OI OI]

You see revolution in terms of obtaining power and authority when in fact revolution is about liberation and self-defence.
I see revolution in terms of the proletariat obtaining power and authority, yes. A revolution is about liberation but liberation of the opressed that is. Not liberation of everyone!

Also it is not self-defence
It is offensive against the opressors.


The methods by which we liberate ourselves and form a workers society should reflect that.what do you mean?
The methods should be those that are more effective against capitalism and capitalist reaction and ensuring that the revolution is not derailed.

[trivas7]

But what does having the authority over the bourgeoisie mean?

You see revolution in terms of obtaining power and authority when in fact revolution is about liberation and self-defence. The methods by which we liberate ourselves and form a workers society should reflect that.
But this is a simple-minded dichotomy that doesn't and can't exist in the real world, where these things are interconnected. Self-defence requires power and authority to insure freedom. And power and authority can be used to liberate people, no? There always exists a tension between these; one can't pick one end of the stick without picking up the other.


Therefore Bakunin did not oppose all authority but rather a specific kind of authority, namely hierarchical authority.

This seems to me a red herring, all authority is by definition hierarchical, it confers upon someone what another lacks. Authority doesn't mean authoritarian.

[The Feral Underclass]

I see revolution in terms of the proletariat obtaining power and authority, yes .That's a nice slogan.


A revolution is about liberation but liberation of the opressed that is. Not liberation of everyone!Why not everyone? Everyone has an equal right to be equal, surely?


Also it is not self-defence
It is offensive against the opressors.That ignores the actual material conditions of society. We are oppressed and exploited. Any action against our exploiter and oppressor is an act of self-defence.


what do you mean?
The methods should be those that are more effective against capitalism and capitalist reaction and ensuring that the revolution is not derailed.But what are you creating? We have to be aware of the objective, material consequences of our actions. There is no point in being effective against capitalism if we are not going to create a stateless, peaceful and equitable society. We have to find ways of defeating capitalism, but this must be with the aim of creating a communist society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Self-defence requires power and authority to insure freedom.

No one denies that, not even anarchists. Contrary to what Engel's said.


Authority doesn't mean authoritarian.

Not all the time, but the authority that does mean that, anarchists oppose. It's quite simple really.

[OI OI OI]

That's a nice slogan.

It is what a socialist revolution means...


Why not everyone? Everyone has an equal right to be equal, surely?

So do you think that the reaction should have the right to be equal?
That is your problem, you think that when a revolution comes there won't be reaction or you imply that if there is reaction we won't repress it because that would be authoritarian!
And you think that after the revolution there won't be any reactionary elements in society and if there are we cannot repress them because that would be authoritarian!

In the case you don't believe all that and I got you wrong, then you must believe that the organized proletariat needs to repress those elements. In that case my friend that organization of the proletariat is called the state!

That is why I think anarchism is idealistic.



That ignores the actual material conditions of society. We are oppressed and exploited. Any action against our exploiter and oppressor is an act of self-defence.

Semantics as for the pre-revolutionary situation.
Now as about the post-revolutionary situation the former opressors will be part of the reaction which will be haunting the revolution for some time.
Those former oppressors should be repressed in any means necessary for the survival of the revolution.



But what are you creating? We have to be aware of the objective, material consequences of our actions. There is no point in being effective against capitalism if we are not going to create a stateless, peaceful and equitable society. We have to find ways of defeating capitalism, but this must be with the aim of creating a communist society.

I know what you re getting at.
The revolution can be degenerated. But that can happen under certain material conditions and it would happen in conditions of isolation either if you call the society state socialist or if it is an anarchist revolution. Because in conditions of isolation you cannot build a stateless classless society as there will be scarcity and therefore no material conditions for it. That is the mistake of the anarchists again. They think that the degeneration of Russia was a result of "evil Bolsheviks" , while in reality its degeneration was due to the objective material conditions of Russia at the time.

As I briefly demonstrated before there is certainly a transition period needed in order to achieve communism and a state for the repression of the reactionaries is needed.

What is also needed is the original ideas of Bolshevism, that is workers democracy and internationalism expressed by the Trotskyists today .

[The Feral Underclass]

It is what a socialist revolution means...

No, it's a slogan.


So do you think that the reaction should have the right to be equal?I don't believe in "rights", but I do accept that human beings should practice forgiveness and that each person should be given the opportunity to amend themselves. If capitalists want to be in the new society then they should be allowed to be. There's no reason to exclude them.


That is your problem, you think that when a revolution comes there won't be reaction or you imply that if there is reaction we won't repress it because that would be authoritarian!That's nothing like what I said. That's called a strawman.

I have not stated that there won't be reaction nor have I stated that it should not be repressed.


And you think that after the revolution there won't be any reactionary elements in society and if there are we cannot repress them because that would be authoritarian!Once again you are appealing to a strawman argument. No where in anything I have said remotely indicates that this is what I "think".


In the case you don't believe all that and I got you wrong, then you must believe that the organized proletariat needs to repress those elements.Yes if necessary. Not just for the sake of it.


In that case my friend that organization of the proletariat is called the state!Marx's definition of the state was limited and I do not accept that a state is simply the proletariat organised to repress capitalists. It clearly takes on a very distinct structure.


That is why I think anarchism is idealistic.I don't see how it follows that anarchism is idealistic because it rejects Marx's definition of the state as limited.


Semantics as for the pre-revolutionary situation.It's far more than "semantic". It identifies the nature of a revolution and sets a part the objectives.


Now as about the post-revolutionary situation the former opressors will be part of the reaction which will be haunting the revolution for some time. Those former oppressors should be repressed in any means necessary for the survival of the revolution.We should defend ourselves with the means necessary, providing they do not jeopardise the process of creating a communist society.


I know what you re getting at.
The revolution can be degenerated. But that can happen under certain material conditions and it would happen in conditions of isolation either if you call the society state socialist or if it is an anarchist revolution. Because in conditions of isolation you cannot build a stateless classless society as there will be scarcity and therefore no material conditions for it.There is no evidence to suggest that centralised political authority is the only way that we can organise an immediate post-revolutionary economic system. Indeed, the Spanish collectives provide us with evidence to the contrary.


That is the mistake of the anarchists again. They think that the degeneration of Russia was a result of "evil Bolsheviks" , while in reality its degeneration was due to the objective material conditions of Russia at the time.I've heard this argument many times before but it does not address the fact that the political and economic organisation of Russia was fundamentally flawed.


As I briefly demonstrated before there is certainly a transition period needed in order to achieve communismI agree.


What is also needed is the original ideas of Bolshevism, that is workers democracy and internationalism expressed by the Trotskyists todayNo thanks. It's plain to see what "workers democracy" meant to Trotsky.

[Kal98]

Well Engels correctly writes in your quote, revolution are the most authoritarian of acts. One class imposes its will upon another class. The question is not whether Socialism must be harsh or repressive in the abstract. The real question is a class question. Who was this harshness and repression directed against? The irreconcilability of class society means that 'universal' values do not exist, 'bourgeois freedom' is 'proletarian slavery' and so on.

A society cannot be free for the working class without being absolutely repressive on the exploiters, and visa-versa. And public power, jails and special bodies of armed men, are needed for this task of class struggle.

Anarchists also seem to be ignore the contributions of Lenin, whose theory of the imperialist epoch of world capitalism is largely playing out before our eyes today. Globalization, the superaccumulation of wealth from the undeveloped countries, the growth of the labor aristocracy in the richer countries, all these things were accurately predicted by Marx and Lenin. Indeed Marxism-Leninism is the only 'ideology' which can legitimately claim status as a social-science, for only Marxism-Leninism has remained consistently accurate in the world revolutionary process and development of world capitalism.

The Marxist-Leninist dialectical method and the party will be the only way to understand our specific historical circumstance and then to organize in accordance. The whole anarchist takeover of activism has resulted in the weakening of the labor movement, a bunch of BS media outlets, and agitation without results. My generation will be orthodox or it will continue to allow the failures of the anarchist anti-leftists to propagate.

This new form of anarchism is merely a lifestyle choice among many in a liberalist-capitalist society as opposed to offering a program for universal change. I doubt they will ever fulfill the radical goals they proclaim to. I do believe that the orthodox Marxist method of dialectics is the best form of critique, and that a strong party is needed or the working class will continue to face failure. Historically all great social change in society has come not from self-obsessed situationists who idealize 'freedom' (meaning fake freedom) and do not organize, but by those groups who with iron discipline organize, ie Lenin.

[Bilan]

This is pretty much a pathetic strawman. It's also worth noting this was written before the major rise of anarchism around the world - in Russian, Japan, Spain, France, etc. Though anarchism existed and was prominent, mainly around the ideas of Bakunin and Proudhon, anarchism biggest show was long after Engels was pushing up the daisies.

Naturally, anyone who upholds an analysis about a political movement written before something really took off should not be taken seriously. Especially when it indicates that they've not actually read any anarchist texts, nor are they aware of the syndicalist or Platformist tendencies, nor are they aware of what anarchists actually advocate, organize, or do, historically or in the present tense.

[Bilan]

Anarchists also seem to be ignore the contributions of Lenin, whose theory of the imperialist epoch of world capitalism is largely playing out before our eyes today.

That is not what anarchists reject about Lenin. That is a completely false assumption.



Globalization, the superaccumulation of wealth from the undeveloped countries, the growth of the labor aristocracy in the richer countries, all these things were accurately predicted by Marx and Lenin.

The Maoist, or the Leninst, or the Trotskyist position on Labour aristocracy?



Indeed Marxism-Leninism is the only 'ideology' which can legitimately claim status as a social-science, for only Marxism-Leninism has remained consistently accurate in the world revolutionary process and development of world capitalism.

I think you'll find that's utterly ridiculous.



The Marxist-Leninist dialectical method and the party will be the only way to understand our specific historical circumstance and then to organize in accordance.

That is a completely unmaterialist analysis, which negates the actual context and political climate in different situations and states.



The whole anarchist takeover of activism has resulted in the weakening of the labor movement, a bunch of BS media outlets, and agitation without results. My generation will be orthodox or it will continue to allow the failures of the anarchist anti-leftists to propagate.

Um...No. That is not why the labour movement is weakened. At all. Again, anti-materialist. The labour movement was weakened by the rise of the bureaucracy within the union movement, and also by the increasing attacks from outside (by the ruling class and the government) on unions: it's destruction was lead both from the outside, and from the inside. You are scapegoating the inadequacies of the Trade Union movement, and the rise of bureaucracy, on anarchists. This can't be taken seriously.



This new form of anarchism is merely a lifestyle choice among many in a liberalist-capitalist society as opposed to offering a program for universal change.

Lifestyle anarchism has been around for a long time, and is not a representative of anarchism, anymore than Stalinists are represenatives of Marx.



I doubt they will ever fulfill the radical goals they proclaim to. I do believe that the orthodox Marxist method of dialectics is the best form of critique, and that a strong party is needed or the working class will continue to face failure. Historically all great social change in society has come not from self-obsessed situationists who idealize 'freedom' (meaning fake freedom) and do not organize, but by those groups who with iron discipline organize, ie Lenin.

Fake freedom? What is fake freedom? You are just spurting absurd propaganda, which is ahistorical and not materialist. Hypocrisy, and ludicrous in a nut shell.

[Kal98]

This is pretty much a pathetic strawman. It's also worth noting this was written before the major rise of anarchism around the world - in Russian, Japan, Spain, France, etc. Though anarchism existed and was prominent, mainly around the ideas of Bakunin and Proudhon, anarchism biggest show was long after Engels was pushing up the daisies.

Naturally, anyone who upholds an analysis about a political movement written before something really took off should not be taken seriously. Especially when it indicates that they've not actually read any anarchist texts, nor are they aware of the syndicalist or Platformist tendencies, nor are they aware of what anarchists actually advocate, organize, or do, historically or in the present tense.
Actually the only time anarchist groups ever actually achieve things is when they take on the tactics and strategies they claim to so loath, ie strict internal discipline, democratic centralism, anti-factionalism, etc.

Promotion of split-ism and sect-ism as a method of organization (this is more a criticism of Trotskyist groups) has damaged the labor movement severely. Firstly it sends contradictory messages to your working class constituents, it promotes this vision of sect-ridden groups, rather than a single organization which offers a universal platform for change as opposed to all others. Once you have groups all claiming they are correct, you damage the cause.

[Bilan]

Actually the only time anarchist groups ever actually achieve things is when they take on the tactics and strategies they claim to so loath, ie strict internal discipline, democratic centralism, anti-factionalism, etc.

You are again wrong.
Simple as that.
You don't know anything about anarchism, or anarchist history, nor labour history for that matter.





Promotion of split-ism and sect-ism as a method of organization (this is more a criticism of Trotskyist groups) has damaged the labor movement severely. Firstly it sends contradictory messages to your working class constituents, it promotes this vision of sect-ridden groups, rather than a single organization which offers a universal platform for change as opposed to all others. Once you have groups all claiming they are correct, you damage the cause.

And you think as a Marxist-Leninist, you're in the position to make that criticism, without an ounce of hypocrisy? For heavens sake.

[Kal98]

That is not what anarchists reject about Lenin. That is a completely false assumption.
Hardly, 'Leninism' is in reality the only valid principle which has consistently predicted the development of capitalism in this imperialist epoch. The anarchist and left-wing responses to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely that of surprise, almost like they were surprised imperialist states conduct imperialist acts, so the responses were just the same: ad-hoc, lots of misused anger and frustration, and more importantly an overwhelming powerlessness: This was mostly because anarchism, or at least traditional left-wing politics, could offer nothing systematic to this outbreak of imperialist violence from their own countries. If they properly understood that we are living in an imperialist epoch of capitalism, where the imperialist states seek superprofit from the undeveloped countries, then the 'morale' could be uplifted in our ranks, because we know the problem in a scientifc way, rather than the doom and gloom approach.

DemocracyNow and the other alternative media outlets, which themselves are good on information, do not offer systematic resonses and hope for organization to end this unjust and violent system. Same thing with Chomsky, paints a great doom and gloom for world imperialism and exploitation, but the guy is just selling books...

I think you'll find that's utterly ridiculous.




That is a completely unmaterialist analysis, which negates the actual context and political climate in different situations and states.
How so, strong organizational principle prevails in all political circumstances, bad organizational principle fails, especially in liberal-bourgeois societies.



Um...No. That is not why the labour movement is weakened. At all. Again, anti-materialist. The labour movement was weakened by the rise of the bureaucracy within the union movement, and also by the increasing attacks from outside (by the ruling class and the government) on unions: it's destruction was lead both from the outside, and from the inside. You are scapegoating the inadequacies of the Trade Union movement, and the rise of bureaucracy, on anarchists. This can't be taken seriously.
Your from Australia right? (I am too) So blaming the 'bureaucracy' in trade unions is a misnomer, considering that the labor aristocracy has existed in Australia ever since the labor movement has, it's a fact of existance, it's not a new development. So to blame labor aristocracy on the failures which clearly manifested as a result of the 70's~ radicalization agitation with no mass line, which accomplished nothing but alot of angry people with no outlet for real revolutionary activity.



Lifestyle anarchism has been around for a long time, and is not a representative of anarchism, anymore than Stalinists are represenatives of Marx.
No I am referring to new anarchists, who still use the same bad tactics.

[Bilan]

Hardly, 'Leninism' is in reality the only valid principle which has consistently predicted the development of capitalism in this imperialist epoch. The anarchist and left-wing responses to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely that of surprise, almost like they were surprised imperialist states conduct imperialist acts, so the responses were just the same: ad-hoc, lots of misused anger and frustration, and more importantly an overwhelming powerlessness: This was mostly because anarchism, or at least traditional left-wing politics, could offer nothing systematic to this outbreak of imperialist violence from their own countries. If they properly understood that we are living in an imperialist epoch of capitalism, where the imperialist states seek superprofit from the undeveloped countries, then the 'morale' could be uplifted in our ranks, because we know the problem in a scientifc way, rather than the doom and gloom approach.

That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read in my life. There are of course, Liberals who pose as anarchists, and wimpy anarchists who do not have a strong class analysis within their politics, and who neglect the nature of the modern state and the modern phase of capitalism; but to make such a patronising blanket statement about anarchism, is stupid.

Further more, Leninism is part of the Traditional Left. I don't even think you know what you mean when you use such terms.



DemocracyNow and the other alternative media outlets, which themselves are good on information, do not offer systematic resonses and hope for organization to end this unjust and violent system. Same thing with Chomsky, paints a great doom and gloom for world imperialism and exploitation, but the guy is just selling books...

I don't use, or care for, Democracy Now to be quiet honest. Noam Chomsky does have a good, and interesting, and extremely well sourced history of Modern Imperialism. Does he have a systematic response to it?
hmm...revolution?



How so, strong organizational principle prevails in all political circumstances, bad organizational principle fails, especially in liberal-bourgeois societies.


Strong manifests in this case only as ambigiouty. What "strong" means to one, means another to another; simply, centralized, hierarhical, coordinated groups are labeled as 'strong; massive, horizontal, organized, groups are 'strong'. They are both 'strong', though being completeltly different. Your point is thus meaningless.



Your from Australia right? (I am too) So blaming the 'bureaucracy' in trade unions is a misnomer, considering that the labor aristocracy has existed in Australia ever since the labor movement has, it's a fact of existance, it's not a new development.

No. That is a non-answer, and a faux-analysis. You've completely negated the rise and birth of the bureaucracy.
And what is this shit about the labour aristocracy? What are you talking about?



So to blame labor aristocracy on the failures which clearly manifested as a result of the 70's~ radicalization agitation with no mass line, which accomplished nothing but alot of angry people with no outlet for real revolutionary activity.

What?



No I am referring to new anarchists, who still use the same bad tactics.

No one cares about them.

[Kal98]

Further more, Leninism is part of the Traditional Left. I don't even think you know what you mean when you use such terms.
Marxism-Leninism is not apart of the bourgeois political spectrum of left and right.



I don't use, or care for, Democracy Now to be quiet honest. Noam Chomsky does have a good, and interesting, and extremely well sourced history of Modern Imperialism. Does he have a systematic response to it?
hmm...revolution?
To quote Goldman from Reds, 'your a writer Jack, we'll talk politics when your a revolutionary'.



Strong manifests in this case only as ambigiouty. What "strong" means to one, means another to another; simply, centralized, hierarhical, coordinated groups are labeled as 'strong; massive, horizontal, organized, groups are 'strong'. They are both 'strong', though being completeltly different. Your point is thus meaningless.
No, strong is pretty universal. Strong organizations with strict internal discipline always prevail, this is because they do not send contradictory messages to their constituents, as opposed to new groups whom you can barely get a straight answer out of because of the 'white haze' of minorities thinking their view is superior. Majority line is the important thing here.




No. That is a non-answer, and a faux-analysis. You've completely negated the rise and birth of the bureaucracy.
And what is this shit about the labour aristocracy? What are you talking about?
Now you sound like a Trotskyist, acting as if bureaucracy is a new advent, bureaucracy has been around for decades, and it will be with us in the State even in socialism.

Are you saying the ACTU or it's member-unions only 'recently' became 'bureaucratic'? If you knew anything about the labor aristocracy in Australia you'd know that 'big labor' was in control very early, in fact before Federation.

Much of the labor movement in Australia was brought over to the side of capitalism mainly through racial national-chauvanism (ie opposing immigration and the flow of cheap labor), so therefore an imperialist foreign policy (aligned to Britain and then America) was needed to secure superprofits for the emerging middle-worker in Australia. That's why the labor party today is an imperialist party, and why the middle-worker is on his side: ie they like cheap crap from the third world.

[Bilan]

Marxism-Leninism is not apart of the bourgeois political spectrum of left and right.

Yes, it is.



To quote Goldman from Reds, 'your a writer Jack, we'll talk politics when your a revolutionary'.


Okay.



No, strong is pretty universal. Strong organizations with strict internal discipline always prevail, this is because they do not send contradictory messages to their constituents, as opposed to new groups whom you can barely get a straight answer out of because of the 'white haze' of minorities thinking their view is superior. Majority line is the important thing here.

No, it isn't. and I outlined why before.



Now you sound like a Trotskyist, acting as if bureaucracy is a new advent, bureaucracy has been around for decades, and it will be with us in the State even in socialism.

Oh, I sound like a Trotskyist because I recognize the emergence of the bureaucracy within the trade union movement?
Or perhaps, on the contrary, I uphold materialist analysis, because I understand what happened, and understand how structures work, and what they manifest.

Are you saying the ACTU or it's member-unions only 'recently' became 'bureaucratic'? If you knew anything about the labor aristocracy in Australia you'd know that 'big labor' was in control very early, in fact before Federation.



Much of the labor movement in Australia was brought over to the side of capitalism mainly through racial national-chauvanism (ie opposing immigration and the flow of cheap labor), so therefore an imperialist foreign policy (aligned to Britain and then America) was needed to secure superprofits for the emerging middle-worker in Australia. That's why the labor party today is an imperialist party, and why the middle-worker is on his side: ie they like cheap crap from the third world.

Chauvinism existed in the early class struggle union movement in Australia. Even the anti-racist stance of the anarchists in the late 1800's was mirrored by anti-chinese racism, which was prominent in Australia. That was a product of nationalism, not the labour aristocracy.

Imperialism is a product of the spread of capitalism, and it doesn't disempower, or change the nature of the proletariat, lest you don't know what the proletariat is. This Labour Aritocracy, bullshit third worldist crap is not worthy of consideration. Period.

[Kal98]

Yes, it is.
Actually no, M-L as I have said is the only principles set forth which have been consistently right in charting the developing of international exploitation, labor aristocracy in the rich countries, and superprofits from the neo-colonial world.


No, it isn't. and I outlined why before.No, you didn't. You pulled out some old and over-used populist nonsense line about teh evil bureaucracy hiding under our beds.


Oh, I sound like a Trotskyist because I recognize the emergence of the bureaucracy within the trade union movement?
Or perhaps, on the contrary, I uphold materialist analysis, because I understand what happened, and understand how structures work, and what they manifest.I must contend that if you feel the need to continually talk about your 'materialist' analysis that you are in some way insecure of it, you say your analysis allows you to understand such things, but yet you fail to show that you can think dialectically, indeed most of what I have read from you already smells less like Lenin and more like angry activist.


That was a product of nationalism, not the labour aristocracy.Well there itself is a massive hole in your fabled 'materialist' logic my friend, you fail to see the link between national-chauvanism and the labor aristocracy - which is a critical link in understanding the Marxist-Leninist view of the world revolutionary process and imperialism.

Firstly, nationalism and the labor aristocracy are inseperable in this context, this is because the labor aristocracy exists as an element which was been seperated from other working class elements through superprofits from the neo-colonial world, he has therefore been brought into the service of reaction usually through social-democratic parties.


and it doesn't disempower, or change the nature of the proletariat,Umm, yes it does, unless you actually don't look at the world very often. The labor aristocracy was formed through the international division of labor, whereby cheap consumer products were provided to the workers of the rich developed capitalist countries. That resulted in the creation of the middle-class, or middle-workers, of whom most have been corrupted to supporting imperialism so there good lifestyle and cheap products keep coming.

So yes imperialism does change the nature of proletariat, and indeed has done in a very dramatic fashion. It has created a more poor producer class in the neo-colonial world, and a more enriched middle-worker in the advanced capitalist countries.

The issue is that revolution in the advanced world will be impossible unless an alliance with a sizable proportion of the middle-worker is made, without an international viewpoint and party platform this cannot be done.


lest you don't know what the proletariat is. This Labour Aritocracy, bullshit third worldist crap is not worthy of consideration. Period.I guess like most anarchists your all happy in your comfortable lifestyle in the advanced capitalist states, I mean who cares about all those workers in foreign countries making your clothes? I mean it's all so far away right?:laugh:

Thanks for exposing your more chauvanist tendencies to us SACT.

This is what always gets me about you anarchists, you create these abstract bogeyman to blame things on, be the 'rise' of the evil 'bureaucracy' as if bureaucracy is some new phenomenon, or maybe it's nationalism which is just another 'bag guy'. They do not make the economic links, and they fundamentally deal with issues on a non-systematic basis, viewing nationalism or bureaucracy as a 'distortion' rather than a product. They do not understand that all these things of the old system aren't going to disappear because some anarchist pseudointellectual 'abolishes' them, they must be fought against both in capitalism and in socialism, the struggle against bureaucracy isn't going to be won by having an anti-bureaucratic platform, it withers away like the state and all remnants of the old system. All to the contrary is just populist garbage designed to appeal to an audience.

[Charles Xavier]

*Yawn*

The old "libertarian socialists are against any and all authority" strawman.

With a little "libertarian socialists are counterrevolutionaries who are betraying the proletariat" caveat at the end. Very nice, very nice.

The Strawman being the entire Anarchist Movement in the First International especially Bakunin, William Godwin, Proudhon.

[coda]

The question to ask is -- who was the leader of the Paris Commune?

Anarchists are against authority when the minority class (CAPITALISTS) or a self-imposed ruler or otherwise(pick your choice) dictates over the majority working class.

Why is it that scientific socialism doesn't take into account all the failed transitional experiments?

Scientific Socialism has time and again proven that transitions and at the helm of a leader, even those that take 50 odd years,, leads back to some form of Capitalism rather than progressing onward toward communism. You will never get there one step ahead, five steps back. It has to be nipped in the bud from the get go.

(Answer:: the worker's were collectively. there wasn't one leader)

[nuisance]

The Strawman being the entire Anarchist Movement in the First International especially Bakunin, William Godwin, Proudhon.
You do know that Godwin was dead before the First International existed, right?

[OI OI OI]

Why is it that scientific socialism doesn't take into account all the failed transitional experiments?

Scientific Socialism has time and again proven that transitions and at the helm of a leader, even those that take 50 odd years,, leads back to some form of Capitalism rather than progressing onward toward communism. You will never get there one step ahead, five steps back. It has to be nipped in the bud from the get go.


Again the same idealist bullshit.

This makes me wonder if the anarchists are idealists....

Can you not understand that the degeneration of the revolution in the Soviet union and the rising of "the leader" or the bureaucratic caste was due to objective material conditions of backwardness and isolation?

[The Feral Underclass]

Again the same idealist bullshit.

Qualify this assertion. In discussion you must substantiate claims. Simply asserting something is an argument. Explain to me why it is idealist to understand the states material consequences?

[Raúl Duke]

I just say I'm against hierarchy...I seldom (or never) say I'm against authority.

[OI OI OI]

Explain to me why it is idealist to understand the states material consequences?

I did not say that, I said that they are too idealist to understand the material conditions that led to the degeneration to the USSR.

The original program of the Bolsheviks was not that of Stalinism but of workers democracy.
But during war communism , for the effective waging of the war there was a need for strong centralism although there was still workers democracy in the Red Army and through the Soviets. But the balance of centralism vs democracy was going towards centralism because of the material conditions of war and devastation.

After the end of the civil war adn the victory over the reaction and the 21 imperialist armies the country was devestated with production falling 70%. There was widespread hunger etc

A lot of the most militant workers died .

do you expect to have workers democracy under these conditions?
It is impossible.

Therefore this over-criticism against Marxism-Leninism at the end because idealist as it is assumed that it degenerated due to the state therefore making its assumption in a vacccum because it doesn't take into account the objective situation.

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the anarchist assertion is idealist and far from reality.

I don't have the time to debate that so I won't.

It is obvious that I am right though.

[Bilan]

The original program of the Bolsheviks was not that of Stalinism but of workers democracy.
But during war communism , for the effective waging of the war there was a need for strong centralism although there was still workers democracy in the Red Army and through the Soviets. But the balance of centralism vs democracy was going towards centralism because of the material conditions of war and devastation.

Ah, dear. The old "blame the Civil War" lie. Dearie me. I better refresh your memory, and that of the Leninists, who've ever so convienently forgotten the history of their dear Leader!

Let us start with The First All Russian Conference of Factory Committees, October 17-22
It was obvious at this point that, despite Lenin's claims of All Power to the Factory Committees (Originally Soviets), the intentions of the Bolsheviks had clearly changed:


According to later Bolshevik sources, of the 137 delegates attending the Conference there were 86 Bolsheviks, 22 Social-Revolutionaries, 11 anarcho-syndicalists, 8 Mensheviks, 6 'maximalists' and 4 'non-party'. (42) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917#42) The Bolsheviks were on the verge of seizing power, and their attitude to the Factory Committees was already beginning to change. Shmidt, future Commissar for Labour in Lenin's government, described what had happened in many areas. "At the moment when the Factory Committees were formed, the trade unions actually did not yet exist. The Factory Committees filled the vacuum". (43) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917#43)
Another Bolshevik speaker stated "the growth of the influence of the Factory Committees has naturally occurred at the expense of centralised economic organisations of the working class such as the trade unions. This of course is a highly abnormal development which has in practice led to very undesirable results". (44) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917#44)True, at this point, Lenin had retained his old slogan, but the mood of the party had already shifted (this is sometime before the Civil War).


At first the 'left' Bolsheviks held a majority of the leading positions on the Vesenka. The first Chairman was Osinsky and the governing bureau included Bukharin, Larin, Sokolnikov, Milyutin, Lomov and Shmidt. (73) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917#73) Despite its 'left' leadership the new body 'absorbed' the All-Russian Council of Workers' Control before the latter had even got going. This step was openly acknowledged by the Bolsheviks as a move towards 'statisation' (ogosudarstvleniye) of economic authority. The net effect of the setting up of Vesenka was to silence still further the voice of the Factory Committees. As Lenin put it a few weeks later, "we passed from workers' control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy". (74) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917#74) The function of this Council was clearly to "replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers' control." (75) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917#75)And now, for a slice from the Old Trotsky, in March 1918 (Still before the Civil War), which completely negates your fictious claim of Democracy:


Democratic forms of organisation, including the election of officers, had been quickly dispensed with. "The elective basis", Trotsky wrote, "is politically pointless and technically in expedient and has already been set aside by decree".Democracy my arse.
And one more from Lenin, still before the Civil War:


We must raise the question of piece - work and apply and test it in practice . . . we must raise the question of applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system (50) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#50) . . . the Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of science and technology in this field . . . we must organise in Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system". Only "the conscious representatives of petty bourgeois laxity" could see in the recent decree on the management of the railways "which granted individual leaders dictatorial powers" some kind of "departure from the collegium principle, from democracy and from other principles of soviet government". "The irrefutable experience of history has shown that the dictatorship of individual persons was very often the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes"
"Large - scale machine industry which is the material productive source and foundation of socialism - calls for absolute and strict unity of will . . . How can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one".Now, an obvious trend can be seen within this. I don't think I need to quote extensively the positions of Lenin and Trotsky prior, during, and after the Civil War toward Workers Democracy and Workers Control.
But I think it goes without saying that you are infact, wrong.

For more ownage, please see this text. (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)



It is obvious that I am right though.
Fraid not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Explain to me why it is idealist to understand the states material consequences?


I did not say that, I said that they are too idealist to understand the material conditions that led to the degeneration to the USSR.

They're the same thing.


The original program of the Bolsheviks was not that of Stalinism but of workers democracy.

There is no evidence to suggest that if Lenin had not died and if Trotsky had not been ousted that they would have been any different thatn Stalin. The 'red terror' started with Lenin, Stalin simply continued his work.


But during war communism , for the effective waging of the war there was a need for strong centralism although there was still workers democracy in the Red Army and through the Soviets. But the balance of centralism vs democracy was going towards centralism because of the material conditions of war and devastation.

Exactly. The centralisation of political authority authority was clearly a problem.


After the end of the civil war adn the victory over the reaction and the 21 imperialist armies the country was devestated with production falling 70%. There was widespread hunger etc

Right, but that's not evidence for why Russia turned out the way it did. In fact, you've already pointed out the problems of centralisation and in any case there is nothing to suggest that society would have been the same had it been organised differently.


do you expect to have workers democracy under these conditions?
It is impossible.

Of course I fucking do! Your assertion is without foundation and as far as I am concerned is merely a cop out. The idea that workers democracy cannot be maintained because we are at war was an excuse for political authority then and no doubt that's what it will be in the future. Regardless of whether you believe it or not.


Therefore this over-criticism against Marxism-Leninism at the end because idealist as it is assumed that it degenerated due to the state therefore making its assumption in a vacccum because it doesn't take into account the objective situation.

But that's not true. It does take into account the material conditions. The conditions that you outlined. The state's total and absolute dominince, replacing workers democracy - This is reason why it degenerated and that is why we need to be vigilant against Trotskyists.


Therefore it is safe to conclude that the anarchist assertion is idealist and far from reality.

That's not a conclusion. You've barely made an argument.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ah, dear. The old "blame the Civil War" lie.

I don't really want to get involved in this debate, because I've been involved in countless "anarchism versus Marxism" debates before in the past and they all end up going nowhere, but I thought I'd reply to this part.

It wasn't just the civil war, it was also the fact that the country was economically devestated after the First World War and was materially backward to begin with (only a small percentage of the people were proletarians).

Now, if you believe that you can build an anarcho-syndicalist decentralized society on that basis, then you can go ahead and believe so, but Lenin and Trotsky were more....practical.

[revolution inaction]

It wasn't just the civil war, it was also the fact that the country was economically devestated after the First World War and was materially backward to begin with (only a small percentage of the people were proletarians).

Now, if you believe that you can build an anarcho-syndicalist decentralized society on that basis, then you can go ahead and believe so, but Lenin and Trotsky were more....practical.

Lenin and Trotsky deliberately shut down attempts at workers democracy, starting before the civil war, and so made certain that the workers couldn't run society them self's.
Now if the workers had been better organised before the revolution the Bolsheviks would not have been able to do this, but the fact is that when the Bolsheviks found them self's in a position of power they used this power against the workers, and so prevented any possibility of a successful revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Lenin and Trotsky deliberately shut down attempts at workers democracy, starting before the civil war, and so made certain that the workers couldn't run society them self's.
Now if the workers had been better organised before the revolution the Bolsheviks would not have been able to do this, but the fact is that when the Bolsheviks found them self's in a position of power they used this power against the workers, and so prevented any possibility of a successful revolution.

I said that it wasn't just the civil war which caused their actions, but also the economic and material conditions of the country, which were backward before the civil war too. Again, if you believe that you can create a decentralized anarcho-syndicalist workers' paradise on that basis, go ahead and believe it, but I don't because I'm a materialist.

[Bilan]

I don't really want to get involved in this debate, because I've been involved in countless "anarchism versus Marxism" debates before in the past and they all end up going nowhere, but I thought I'd reply to this part.

It wasn't just the civil war, it was also the fact that the country was economically devestated after the First World War and was materially backward to begin with (only a small percentage of the people were proletarians).

Now, if you believe that you can build an anarcho-syndicalist decentralized society on that basis, then you can go ahead and believe so, but Lenin and Trotsky were more....practical.

It's not whether we believe this or that is right, its what is actually fundamentally socialist and what is practical in achieving the emancipation of the working class.
We both agree that the material conditions were not infact ripe for socialism in its totality in Russia at that time; applying the basic analylitical approach to economics of Marx shows that, and we can both agree.

But this is a question of practicality, isn't it? Do you think that one man management can logically bring about socialism?
Would it not be of course, far more logical, that in order to revive the economy, and pave the way for socialism, not state capitalism (and stalinism, and in the long run, full blown capitalism) would be to fundamentally alter the relationships between the working class, labor and the ruling class?

I think that we as socialists should recognize that the decisions of how society is to be structured, and what direction it should take, should be decided from below not from above; this is something that was fought against by both Lenin and Trotsky, and is fundamentally anti-socialist.

[revolution inaction]

I said that it wasn't just the civil war which caused their actions, but also the economic and material conditions of the country, which were backward before the civil war too. Again, if you believe that you can create a decentralized anarcho-syndicalist workers' paradise on that basis, go ahead and believe it, but I don't because I'm a materialist.

the workers where starting to create there own forms of organisation, the Bolsheviks attacked these and shut them down, so the Bolsheviks prevented any possibility of the workers running society for them selfs, which they clearly wanted to do.
So even if the situation in Russia was such that a fully socialist society would be impossible then the Bolsheviks still made it worse.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yeah, the Bolsheviks attacked organized workers, it's not like their movement was based on organized workers or anything. :rolleyes:

I was careful when I posted in this thread to add: "I don't really want to get involved in this debate, because I've been involved in countless "anarchism versus Marxism" debates before in the past and they all end up going nowhere."

If anyone is interested in my replies to the above posts feel free to PM me and I'll get back to you as quick as possible (I don't have much time/patience at the moment due to school).

[Bilan]

Respond to me, damnit!:tt1:

[Led Zeppelin]

You know, I had written a very lengthy response to you and was about to hit "post reply"...but then I thought, do I really want to get back to this thread over and over again when I have to study math for my test? Because if I had posted that, you would've replied back with a lengthy post as well, then other people would've replied, and then....you know, it'll take a lot of time and patience and I really don't have that right now. :(

If you're interested in a response though I can tell my answer to all the things you mentioned on MSN, it's a lot quicker on there anyway. :p

[Bilan]

You're not on msn! :(

[revolution inaction]

Yeah, the Bolsheviks attacked organized workers, it's not like their movement was based on organized workers or anything. :rolleyes:


The Bolsheviks attacked self organisation by the workers. The Bolsheviks depended of workers and the army for them power, and required them to follow orders not to organise themselves, when workers did organise them selfs the Bolsheviks sort to take over or destroy these organisations.

[Led Zeppelin]

You're not on msn! :(

Blah I signed on and you left. :(

I am usually on but my status is set as offline, so when you message me I'll reply.

[Wanted Man]

*Yawn*

The old "libertarian socialists are against any and all authority" strawman.

With a little "libertarian socialists are counterrevolutionaries who are betraying the proletariat" caveat at the end. Very nice, very nice.
It depends. You do sometimes hear anarchists who give the libertarian principle of 'non-coercion' equal (or even greater) importance as the class struggle. But luckily, most anarchists today do accept class struggle, proletarian revolution, etc., just with a practice that is different from 'leninism'. So it's no wonder that many anarchists agree with 'left communism', 'council communism', etc., on many issues.

So in that sense, the critique is thankfully outdated when it comes to class struggle anarchists. It remains relevant, however, to people who call themselves anarchists, but chiefly adhere to libertarianism.