The anarchists obsession with the State diverts the workers movement

[S&Y]

Marx stated that the anarchists erroneously believed that the government supported the capitalist system rather than the other way around. In consequence, they were attacking the wrong target and diverting the workers' movement from its proper course.


Engels delineated the Marxist and left-anarchist positions quite well: "Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself."

[Vendetta]

That worked out well over the past century, didn't it? ;)

[Tower of Bebel]

While Marx and Engels are right - it is not the "State" but "Capital" we must focus on -, yet it reminds me of the fact that many of today's "workers' parties" are only attacking bourgeois (workers') parties and capitalist ministers instead of capitalism and the capitalist state.

[ComradeOm]

That worked out well over the past century, didn't it? ;)Want to compare defeats? :D

On a serious note though, I've always found the anarchist fixation with the state to be confusing. Not the criticism of the state itself, that's fair enough, but its coexistence in the minds of 'class struggle anarchists' with conventional Marxist class analysis. Isn't a very fundamental point that in class struggle the most important single actor, the state, is the tool of the dominant class? That is, Marxist class theory holds that the state is not some neutral or otherwise removed party, while social-democrats and anarchists maintain the opposite. To my mind there's a significant contradiction when one subscribes to both class analysis and traditional anarchist critiques


Marx stated that the anarchists erroneously believed that the government supported the capitalist system rather than the other way aroundA very vulgar summarisation. Its more accurate, as it can be in a single line, to say that the state takes its form and purpose from capitalism and in doing so actively supports the capitalist system. But the basic thrust (ie, the inaccuracy of "abolish the state, abolish capitalism") is sound

[Die Neue Zeit]

Want to compare defeats? :D

On a serious note though, I've always found the anarchist fixation with the state to be confusing. Not the criticism of the state itself, that's fair enough, but its coexistence in the minds of 'class struggle anarchists' with conventional Marxist class analysis. Isn't a very fundamental point that in class struggle the most important single actor, the state, is the tool of the dominant class?

I suggested a month ago to a class-strugglist anarchist (apathymaybe) that class-strugglist anarchists should look upon the state as the primary instrument of minority-class rule. I've read Wayne Price's brilliant articles (even though I'm no anarchist):

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18944
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/07/18477717.php

My contention with modern class-strugglist anarchism is its inability to realize that the best and only viable organizational form of taking power is the class party, NOT the council or syndicate or whatever. That the class party is significantly different from traditional political parties (reformist mass parties, cadres-only "vanguard" parties wherein "vanguard" is an adjective and not a noun, and revolutionary mass parties like the 1917 Bolsheviks) is something that today's class-strugglist anarchists either know nothing about or refuse to acknowledge.

[bcbm]

What workers movement?

Also check out my thread "The marxists' obsession with infighting over every little bullshit thing diverts the workers movement."

[S&Y]

What workers movement?

Is there not a workers movement ?

Remember the world is not only your neighborhood.



Also check out my thread "The marxists' obsession with infighting over every little bullshit thing diverts the workers movement."

Well that is a different story.

In a revolutionary situation all the revolutionary sects merge, the reformist are exposed and those with the wrong tactics are diminished.

Bottom line is that there is no diversion because of sectarianism.

That was proven historically.

remember in Russia in 1917 we had all these sects, from the Bolsheviks to the MEnsheviks to the SR's to the Plekhanovists etc etc.

When the revolution came it was obvious who was revolutionary and who was reactionary.

So the Bolsheviks merged with the Left SR's and the left Mensheviks etc.

So the analogy you made was poor.

[bcbm]

Remember Spain, Italy, Germany where all the left sects turned in on each other and even started killing each other, destroying the revolution and paving the way for the fascists? So the analogy I made wasn't very poor.


Is there not a workers movement?

A fairly defeated one in most places. In places where it matters, I suspect they're too busy to deal with mental masturbation like this thread.

[S&Y]

Remember Spain, Italy, Germany where all the left sects turned in on each other and even started killing each other, destroying the revolution and paving the way for the fascists? So the analogy I made wasn't very poor.

Different conditions.

In Spain there was no vanguard unfortunately.

Both the Stalinists and the Anarchists betrayed the proletariat.

In Germany we had no vanguard again.

Rosa Luxemburg made a lot of mistakes and she was stuck into the left-communism disorder.

The social-democrats were traitors on the other hand.

So it still remains a poor analogy.



A fairly defeated one in most places. In places where it matters, I suspect they're too busy to deal with mental masturbation like this thread.

So Latin America is defeated? The reawakening of class conciousness in Europe is defeat?

On the contrary the masses are awakening.

We cannot be pessimistic about the future.

The mighty hand of the rising proletariat armed with the ideas of Marxism-Leninism will smash once and for all the bourgeoisie and the borgeois state and in turn it will create the dictatorship of the proletariat. The final victory of socialism once and for all!

[Black Dagger]

So Latin America is defeated? The reawakening of class conciousness in Europe is defeat?

On the contrary the masses are awakening.

We cannot be pessimistic about the future.

The mighty hand of the rising proletariat armed with the ideas of Marxism-Leninism will smash once and for all the bourgeoisie and the borgeois state and in turn it will create the dictatorship of the proletariat. The final victory of socialism once and for all!

I'm not going to speculate on 'workers consciousness' in europe or latin america, but your response is pretty much political rhetoric? You're not really saying anything substantial :unsure:

[Os Cangaceiros]

The mighty hand of the rising proletariat armed with the ideas of Marxism-Leninism will smash once and for all the bourgeoisie and the borgeois state and in turn it will create the dictatorship of the proletariat. The final victory of socialism once and for all!

This is perhaps the most flagrant piece of empty rhetoric that I've ever read on this board.

Congratulations.

[S&Y]

I'm not going to speculate on 'workers consciousness' in europe or latin america, but your response is pretty much political rhetoric? You're not really saying anything substantial http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/001_unsure.gifI said everything I had to say in the first lines. Disregard the rest. I tend to write irrelevant bullshit like that as the communist flag hanging next to my bed inspires me:lol:



This is perhaps the most flagrant piece of empty rhetoric that I've ever read on this board.

Congratulations.Thank you comrade:lol:

[YSR]

The state certainly helped create the conditions for capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure).

Marx's reduction of anarchism's critique of the state is just that, a reduction. Furthermore, anarchist theory on the state has certainly evolved a great deal since then. My philosophy isn't rooted in the 1870's. Is yours?

[Bilan]

Marx stated that the anarchists erroneously believed that the government supported the capitalist system rather than the other way around. In consequence, they were attacking the wrong target and diverting the workers' movement from its proper course.


This might have been true then. But it's a fallacious, and misleading argument to say anarchists maintain this position still today.
Ask near any anarchist on this board: Most are anarchist communists, with some anarcho-syndicalists, platformists, and other class struggle tendencies within the anarchist movement.

Let me be extremely clear on this, because some Marxists tend to be absurdly slow on the pick up of this: Marx was long dead when anarchism truly had its major show - In Russia, and more particularly in Spain. Marx was dead. The Anarcho-syndicalists in Spain clearly identified the Capitalist system and the state as the enemy of the proletariat. Perhaps they did not analyse it as from a Marxist Materialist understanding, but none the less, they recognized it as the enemy.

Your argument is old. Very old. Out dated as Marx's view on women.



Engels delineated the Marxist and left-anarchist positions quite well: "Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself."


Engels was correct here.

[Tower of Bebel]

Different conditions.

In Spain there was no vanguard unfortunately.

Both the Stalinists and the Anarchists betrayed the proletariat.

In Germany we had no vanguard again.

Rosa Luxemburg made a lot of mistakes and she was stuck into the left-communism disorder.

The social-democrats were traitors on the other hand.
I don't think you know what a vanguard is. The meaning of the word is not restricted to a group or party with correct ideas. The vanguard consists of those who lead and guide the working class. A vanguard party should therefor struggle to unite the layers of day-to-day leaders of the workers' movement. A revolutionary vanguard party regroups the working-class leaders who struggle for socialism through the abolishment of the capitalist state, not through the existing state.
In Spain there was a vanguard, though it was not an organized vanguard in the way specially Russia and to a certain extend Germany have seen one.

Btw, Rosa Luxemburg was an excellent leader and a brilliant dialectician. Lenin and Luxemburg had much in common: the so called left-communist disorder cannot be treated without some respect. It is a child disease, not a disorder. It's something which affects many communist movements that are totally new to revolutionary struggle and politics. The cadres of the KPD were made out of many young workers or older, experienced workers who were new to party-building. Lenin's pamphlet on left-communism should not be treated lightly. It does not mean that we should mindlessly copy the Bolshevik model. Copying this model does not mean you become the revolutionary vanguard of the working class just because the Bolsheviks were right on many issues. Those who think so mostly become sectarians.

[apathy maybe]

The state certainly helped create the conditions for capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure).

Marx's reduction of anarchism's critique of the state is just that, a reduction. Furthermore, anarchist theory on the state has certainly evolved a great deal since then. My philosophy isn't rooted in the 1870's. Is yours?

Funny that you should ask... (Actually, no. Though lots of "Leninists" seem stuck in the early Twentieth Century.)


As for the OP, I would have to say that when you look at different countries today, it appears as if the state has got a lot more power then the bourgeois class. Example, Venezuela, where the state nationalised lots of businesses, and is gradually moving "towards socialism" (whatever that means). Another example is the USA, and the big "bail out" (welfare for corporations), sure the rich are getting richer, but it is the state that is printing money, not corporations.

Individually, there are very few corporations that can even remotely challenge the power of the state (at least, the state in which they are "based', which may be different to the state in which they are officially headquartered). As a collective, they aren't interested in working together, merely making more money.

Meh, I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.

[Bilan]

Apathy Maybe, your post doesn't prove the "state" is getting stronger "and not the bourgeoisie". the state is an organ of bourgeois rule, as the bourgeoisie is the dominant class.
The state getting stronger is synonymous with the strength of the bourgeoisie.

[apathy maybe]

Apathy Maybe, your post doesn't prove the "state" is getting stronger "and not the bourgeoisie". the state is an organ of bourgeois rule, as the bourgeoisie is the dominant class.
The state getting stronger is synonymous with the strength of the bourgeoisie.

Meh, I just don't agree (and sorry, I guess I just disproved your point above my post).

I see the state as distinct from the rest of society. And while, at the moment, most states support capitalism and the "bourgeois", the fact remains (at least, I see it as a fact, I acknowledge that you, and most Marxists don't) that capitalism, and corporations exist because the state allows them to. Don't think for a minute that the state wouldn't nationalise corporations and bring them under state control, get rid of large chunks of capitalism, etc. if it's very existence was threatened.

Another example is "Total War", in the UK during World War 2. Wikipedia says:
Rationing of most goods and services was introduced, not only for consumers but also for manufacturers. This meant that factories manufacturing products that were irrelevant to the war effort had more appropriate tasks imposed. All artificial light was subject to legal blackouts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#United_Kingdom

Basically, the greatest power in most countries around the world today is the government (the state). Anyone who argues that this state is a "bourgeois" state is (again, in my opinion, your opinion probably varies) assigning too much power to a group that exists at the sufferance of the state. This group doesn't exist as a united group, it is an abstract, a group that exists as a collective due to economics.

[Bilan]

Meh, I just don't agree (and sorry, I guess I just disproved your point above my post).

I see the state as distinct from the rest of society. And while, at the moment, most states support capitalism and the "bourgeois", the fact remains (at least, I see it as a fact, I acknowledge that you, and most Marxists don't) that capitalism, and corporations exist because the state allows them to. Don't think for a minute that the state wouldn't nationalise corporations and bring them under state control, get rid of large chunks of capitalism, etc. if it's very existence was threatened.

That negates history entirely, and doesn't contradict my point.

The state as distinct? If the state is "distinct", where did it arise from? How does it maintain its power? What is fundamental to the state?
It's not just "violence". "Violence" to defend what?
Your definition just negates the logical conclusion of the origin and nature of the state, and I don't really know why.
The State nationalising, again, does not negate the fact that the state is purely an instrument of the capitalist class of maintaining its dominance as a class.




Another example is "Total War", in the UK during World War 2. Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#United_Kingdom

Basically, the greatest power in most countries around the world today is the government (the state). Anyone who argues that this state is a "bourgeois" state is (again, in my opinion, your opinion probably varies) assigning too much power to a group that exists at the sufferance of the state. This group doesn't exist as a united group, it is an abstract, a group that exists as a collective due to economics.

I don't see how the group which controls, owns and who's interest legislation is written in, is at the sufferance of the state?

Total War, does again, not negate that fact.

[Hiero]

I see the state as distinct from the rest of society. And while, at the moment, most states support capitalism and the "bourgeois", the fact remains (at least, I see it as a fact, I acknowledge that you, and most Marxists don't) that capitalism, and corporations exist because the state allows them to. Don't think for a minute that the state wouldn't nationalise corporations and bring them under state control, get rid of large chunks of capitalism, etc. if it's very existence was threatened.

Why? What incentive?

Your arguement has it's context in the Marx verse Hegel debate. It is just as idealist to say the state is an independent organ from class struggle as it is to think that ideas are independent of mind and can do what they want. Just as ideas are depedent on the mind and the material conditions the exist in, the state is determined by the economic base. Though Marxism does not take this idea to deterministic conclision, this has been addressed by later Marxist such as Mao, Gramsci, Althusser, superstructure and structure can contradict and their can be structural shift while the superstructure lags behind. But basically the state can not act outside of class relations, it has no ends for itself.

I would say in Venezuela what is happen is not a class revolution, but class reforms. The state does not equal the ruling class, it is an organ of the ruling class. However as mention above Marxism does not have to be deterministic, the superstructure can exprenience ruptures if the conflict in class relations heighteneds. Ultimatly if we have a real structural change in Venezuela, that state has to be smashed and new one emerge that is completly proleteriat.

That is why I ask why would it do this? I think you have taken capitalist ideology to extreme. With the recent bail out of insurance companies in the US, some extreme neo-liberals call this "socialism", this is based on purely ideological basis. The state may increase it's power, but only to protect the bourgeiosie, it could only act more as bourgeoisie power. At its extreme, it could create the first real state-capitalism, or become facist. But it can never act outside the class system, as the class system is reality. There can not be a non-class sytem with a state.

Back to your point, if you say the state is distinct and independent and can even negate the ruling class for power, then your basically saying the idea is distinct and independet of the mind and can negate matter.

The reverse is how Marxist-Leninist see the state. By working from the materialist opinion of the idea and matter, the idea being dependent on matter and determined by the matter, the state is dependent and determined by a class structure. And from this we say the state will always exist in class situation, and when class does not exist the state becomes redundent and whithers away. What Anarchist constantly fail to realise is the Leninist position is a purely materialistic one. There is plenty of room for discussion about how the state should work, or it can look, it's limitations of power etc, some have already been addressed by the Leninist I referenced above. But when you are argueing against the existance of the state you are arguing against a materialist position.

[The Feral Underclass]

Marx stated that the anarchists erroneously believed that the government supported the capitalist system rather than the other way around. In consequence, they were attacking the wrong target and diverting the workers' movement from its proper course.

Oh right? I didn't realise that Marx had said that we had got it wrong. Why did no one point this out before? Here I've been, the last 5 years of my political life believing this shit when all along Marx had already given the answer. Thank you...Thank you for enlightening me and I'm sure that once the anarchist movement has heard this, they will join me in renoucing these ill informed beliefs and bow at the alter of your coruscating wisdom.

Thank you :)


"Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself."I know this is an absurdly mad suggestion, but let's attempt to work from the assumption that, and I know this will be difficult, Karl Marx was not infalible and that he may, perhaps, have been wrong....:crying:

[Tower of Bebel]

I think that this discussion in a certain way points to a problem with the anarchist definition (if there is one) of the state. The state plays a far too independent role in society. This partially based on alienation, which is part of the capitalist/bourgeois mode of production.

[ComradeOm]

Well definitions are the fundamental issue here. I've 'clashed' with a number of anarchists on these boards who stick to the Weberian definition (ie monopoly of violence and so forth) but again I would like to hear from more class-orientated anarchists on this

[Bilan]

I think that this discussion in a certain way points to a problem with the anarchist definition (if there is one) of the state. The state plays a far too independent role in society. This partially based on alienation, which is part of the capitalist/bourgeois mode of production.

Visit the anarchist group thread on this.
There is "dispute" on it, but most would agree with the definition that TAT first put forward in the group.
That being, that the state is a centralized political organ of class rule.

[KC]

What workers movement?

Seconded.

Although I obviously disagree with anarchists with respect to this issue (as has been shown by my countless discussions on this forum regarding it), to say that this in any way has a significant effect on the workers' movement is a joke.

First show me a workers' movement where this issue is relevant, then we can discuss it.

[Bilan]

Posts from EcoPunk onward moved to Opposing Ideologies.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Comrade Om

I'm a class anarchist. The answer is that we aren't obsessed with the state. Thats a liberal and marxist straw man against us. The desire to abolish the state constitutes a tiny (if essential) part of my ideology. I go with the weberian definition.

Anarchists have a different theory of class to marxists. Start here:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB7.html
"Class can be objectively defined: the relationship between an individual and the sources of power within society determines his or her class." ie its not just an economic category.

[Pogue]

'Diverts' is the wrong word. Its more 'corrupts' and 'abuses'.

[Black Dagger]

Could you explain your opinion please?

[ComradeOm]

Anarchists have a different theory of class to marxists. Start here:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB7.html
"Class can be objectively defined: the relationship between an individual and the sources of power within society determines his or her class." ie its not just an economic category.Well I'm disappointed. On the basis of that link it appears that anarchists have arrived at a class analysis that is more primitive than either Marxian or Weberian models. But then I've long ago ceased trying to paint all anarchists with the same broad brush

What interests me about class conscious anarchists is not any obsession with the state but rather the interaction of state and class. To Marxists the state, to be extremely vulgar, is first and foremost the expression of ruling class authority. To followers of Weber it is an independent and neutral arbitrator in society. Anarchists - specifically those who agree with Marxian analyses but also from that FAQ you linked to - seem to subscribe to both concepts. The state is both a tool of capitalists and an independent bureaucracy. At some point in that logic class analysis is simply shunted aside, which can be seen most clearly in discussions on the USSR

Can anyone recommend some notable anarchist works on the nature of the state and its interaction with society (specifically classes)? Ideally I'd be looking for some sort of anarchist State & Revolution :)

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Well I'm disappointed. On the basis of that link it appears that anarchists have arrived at a class analysis that is more primitive than either Marxian or Weberian models.how so?


What interests me about class conscious anarchists is not any obsession with the state but rather the interaction of state and class.The state is one section of the ruling class.


The state is both a tool of capitalists and an independent bureaucracy.Empirically, this is clearly correct. Particularly of the more powerful and interventionist capitalist states ie the US. The capitalists, and the state bureaucracy are two sections of the ruling class, and there can be conflict between them, as there was between sections of the ruling class under feudalism ie church vs aristocracy.


At some point in that logic class analysis is simply shunted asidehow so?


which can be seen most clearly in discussions on the USSRAnarchist class analysis explains what happened in the USSR perfectly. The heirarchial internal organisation of the bolsheviks, and their narrow definition of the working class to exclude most of the population ensured the creation of a new ruling class. Their 'capture' of state power gave them most of the tools the old regime used to wage the class struggle from above, which they continued, restoring class society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even class-strugglist anarchists have problems with elections. Can both sides - both theirs and the Marxists - be more organizationally flexible within the same organization?

I have re-read Lenin's Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm) as a starting point (which quoted the RSDLP's Central Committee):


that at public political meetings members of the Party should refrain from conducting agitation that runs counter to congress decisions

As Comrade Rakunin and I noted before, and as Lenin himself commented in this work, this is be a bit too strict, and is typical Trotskyist "democratic" centralism:


Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free (we remind the reader of what Plekhanov said on this subject at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.), not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. Such criticism, or such “agitation” (for criticism is inseparable from agitation) cannot be prohibited [...] Obviously, the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticise inaccurately and too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly.

To be sure, though, there's a certain level of professionalism that should be exercised when deciding to conduct "agitation that runs counter to congress decisions" (nothing in this 1906 work talks about opposition to the decisions of the Central Committee, whose historic insurrectionary decision was opposed publicly by Zinoviev and Kamenev).

Now, what about unity of action, particularly in elections?


Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part in the Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. During the elections (as in Baku today, for example), no member of the Party anywhere has any right ’whatever to call upon the people to abstain from voting; nor can “criticism” of the decision to take part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in fact jeopardise success in the election campaign. Before elections have been announced, however, Party members everywhere have a perfect right to criticise the decision to take part in elections. Of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party. The resolution of the Central Committee, however, creates an impossible situation.

The Central Committee’s resolution is essentially wrong and runs counter to the Party Rules. The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.

Given my own personal stance against electoralism as a tactic, I myself am willing to be flexible on this subject. The mass class-strugglist organization should by default be ANTI-electoral except on referendum questions (read: spoilage, refusal of ballots, but NOT abstention), but whenever elections come up Party members who wish to stand in elections should feel free to organize a UNITED "electoral platform" (i.e., don't transform intra-party squabbles into multiple "electoral platforms").

Party members outside this "platform" should continue to advocate anti-electoralism (the question of anti-electoralism in places where "platform" members are running depends precisely on how many are running and their chances of getting into the legislature), while party members inside this platform should follow Lenin's suggestion. Once the elections are complete, the "platform" dissolves. Those who happen to be elected are under the direct control of the Party.

[Bilan]

Even class-strugglist anarchists have problems with elections. Can both sides - both theirs and the Marxists - be more organizationally flexible within the same organization?

Yes.
The ASN has members who used to be part of the Communist Party of Australia, as well as former members of the Anarcho-syndicalist Federation (There was a split in the 90's) and other class struggle anarchists, and Marxists, and operates well.

[Bilan]

Well I'm disappointed. On the basis of that link it appears that anarchists have arrived at a class analysis that is more primitive than either Marxian or Weberian models.

An analysis of class which encompasses social classes, of which are a by-product of economic classes, is primitive?



But then I've long ago ceased trying to paint all anarchists with the same broad brush

Thanks god.



What interests me about class conscious anarchists is not any obsession with the state but rather the interaction of state and class. To Marxists the state, to be extremely vulgar, is first and foremost the expression of ruling class authority.

Yes, that's what it is.



To followers of Weber it is an independent and neutral arbitrator in society.

Well, that's just stupid, isn't it?



Anarchists - specifically those who agree with Marxian analyses but also from that FAQ you linked to - seem to subscribe to both concepts. The state is both a tool of capitalists and an independent bureaucracy. At some point in that logic class analysis is simply shunted aside, which can be seen most clearly in discussions on the USSR

Woah, hold the phone. The FAQ is not the pinnacle of anarchist theory.
It's a braod analysis, at best.




Can anyone recommend some notable anarchist works on the nature of the state and its interaction with society (specifically classes)? Ideally I'd be looking for some sort of anarchist State & Revolution :)

Can't think of any, actually. Most of my analysis of the state is based on the works of Marx, but my practice is based more on the ideas of Rocker and the likes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes.
The ASN has members who used to be part of the Communist Party of Australia, as well as former members of the Anarcho-syndicalist Federation (There was a split in the 90's) and other class struggle anarchists, and Marxists, and operates well.

What do you think of my critical approach above (critical in regards to Lenin's specific 1906 work) on elections, though?

[Pogue]

Confused

[ComradeOm]

how so?Granted, I may be overly harsh given that this is an Infoshop FAQ/introduction but I still recoil at any attempt to characterise society as comprising of no more than two social classes (maybe a third). Included in this are some ludicrous arbitrary divisions that consider prisoners, pensioners, and workers to be in the same class. Not to mention plucking a number out of the air for assigning a percentage (of the population) to the ruling class

Any Marxian or Weberian academic, to say nothing of activists, would laugh you out of the room if you were to present them with such a simplistic model. These are after all theories that provide far more comprehensive and detailed breakdowns of social classes and peoples' role in society


Empirically, this is clearly correct. Particularly of the more powerful and interventionist capitalist states ie the US. The capitalists, and the state bureaucracy are two sections of the ruling class, and there can be conflict between them, as there was between sections of the ruling class under feudalism ie church vs aristocracyI see it now. I was looking in the wrong place - the issue is not anarchists' concept of the state but their understanding of class. When you believe that classes are not strictly defined by its relation to the means of production (or even the more ambiguous constraints of Weber) then it is perfectly possible to allow for this 'ruling class' to be comprised of both an economic class and an independent bureaucracy

For example, in Marxism your feudalism analogy doesn't hold up because landowners and the clergy are not considered to have been part of the same ruling class. Excepting independent bishoprics of course. There was a close alliance between the two classes (with the clergy acting as the equivalent of both schoolmasters and lawyers in today's society) but no more


Anarchist class analysis explains what happened in the USSR perfectly. The heirarchial internal organisation of the bolsheviks, and their narrow definition of the working class to exclude most of the population ensured the creation of a new ruling class. Their 'capture' of state power gave them most of the tools the old regime used to wage the class struggle from above, which they continued, restoring class society.So there was a classless society in Russia for a period? And it was the bureaucracy of the Bolsheviks that gave rise to the new class, and not vice versa?

I'm not looking to get into a debate on the Revolution here (so tempting... :)) but rather clarify a few points about the anarchist perspective


Most of my analysis of the state is based on the works of Marx, but my practice is based more on the ideas of Rocker and the likesPerhaps you can help me then. Assuming that you, like myself, subscribe to Marx's class analysis, how do you reconcile his thoughts on the state (which is a fairly integral part of his theories) which more traditional anarchist critiques (emphasis on hierarchy, bureaucracy, etc)? Surely the latter is fairly redundant when these very form and structures are determined first and foremost by the socio-economic mode of production?

[Bilan]

Perhaps you can help me then. Assuming that you, like myself, subscribe to Marx's class analysis, how do you reconcile his thoughts on the state (which is a fairly integral part of his theories) which more traditional anarchist critiques (emphasis on hierarchy, bureaucracy, etc)? Surely the latter is fairly redundant when these very form and structures are determined first and foremost by the socio-economic mode of production?

Because even though they're determined by the socio-economic mode of production, these factors are still relevant to the nature of the state, and to the states mode of organization: essentially, they're an integral part of the repressive nature of the state.

[Revy]

Marx stated that the anarchists erroneously believed that the government supported the capitalist system rather than the other way around. In consequence, they were attacking the wrong target and diverting the workers' movement from its proper course.


Engels delineated the Marxist and left-anarchist positions quite well: "Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself."

I don't see why capitalism cannot function as it is now without a state. Get rid of the state, and you still have capitalism. And rather than go to blazes, capitalism will reinforce itself with private apparatuses for maintaining order.

I *don't* like mutualism or anarchists who follow the scumbag that was Proudhon.

[Bilan]

I don't see why capitalism cannot function as it is now without a state. Get rid of the state, and you still have capitalism. And rather than go to blazes, capitalism will reinforce itself with private apparatuses for maintaining order.

I *don't* like mutualism or anarchists who follow the scumbag that was Proudhon.

Are you suggesting that the capitalist class would abolish its organ of power, and yet continue to maintain itself?
The state is an organ of class rule. Capitalism can not function without it. Period.

[Revy]

Are you suggesting that the capitalist class would abolish its organ of power, and yet continue to maintain itself?
The state is an organ of class rule. Capitalism can not function without it. Period.

I am not suggesting that the capitalist class would ever abolish the state, but that if anarchists were to abolish the state, there is no guarantee that action will cause the downfall of the capitalist class.

Perhaps you could bring up soldiers and police. But capitalists can just easily hire these to suppress workers' revolution. Look at Blackwater in Iraq. They are not part of the military of the state.

I think you need to look at the possibility that capitalism and the concept of the state, in the absence of what we know to be a state, can become one and the same. Right now you may have the state enforcing capitalism but in its absence you could see capitalism as a single system of rule. Corporations merged into one conglomerate, the CEO the ruler, from their place in a bureaucratic elite. Violent force extended to dissidents. This is one way for capitalism to survive.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I see it now. I was looking in the wrong place - the issue is not anarchists' concept of the state but their understanding of class. When you believe that classes are not strictly defined by its relation to the means of production (or even the more ambiguous constraints of Weber) then it is perfectly possible to allow for this 'ruling class' to be comprised of both an economic class and an independent bureaucracyBingo


Granted, I may be overly harsh given that this is an Infoshop FAQ/introduction but I still recoil at any attempt to characterise society as comprising of no more than two social classes (maybe a third). Included in this are some ludicrous arbitrary divisions that consider prisoners, pensioners, and workers to be in the same class. Not to mention plucking a number out of the air for assigning a percentage (of the population) to the ruling class

Any Marxian or Weberian academic, to say nothing of activists, would laugh you out of the room if you were to present them with such a simplistic model. These are after all theories that provide far more comprehensive and detailed breakdowns of social classes and peoples' role in societyThat depends what you want your theory of class to do. As I understand it, class analysis is about producing a grossly simplified model of the extreemely complex dynamics of society to assist activists/revolutionaries in their work. The point is to capture the essence of the main struggles in society.

This struggle has generally been between the minority who direct society (and want everyone else to conform to their directions), and everyone else (who want to live as they please). The former is the ruling class, the latter the working class. The assignment is not arbritary - adding further distinctions based solely on relation to production, and not this struggle makes for a worse model.

It is clear that the class struggle from above is not generally targeted based on relation to production. The deliberate maintainance of unemployment to drive down wages is an example of the class struggle from above. This targets both workers and the unemployed, so it makes sense to see both as of the same class in this struggle. Ditto religion stupefying both industrial workers and peasants. Its the class struggle we want to understand (in particular that waged from above), so considering groups equally affected by this as different classes based on their relation to production harmfully confuses matters.


So there was a classless society in Russia for a period?Russia is a big place. In some parts, particularly Ukraine, I'd say so.


And it was the bureaucracy of the Bolsheviks that gave rise to the new class, and not vice versa?The Bolshevik beuraucracy was the new class (or at least overwhelmingly the main chunk of it).

[BobKKKindle$]

It is clear that the class struggle from above is not generally targeted based on relation to production.

Identifying the relationship to the means of production is not universally applicable, especially when we consider managers who are not technically part of the capitalist class but still have an interest in preserving capitalism due the benefits they recieve as people situated in a hierarchical relationship above the mass of ordinary workers. However, the relationship to the means of production is still a useful tool for identifying the class interests of different social groups, and class struggle generally corresponds to conflict between groups defined by their relationship. For example, the fact that the capitalist owns the means of production (i.e. his relationship is one of ownership) is what gives him an interest in protecting private property.

[ComradeOm]

Because even though they're determined by the socio-economic mode of production, these factors are still relevant to the nature of the state, and to the states mode of organization: essentially, they're an integral part of the repressive nature of the state.See, here we seem to be returning to the concept of the state, or at least elements of the state's nature, being independent, even in part, from class. That is, that a proletarian state is going to contain some or all of the oppressive features of a capitalist state. What is the justification, in terms of class analysis, for claiming that hierarchy/bureaucracy are inherently anti-working class?

(I say 'anti-working class' instead of 'inherently repressive' because I don't think anyone here has a problem with oppressing the bourgeoisie)



This struggle has generally been between the minority who direct society (and want everyone else to conform to their directions), and everyone else (who want to live as they please). The former is the ruling class, the latter the working classWell... no. That's just a ridiculously oversimplified and inaccurate view of society. Its like arguing that atoms can be described as 'billiard balls'. History has shown that different classes - such as workers, peasants, petite-bourgeoisie, etc - have different material interests. You lose these distinctions entirely when you lump them into a single 'super class'


The assignment is not arbritary - adding further distinctions based solely on relation to production, and not this struggle makes for a worse modelIts entirely arbitrary. Is a wealthy plumber (call him Joe) a member of the 'ruling class' or 'working class'? What about a teacher, doctor, rich pensioner, manager, enlisted soldier, journalist, drug dealer, etc etc? The only distinction that you are making is a subjective judgement as to whether someone "controls society"

Now Weber's model also tends to be subjective because it typically involves taking an arbitrary sum of money and deciding, for example, that people below this are 'lower middle class' or, if above the line, 'upper middle class'. Throw in other subjective criteria, such as education, and you still have a more sophisticated model than that described by Infoshop


The Bolshevik beuraucracy was the new class (or at least overwhelmingly the main chunk of it). I was under the impression that your definition of the state comprised a class and an associated independent bureaucracy? Otherwise isn't this just the rise of a new ruling class, ie without availing of the inherently bureaucratic nature of the state?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Sorry for the latre reply. Been stricken with flu.


History has shown that different classes - such as workers, peasants, petite-bourgeoisie, etc - have different material interests. You lose these distinctions entirely when you lump them into a single 'super class'We don't care about 'material interests' or any other metaphysical crap. What interests us is the empirically observable struggles withing society and modeling them. Defining classes by 'relation to production' and apparently associated 'material interests' does not capture this well. It produces a more complex but worse model. Increased complexity does not automatically make something better.


Is a wealthy plumber (call him Joe) a member of the 'ruling class' or 'working class'?working
a teacherworking
doctorworking
rich pensionerworking
managerThese days mostly working. Kinda like prison screws - they are still prisoners. The top ones are of course rulling class
enlisted soldierworking
journalistworking
drug dealerworking


subjectiveWhenever I see this word, or its antonym 'objective' a klaxon goes off in my head wailing 'pre-scientific worldview'.


whether someone "controls society"Society is controled by a minority. That is why we do what we do. There is nothing 'subjective' about this.


I was under the impression that your definition of the state comprised a class and an associated independent bureaucracy? Otherwise isn't this just the rise of a new ruling class, ie without availing of the inherently bureaucratic nature of the state?Eh?? No, my definition of the state is an organisation which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't see why capitalism cannot function as it is now without a state. Get rid of the state, and you still have capitalism. And rather than go to blazes, capitalism will reinforce itself with private apparatuses for maintaining order.
I get the feeling that the statement about Bakunin was pretty much a huge simplification. Crud, it's hardly even consistent with the definition of state Marx seemed to use, the enforcement of one class' interests over another's, which would pretty much mean that abolishing the state would be abolishing capitalism.
Really, the only confrontation between Marx and Bakunin that I can see is that Bakunin seemed to advocate revolution immediately, while Marx believed that it would only be possible once capitalism had advanced (thusly to Bakunin a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would mean a minoriity dictatorship, while to Marx it meant 'self-government'). Also, of course, misunderstandings about Marxism, leading to the classic:

Bakunin: "So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists..."
Marx: "Where?"

[manic expression]

That depends what you want your theory of class to do. As I understand it, class analysis is about producing a grossly simplified model of the extreemely complex dynamics of society to assist activists/revolutionaries in their work. The point is to capture the essence of the main struggles in society.

This struggle has generally been between the minority who direct society (and want everyone else to conform to their directions), and everyone else (who want to live as they please). The former is the ruling class, the latter the working class. The assignment is not arbritary - adding further distinctions based solely on relation to production, and not this struggle makes for a worse model.

I think you are missing the most important points of class struggle, in addition to completely ignoring historical developments (as anarchism is wont to do). "Everyone else" does not just want to do as they please: the bourgeoisie was once deprived of political power, and now it is not. The working class, too, will be forced to enforce its own will when it comes into power, and each revolution throughout history has shown this fact.

And again, you are ignoring the entire basis of class: production. Classes are tied inherently to production, and so it is beyond naive to say this emphasis "makes for a worse model". How do you define the working class or the capitalist class? We have already established that power (or lack thereof) is not the source of their existence, for the bourgeoisie once had very little political power and there are instances in which the working class has conquered it entirely. This is where ideologies which deny scientific analyses fall flat on their face: they have no definition for class. The ONLY satisfactory definition for class is the relationship to the means of production.

A capitalist is someone who owns the means of production. A worker is someone who sells their labor for a wage. These definitions are concrete and verifiable and therefore useful. Yours are not.


It is clear that the class struggle from above is not generally targeted based on relation to production. The deliberate maintainance of unemployment to drive down wages is an example of the class struggle from above. This targets both workers and the unemployed, so it makes sense to see both as of the same class in this struggle. Ditto religion stupefying both industrial workers and peasants. Its the class struggle we want to understand (in particular that waged from above), so considering groups equally affected by this as different classes based on their relation to production harmfully confuses matters.

Unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Unemployment is a necessary part of any market system, but you need to realize that unemployed workers are still workers, and so your entire premise is spectacularly flawed, which lends to a similarly mistaken conclusion.

The point is that class struggle falls along class lines, and class lines fall along lines of production. Again, there is no real way to define class outside of production. Do they just fall from the sky one day? Class is fully grounded in the realities of modern industrial production; as modern industrial production is simplified, so too is class and class struggle.

Your inability to produce concrete definitions is what leads to inexplicable claims like these:


Eh?? No, my definition of the state is an organisation which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory.

Then I'm sure you have no qualms in calling MS-13 a "state", do you?


Really, the only confrontation between Marx and Bakunin that I can see is that Bakunin seemed to advocate revolution immediately, while Marx believed that it would only be possible once capitalism had advanced (thusly to Bakunin a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would mean a minoriity dictatorship, while to Marx it meant 'self-government').

I don't think that's true. The final split between the two happened after the Paris Commune, of which both expressed their approval. The question was over the nature of social dynamics and the entire goal of revolution. The anarchists, then as now, rejected the need for the working class to take state power after the revolution; that is the principle difference, and it owes to the fact that communists view history in terms of class whereas anarchists do not necessarily.

[ZeroNowhere]

Bakunin: "Then there will be no government and no state"
Marx: "i.e. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense."
So basically, Marx differentiated from the 'state in the present political sense' and his definition of state, which meant basically 'class rule'.

Also, interestingly, Bakunin believed that the phrase 'scientific socialism' "indicates that the so-called people's state will be nothing else than the very despotic guidance of the mass of the people by a new and numerically very small aristocracy of the genuine or supposedly educated. The people are not scientific, which means that they will be entirely freed from the cares of government, they will be entirely shut up in the stable of the governed. A fine liberation! "

Bakunin: "We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim -- the foundation of a people's state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state."
Marx: "It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it, it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened."

Bakunin: "What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?"
Marx: "It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared."

Bakunin: "The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?"
Marx: "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune."

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I think you are missing the most important points of class struggle, in addition to completely ignoring historical developments (as anarchism is wont to do). "Everyone else" does not just want to do as they please: the bourgeoisie was once deprived of political power, and now it is not. The working class, too, will be forced to enforce its own will when it comes into power, and each revolution throughout history has shown this fact.Could you clarify this please. I dont see what you are getting at.


A capitalist is someone who owns the means of production. A worker is someone who sells their labor for a wage. These definitions are concrete and verifiable and therefore useful. Yours are not.These days especially, such definitions are inadequate. Take, for example, a high ranking member of a bourgeois political party who earns many 6 figure salaries for about a days work at various corporations. Clearly, this is a member of the rulling class, though technically he is selling his labour. Having 'concrete and verifiable definitions' for something like class is simplistic and silly as what we are trying to capture is so complex. I agree that production is a very important area of class struggle, and relation to means of production can be a very useful indicator of class position. But it is *not* everything.


Unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Unemployment is a necessary part of any market system, but you need to realize that unemployed workers are still workers, and so your entire premise is spectacularly flawed, which lends to a similarly mistaken conclusion.That unemployed workers are still workers is what I was arguing. Comrade Om believes the unemployed form a separate class.


The point is that class struggle falls along class lines, and class lines fall along lines of production.These lines can be useful indicators, and production is certainly an important factor. It is not everything though - what matters is power, and economic power is only one form of this. To focus *only* on economic domination, and ignore other forms, produces a distorted model.


Then I'm sure you have no qualms in calling MS-13 a "state", do you?To the extent that MS-13 is able to enforce its rule, I have no qualms.

[manic expression]

Could you clarify this please. I dont see what you are getting at.

I was responding to the supposed dichotomy that "the state" wants to stop "everyone else" from doing "as they please". That is false because it's a simple matter of the state's class alignment. The bourgeoisie presently controls the state, and so the state will change when it is controlled by the workers.


These days especially, such definitions are inadequate. Take, for example, a high ranking member of a bourgeois political party who earns many 6 figure salaries for about a days work at various corporations. Clearly, this is a member of the rulling class, though technically he is selling his labour. Having 'concrete and verifiable definitions' for something like class is simplistic and silly as what we are trying to capture is so complex. I agree that production is a very important area of class struggle, and relation to means of production can be a very useful indicator of class position. But it is *not* everything.

A bourgeois politician is someone whose job is to further the interests of the capitalist class. That, alone, makes them bourgeois.

Secondly, you're making a big mistake in thinking they produce anything. They don't produce jack sh*t. The working class produces everything we use in society. Perhaps I didn't specify this: a professor isn't a worker because his work has nothing to do with production. It might be considered labor in an abstract sense, but that's all.


That unemployed workers are still workers is what I was arguing. Comrade Om believes the unemployed form a separate class.

"The unemployed" are a very diverse group, so that's not really a useful category. Anyway, just because a pro athlete isn't signed to a team doesn't mean he or she isn't an athlete. That's the point here, someone who relies on selling their labor for a wage is a worker whether or not they are fortunate enough to find a job.


These lines can be useful indicators, and production is certainly an important factor. It is not everything though - what matters is power, and economic power is only one form of this. To focus *only* on economic domination, and ignore other forms, produces a distorted model.

All political power is based on class society. You wouldn't have the nation-state or the modern police force or parliaments if it weren't for the rise of the bourgeoisie. Before then, power was tied to the feudal order, and thus took very different characteristics and methods and so forth. To look at "power" as a mere concept is mistaken, all power has to do with class, and that is how society has operated since civilization began its development.


To the extent that MS-13 is able to enforce its rule, I have no qualms.

MS-13 IS able to enforce its rule in many areas, along with every other gang in the world. It would be nonsensical, however, to call MS-13 a state in those neighborhoods because of the social position it and its members hold. They are criminals, nothing more and nothing less. You have to look at which class controls the means of production, and MS-13 does not. Pardon the expression, but this is precisely why anarchism can't theorize its way out of a paper bag.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I was responding to the supposed dichotomy that "the state" wants to stop "everyone else" from doing "as they please".I said the ruling class, not the state, wants to stop “everyone else” from doing “as the please”. They do, because they want people to work, and to extract surplus value from them (or for people to be in such a position that they assist/can’t challenge this endeavour). The working class is the creation of the class struggle from above. This is my point.


The bourgeoisie presently controls the state, and so the state will change when it is controlled by the workers.You assume that the working class as a whole can effectively control a state. I disagree, and think that a state will end up controlled by a minority who will form a new ruling class.


A bourgeois politician is someone whose job is to further the interests of the capitalist class. That, alone, makes them bourgeois.Right, they are bourgeois without owning means of production. Hence relation to production is not the be all and end all.


Secondly, you're making a big mistake in thinking they produce anything.I don’t think they produce anything.


All political power is based on class society … To look at "power" as a mere concept is mistaken, all power has to do with class.I think it’s more that class has to do with power.


MS-13 IS able to enforce its rule in many areas, along with every other gang in the world. It would be nonsensical, however, to call MS-13 a state in those neighborhoods because of the social position it and its members hold. They are criminals, nothing more and nothing less.All states are criminals. Get out of your head the idea that ‘the state’ is a particularly important concept in anarchism. It isn’t, its just one thing we don’t want. Our analysis is not based around the role of the state in society.


You have to look at which class controls the means of production, and MS-13 does not.They control the means of distribution in a very lucrative industry (drugs).

[KC]

And again, you are ignoring the entire basis of class: production. Classes are tied inherently to production, and so it is beyond naive to say this emphasis "makes for a worse model". How do you define the working class or the capitalist class? We have already established that power (or lack thereof) is not the source of their existence, for the bourgeoisie once had very little political power and there are instances in which the working class has conquered it entirely. This is where ideologies which deny scientific analyses fall flat on their face: they have no definition for class. The ONLY satisfactory definition for class is the relationship to the means of production.

This is a very mechanistic and "orthodox" analysis. Marx's definition of class was much more fluid and dynamic, whereby classes weren't only defined by their relations to the means of production, but their relations to each other as well. It is only in this way that we can fully understand the dynamics that go on in conflict when, for example, one section of the petit-bourgeoisie breaks off and joins the struggle on the side of the proletariat. Relations to the means of production gives us a general idea of the dynamics between classes, but the struggle itself is what fleshes out the entire concept and gives it depth.

This mechanistic view also leads to an idealist and not dialectical (go away Rosa) understanding of class society. Classes are based upon the means of production, but it is class struggle itself that develops those means of production. They are interrelated and inseparable.


A bourgeois politician is someone whose job is to further the interests of the capitalist class. That, alone, makes them bourgeois.

Here you point out my point perfectly. Many politicians are generally part of the petit-bourgeoisie, usually as lawyers, yet they are also on the side of the bourgeoisie and can also even be considered part of the bourgeoisie because of where their interests lie. It is their relation to the class struggle, and not simply their relation to the means of production, that defines their position in the struggle.

[Gleb]

I suggested a month ago to a class-strugglist anarchist (apathymaybe) that class-strugglist anarchists...

I know, this is old and offtopic but geeze, "class-strugglist"? :E

That must be the worst unword I've heard this year, seriously.

[JimmyJazz]

Well yeah but :E is a pretty terrible unsmiley.

Unless it's Dr. Zoidberg from Futurama in which case that's pretty cool.

[Bilan]

^^
Agreed.

[manic expression]

I said the ruling class, not the state, wants to stop “everyone else” from doing “as the please”. They do, because they want people to work, and to extract surplus value from them (or for people to be in such a position that they assist/can’t challenge this endeavour). The working class is the creation of the class struggle from above. This is my point.

You assume that the working class as a whole can effectively control a state. I disagree, and think that a state will end up controlled by a minority who will form a new ruling class.

Not only is this essentially patronizing, it's proven wrong by history. The working class has shown itself perfectly capable of controlling a state; to suggest otherwise is to suggest that it is somehow inferior to the capitalist or feudal ruling classes.

Any class can control a state effectively. To say that you "think that a state will end up controlled by a minority" ignores the entire basis of the state itself. The state is nothing but the apparatus with which one class suppresses other classes. Whatever class maintains this state then exerts the necessary control over the state and thus society.

Besides, the Cuban working class has controlled the state since the revolution. That's about half a century of working-class rule.


Right, they are bourgeois without owning means of production. Hence relation to production is not the be all and end all.

No, that's an unsophisticated understanding of what I said. Capitalist politicians are, first and foremost, ideologically bourgeois. That was my point. To use an example, the police force is not bourgeois in social standing, obviously, but its position and role within the capitalist state makes them de-classed and ideologically bourgeois. Furthermore, most politicians in Washington do make their living off of profit and exploitation. They rely completely on business, and so while they may not directly own the means of production, all their benefactors and supporters and sponsors and sugar daddies do. You're trying to sidestep the realities of capitalist politicians because you want to prove another point, which isn't working.


I think it’s more that class has to do with power.

What you think is irrelevant. Class comes from production first, while power develops around that. The bourgeoisie did not come into being through power or political dominance, it came into being through trade and industry and profit. That it conquered political power was a direct result of its economic development.


All states are criminals. Get out of your head the idea that ‘the state’ is a particularly important concept in anarchism. It isn’t, its just one thing we don’t want. Our analysis is not based around the role of the state in society.

Criminals? According to which code of laws, precisely? No, states are not criminals, states are necessary aspects of any class society. To look at a state as an inherent criminal is not only an abstraction but a denial of its purpose. Secondly, to say that the state is "just one thing" you wish to abolish betrays the lack of clarity from the anarchists. You cannot make a revolution without a state; a revolution is simply one class overthrowing another and the state is necessary for this process. This has nothing to do with what you like and don't like, revolutionary politics is not a wish-list, it has everything to do with the interests of the working class, and that most assuredly includes the establishment of a working-class state.


They control the means of distribution in a very lucrative industry (drugs).

Which is illegal. Making them a street gang. Making them not a state. Making your analysis wrong.

[davidasearles]

Excellent thread.

An example of a non-state argument from V.I. Ulyanov:

+++++++++++++++++++++

only Communism renders the state absolutely unnecessary,
for there is no one to be suppressed-"no one" in the sense
of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle with a
definite section of the population. We are not Utopians,
and we do not in the least deny the possibility and
inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons,
nor the need to suppress such excesses. But, in the first
place, no special machinery, no special apparatus of
repression is needed for this; this will be done by the armed
people itself, as simply and as readily as any crowd of
civilised people, even in modern society, parts a pair of
combatants or does not allow a woman to be outraged.

(State and Revolution Chap 5)

+++++++++++++++++++++

discussion –

On the one hand if there is no class (in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle with a definite section of the population) to be suppressed there is no need for the state. On the other hand there is an acknowledgment that there may be excesses by individual persons that will need to be suppressed. Ulyanov here apparently makes a distinction between what he considers state and non-state – he opines that to suppress individual excesses “no special machinery” and “no special apparatus of repression” would be required – that the “armed people itself” cold deal with any individual excesses just as simply and just as readily as any crowd of civilized people parts a pair of combatants or does not allow a woman to be outraged.

Ulyanov’s is an argument whose conclusion is given first and then the premises:

premises:

the "armed people itself" implies that "the armed people"
excludes special apparatus or special machinery to
suppress excess by individuals.

that any and all excesses by individuals as opposed to
excesses at the behest of the ruling class could as simply
and as surely be suppressed as any crowd of civilized
people would break up a fight between a pair of combatants
or would not allow a woman to be outraged.

If one finds those premises to be a statements of reliable truth – then the conclusion (under communism the state would be absolutely unnecessary) to that person would be proven. But for those of us who do not agree that the premises are statements of reliable truth Ulyanov’s argument does not support that conclusion.

It all comes down to individual integrity, whether one believes because Ulyanov (or some combination of Ulyanovs) said it or one believes based upon external logical analysis.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Had a lot of work on, so didnt reply for a while.


Not only is this essentially patronizing, it's proven wrong by history. The working class has shown itself perfectly capable of controlling a state; to suggest otherwise is to suggest that it is somehow inferior to the capitalist or feudal ruling classes.No, just different. Much bigger for one thing. See, the capitalist class as a whole doesnt technically control the state. Part of it does, and uses the state against other parts of it to shrink the capitlaist class, driving the competition into the working class. By similar mechanisms, one would expect a 'workers state' to continually endeavour shrink the 'rulling-working' class, driving more and more of it into a ruled, more traditional, working class. Such is the nature of classes and states.
I am interested to know if you guys have any theory explaining why and how the working class is to remain united and coordinated under your 'workers state'.


Besides, the Cuban working class has controlled the state since the revolution. That's about half a century of working-class rule.Why do you beleive this? Clearly the place is run by an effectively unaccountable bureaucracy. Try Dolgoff's 'the cuban revolution: a critical perspective'.


No, that's an unsophisticated understanding of what I said. Capitalist politicians are, first and foremost, ideologically bourgeois. That was my point. To use an example, the police force is not bourgeois in social standing, obviously, but its position and role within the capitalist state makes them de-classed and ideologically bourgeois. Furthermore, most politicians in Washington do make their living off of profit and exploitation. They rely completely on business, and so while they may not directly own the means of production, all their benefactors and supporters and sponsors and sugar daddies do. You're trying to sidestep the realities of capitalist politicians because you want to prove another point, which isn't working.Eh? By the same token you could say that the bourgeois relys entirely on politicians/the police. As I have said, I think class is all about power, and this is why politicians/the police are rulling class. I dont see the use of this cumbersome priveledging of the role of economic power.


Class comes from production firstWhy do you beleive this?


while power develops around that. The bourgeoisie did not come into being through power or political dominance, it came into being through trade and industry and profit. That it conquered political power was a direct result of its economic development.In many cases it was the other way round. Slave states came into being because their rulling classes conquered political power, allowing them to set up the slavery system of production. Economic power is one and only one form of power. It may be the main factor in the dominance of a ruling class, or it may not.


Criminals? According to which code of laws, precisely?According to the ethics held by most of the human race. This is as relevant to most states as the laws of south american states are to ms-13 in areas where it can enforce its rule.


You cannot make a revolution without a state; a revolution is simply one class overthrowing another and the state is necessary for this process.Do explain how. Remembering that by the anarchist definition state = organisation which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given teritory. I don't see why an instrument of class rule or organisation for the defence of a revolution has to be this.


Which is illegal. Making them a street gang. Making them not a state. Making your analysis wrong.Why is whether it is 'legal' or not at all relevant? In areas where they can enforce their rule they make the 'law'. This doesn't stop them being a state any more than lack of recognition by the UN stops the fiefdoms of somalian warlords being states.

[Kassad]

Any type of state or hierarchy is going to attempt to divert the proletariat. It's common sense. As people obtain power, they attempt to maintain it at all costs. That's what has made it so difficult to tear down the system. The wealth oligarchy takes control and has such a firm grip that uniting a movement against them is nearly impossible.

Unity will always be a core problem in attempting to form a working class movement. Some people have not and will not obtain the level of class consciousness that many of us have developed. This facade is deliberately constructed to keep the owners in control of the means of production. In America, do you truly see a sense of class consciousness spanning from east to west and uniting the movement? It's doubtful. Still, would it not be plausible to attempt to enlighten, arm and unify everyone possible to form a unified body of revolutionaries? This is where, in my opinion, the philosophy of the anarchists draws a blank. It is often impossible to get people to understand the class struggle, but a vanguard party of workers, educators and revolutionaries can be a spark of the workers revolution.

Tearing down the state does not happen overnight. The bourgeoisie have spent centuries preparing for anything that could potentially take the power out of their grasp and that is why an unenlightened and unprepared working class will often find itself right back where they started. Without that level of class consciousness, the workers will succumb to the state capitalism and market oppression that threw them into shackles in the first place.

[davidasearles]

Kassad:

As people obtain power, they attempt to maintain it at all costs. That's what has made it so difficult to tear down the system.

das:

Maybe where you come from Kassd that happens. Here in the US we have capitalism, private ownership of the means of production through the means of private property laws which can, if the people push the state to, alter the laws that govern ownership of the means of the industrial means of production. The problem that I have seen right along is that we have a population that doesn't know that it should push for worker control of the industrial means of production and we have a supposed left wing which for ideological reasons cannot bring itself to deliver a clear message to the workers that they ought to strive for collective control. Figure that out.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Good fuck the worker's movement. My motivation is not to liberate workers. My motivation is so my family and I can live better. Down with the worker's movement and the state(lol I thought I would make a worthless punk-esque quote).

Honestly though what does the workers movement matter to us politically in this day and age. I am a union member and supporter but as for revolution or whatever why should it be working class based and does that class even mean anything or exist anymore.

[Junius]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock
I am a union member and supporter but as for revolution or whatever why should it be working class based and does that class even mean anything or exist anymore. Careful, your class allegiances are showing.

[davidasearles]

"Go Fuck the worker's movement!" I love that.

For some reason it reminded me of the song in the Music Man when the various salesmen were on the train with their various complaints, one of them was about the lack of available credit, one of them was about that the population could avoid small stores by driving in their automobiles up to 28 miles to the county seat to patronize larger stores where they might get a better bargain, and on and on. I can almost hear c.s.'s complaint blending right in.

Fuck the working class.
Fuck the Democrats,
Fuck the Republicans, the radicals and conservatives.

Right along with:

Cash for the merchandise,
Cash for the button hooks, Cash for the cotton goods,
cash for the hard goods and fancy goods
Cash for the noggins and the piggins and the frikins

(perhaps that was it that got me, the frikins!!)

[benhur]

The anarchist position sounds more reasonable because:

#1 State protects capitalists, so 'obsession' with the state is a correct view.

#2 Why is capital important at all? Because it gives a person authority. Once authority itself is challenged, half the battle is won. Authority is a real problem, and capital simply functions as a means to that end.

#3 If capital alone were the issue, then why did we have problems in pre-capitalist societies as well as in self-proclaimed socialist workers nations? They all have something in common, then: authority. Which explains why even socialists suppress workers, once they grab power. Power corrupts, so the anarchist view of seeing power as the source of all problems (and capital as something that sustains it) is reasonable.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Careful, your class allegiances are showing.
I'm just saying the emphasis on working class rather than the emphasis on people as a whole is silly. People aren't as easily defined in Marx's social classes anymore.

But yes down with the proles up with the petite-bourgeoisie. We will have a good revolution unlike the past ones botched by the poor and uneducated. In the trenches bree will be served.

[ZeroNowhere]

The anarchist position sounds more reasonable because:

#1 State protects capitalists, so 'obsession' with the state is a correct view.
Yes, but if you just got rid of the current state, you would simply end up with a different state, thus the only way to eliminate the state is eliminating capitalism.

[davidasearles]

ZN:

the only way to eliminate the state is eliminating capitalism.

das:

If the goal was to eliminate the state we might start to look down the path of trying to eliminate capitalism for that purpose. But despite it's parentage, with the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production a democratic political state with a few tinkerings here and there just might be a pretty neat thing to have around. At least it would seem so to me.

[JimmyJazz]

The anarchist position sounds more reasonable because:

#1 State protects capitalists, so 'obsession' with the state is a correct view.

I'm not big on analogies, but (here comes an analogy) isn't that kind of like saying that when you are assassinating a dictator you should aim for his bodyguard?

Can't he just get another one?


#2 Why is capital important at all? Because it gives a person authority. Once authority itself is challenged, half the battle is won. Authority is a real problem, and capital simply functions as a means to that end.

Except that lots of right-wing libertarians also think they are simply challenging authority.

And the radical left itself is totally divided, from individualist anarchists to Stalinist/Maoist anti-revisionists, all of whom claim their particular tendency will maximize human freedom. No one calls themselves authoritarian, besides maybe fascists.


#3 If capital alone were the issue, then why did we have problems in pre-capitalist societies as well as in self-proclaimed socialist workers nations? They all have something in common, then: authority. Which explains why even socialists suppress workers, once they grab power. Power corrupts, so the anarchist view of seeing power as the source of all problems (and capital as something that sustains it) is reasonable.

I think you need to read some Marx, because you obviously have some strange and false stereotypes of his thought. He dealt extensively with pre-capitalist societies/modes of production. The Manifesto is a good start, particularly the first section (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm); and I'm sure others can make recommendations for more in-depth stuff.

[apathy maybe]

The anarchist position sounds more reasonable because:

#1 State protects capitalists, so 'obsession' with the state is a correct view.
I'm not big on analogies, but (here comes an analogy) isn't that kind of like saying that when you are assassinating a dictator you should aim for his bodyguard?

Can't he just get another one?
Heck no. Using your analogy, and making it clearer, the dictator has a single bodyguard who is always with them. However, this bodyguard is rather big and large, and whenever you take a pot shot at the dictator, the guard is there. But if you shoot the guard, the dictator has no guard, and you can then proceed to shoot the dictator.

Except, that what many "Marxists" want is to get another big bulky person to come and punch the guard, punch the dictator (in reverse order probably), and then take over the running of the country! (Some just want the first bodyguard to kill the dictator and take over the country.)

Any the analogy starts to get stretched around here, but the point is that anarchists don't want either the dictator or any big bulky person around.

[Kibbutznik]

ZN:

the only way to eliminate the state is eliminating capitalism.

das:

If the goal was to eliminate the state we might start to look down the path of trying to eliminate capitalism for that purpose. But despite it's parentage, with the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production a democratic political state with a few tinkerings here and there just might be a pretty neat thing to have around. At least it would seem so to me.

Both will meet their death knell simultaneously. The means by which we destroy one can be used simultaneously to destroy the other. The mass general strike and occupation of the means of production means we're no longer taking orders from the capitalist state. Without an economic base to support it, the state will collapse.

Even if the army cannot be convinced to mutiny along with the strikers, it won't last long. Soldiers need to be paid, and for that you need taxes. Striking workers and occupied factories obviously won't be paying taxes to the institution that seeks their undoing.

[davidasearles]

das:

If the goal was to eliminate the state we might start to look down the path of trying to eliminate capitalism for that purpose. But despite it's parentage, with the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production a democratic political state with a few tinkerings here and there just might be a pretty neat thing to have around. At least it would seem so to me.

kib:

The means by which we destroy one can be used simultaneously to destroy the other. The mass general strike and occupation of the means of production means we're no longer taking orders from the capitalist state. Without an economic base to support it, the state will collapse.

das:

Sure, without economic support any social instituion will collapse.

"the mass general strike..."

If there is a democratic political governemental structure in place that has AUTHORITY to alter the the social relationship of the worker to the tool of production - don't you think it would be kind of stupid to not try to utilize that option first?? This way the workers have a democratic political governemental structure in place during and immediately after the revolution. Now wouldn't that be a good thing to have - or are you obsessed with confronting AUTHORITY for the sake of confronting AUTHORITY? If that's your issue then deal with that, but please stop trying to utilize the workers' movement to work out your possibly bad realtionships with your parents or other AUTHORITY figures in your life, if that's what the case is.

[Kibbutznik]

Sure, without economic support any social instituion will collapse.

"the mass general strike..."

If there is a democratic political governemental structure in place that has AUTHORITY to alter the the social relationship of the worker to the tool of production - don't you think it would be kind of stupid to not try to utilize that option first?? This way the workers have a democratic political governemental structure in place during and immediately after the revolution. Now wouldn't that be a good thing to have - or are you obsessed with confronting AUTHORITY for the sake of confronting AUTHORITY? If that's your issue then deal with that, but please stop trying to utilize the workers' movement to work out your possibly bad realtionships with your parents or other AUTHORITY figures in your life, if that's what the case is.

Don't patronise me.

Hon, we've already tried using democratic political governmental structures to alter the social relationship of the worker. It hasn't worked yet, and I'm not willing to bet on it's work in the future.

Parliamentary institutions are anathema to authentic worker's control of the means of production. Navigating the treacherous waters of bourgeois legalism and parliamentary warfare won't get us anywhere. We should spend our efforts in places besides electioneering, namely developing worker's councils within already existing firms to both subvert the power of the corporate hierarchy and prepare workers for the task of managing the workplaces themselves.

States are not fundamentally democratic institutions. The only force that keeps them even having an inkling of democracy is the threat of mass violence from below. The modern nation state is a fundamentally autocratic institution. We need our own set of institutions that serve the purposes of liberation, not control. Marx himself realised that the horrid machinery of the bourgeois state could not be used for proletarian ends.

And for your information, my relationship with my parents is just groovy. I'm not some troubled child for you to mock. Stay on the subject or GTFO. I came here for a serious discussion, not childish remarks about one's upbringing.

[davidasearles]

kib:

Don't patronize me!

das:

Isn't this an example of you feeling that you have been unfaily dealt with by that what you perceive to be the pater authority?? So tear down all authority??

kib:

States are not fundamentally democratic institutions.

das:

100% correct.

Nor is it fundamental that a collection of heavier than air materials will fly, but 105 years ago this week 2 brothers showed that a collection of heavier than air materials can fly.

100% agreed the state as a possible progresive social institution, considering its parentage grates on the mind, but so do a lot of things that we learn to deal with.

My thesis is that the workers can supplant the capiatalists as the primary influences of the actions taken by the state. Why would it be a good idea to deprive the workers of that tool by which to help regulate society?

Determination of drinking age? Authority or no authority?

Sex by adults with children? Authority or no authority?

Excessive speed on the highway? Authority or no authority to prohibit?

Workers, even well informed workers drilling for oil in a fragile eco-system? Authority or no authority to restrain?

A person commits violence against another? Authorty to detain or no authority to detain?

A person denies committing vilolence against another? Authority to try or no authority to try?

[Plagueround]

kib:

Don't patronize me!

das:

Isn't this an example of yourself being unfaily dealt with by that what you perceive to be the pater authority. So tear down all authority!!

It is quite entertaining watching you claim to have the intellectual high ground while doing nothing but engaging in mean spirited straw men as the only response to someone's well thought out argument.

[Kibbutznik]

kib:

Don't patronize me!

das:

Isn't this an example of yourself being unfaily dealt with by that what you perceive to be the pater authority. So tear down all authority!!

The only one you are succeeding in mocking is yourself. You've proven that you're a waste of my time. Good day, comrade. :mad:

[davidasearles]

sorry kib. I was in the process of adding a lot to my last post but then you beat me to the puch by responding to what I had already posted. I'll now post my completed message and give you a full opportunity to respond. das

+++++++++++++

kib:

Don't patronize me!

das:

Isn't this an example of you feeling that you have been unfaily dealt with by that what you perceive to be the pater authority?? So tear down all authority??

kib:

States are not fundamentally democratic institutions.

das:

100% correct.

Nor is it fundamental that a collection of heavier than air materials will fly, but 105 years ago this week 2 brothers showed that a collection of heavier than air materials can fly.

100% agreed the state as a possible progresive social institution, considering its parentage grates on the mind, but so do a lot of things that we learn to deal with.

My thesis is that the workers can supplant the capiatalists as the primary influences of the actions taken by the state. Why would it be a good idea to deprive the workers of that tool by which to help regulate society?

Determination of drinking age? Authority or no authority?

Sex by adults with children? Authority or no authority?

Excessive speed on the highway? Authority or no authority to prohibit?

Workers, even well informed workers drilling for oil in a fragile eco-system? Authority or no authority to restrain?

A person commits violence against another? Authorty to detain or no authority to detain?

A person denies committing vilolence against another? Authority to try or no authority to try?

[Bilan]

^^ Wut?

[Kibbutznik]

Isn't this an example of you feeling that you have been unfaily dealt with by that what you perceive to be the pater authority?? So tear down all authority??

You really don't understand the anarchist conception of authority, do you? Anarchists are not against all authority, we argue that authority is illegitimate unless it proves its legitimacy. As a social anarchist, I argue that the only legitimate social authority is the people itself, organising their own communities according to direct democracy and federalism.

Quit stereotyping me as some abused and mistreated delinquent. I came from a stable, well adjusted family environment. Authority figures delt with me more than fairly. What I rebelled against was the privileged position they were offering me through education.

Just be glad that I'm even on your side of the barricade at all. 95 percent of the young bright working class kids who get offered the opportunities I was end up becoming bourgeois to the core.


My thesis is that the workers can supplant the capiatalists as the primary influences of the actions taken by the state. Why would it be a good idea to deprive the workers of that tool by which to help regulate society?

It's a good idea the same way that it's a good idea to not use a hammer to repair a watch. An instrument like the state is not suited to worker's power. It's an institution of coercion, fundamentally designed to serve the interests of the capitalist class.

At best, the state is irrelevant. The worker's themselves have to be the ones who organise their workplaces. We should be building these institutions of worker's power from the bottom up, rather then trying to assemble them from the top down with blunt instruments.


Determination of drinking age? Authority or no authority?

Sex by adults with children? Authority or no authority?

Excessive speed on the highway? Authority or no authority to prohibit?

Workers, even well informed workers drilling for oil in a fragile eco-system? Authority or no authority to restrain?

A person commits violence against another? Authorty to detain or no authority to detain?

A person denies committing vilolence against another? Authority to try or no authority to try?

Once again, you misunderstand anarchism. Anarchism does not abolish all authority, it demands that authority be vested where it belongs: in the hands of the people, to be used in a moral fashion. The only prohibitions that we can legitimately place are moral ones stemming from our belief in democracy and liberty.

So in all those cases you list, the worker's councils/communes have the authority to prevent certain actions, and to place sanctions on those who do.

[davidasearles]

das:

Determination of drinking age? Authority or no authority?

Sex by adults with children? Authority or no authority?

Excessive speed on the highway? Authority or no authority to prohibit?

Workers, even well informed workers drilling for oil in a fragile eco-system? Authority or no authority to restrain?

A person commits violence against another? Authorty to detain or no authority to detain?

A person denies committing vilolence against another? Authority to try or no authority to try?

kib:

in all those cases you list, the worker's councils/communes have the authority to prevent certain actions, and to place sanctions on those who do.

das:

In other words, workers' councils will have the same power as the state in these and in similar instances?

This is a crazy idea, I know, but why not have a system where the workers have collective control over the means of production and distribution and leave the political state in place with the workers supplanting the capitlaist as the main influencers over the actions of the state? You haven't addressed that sufficiently that I have seen and I hope that you will consider it.

[Patchd]

Want to compare defeats? :D
What point are you trying to make? Anarchist defeats are incomparable to the defeat of "Socialism", in some cases they were the result of "Socialist" betrayal.

Anarchists have never had a real foothold over society like the Socialists have.


On a serious note though, I've always found the anarchist fixation with the state to be confusing. Not the criticism of the state itself, that's fair enough, but its coexistence in the minds of 'class struggle anarchists' with conventional Marxist class analysis...Well history has shown that the Anarchist fixation with the state is fair, the state has been used to oppress the working class in all situations, or at least led to the eventual degeneration of society (even in the hands of "Socialists") and a transgression back to a modern bourgeois society.


I'm not big on analogies, but (here comes an analogy) isn't that kind of like saying that when you are assassinating a dictator you should aim for his bodyguard?

Can't he just get another one?Remove the state, you remove the bodyguard of the Capitalists. This is not to say that Anarchists and Libcoms don't advocate the removal of the Capitalists as a class either, but why not target both of these oppressive factors of society.

Class war is always a struggle against the state also, whether you're a bourgeois in a feudalist society, or a Socialist/Anarchist in bourgeois society. They go hand in hand.


In other words, workers' councils will have the same power as the state in these and in similar instances?
But they will have legitimacy, if we are considering an emancipated Communist society, there would no longer be class, and in turn, the state would also be removed.

Decision making organisations are there to organise, not oppress, which is what the state is for.


This is a crazy idea, I know, but why not have a system where the workers have collective control over the means of production and distribution and leave the political state in place with the workers supplanting the capitlaist as the main influencers over the actions of the state? You haven't addressed that sufficiently that I have seen and I hope that you will consider it.

Well if this was the case, then there would be no state, unless there was still a class to oppress.

However, you seem to make out that the capitalists are so huge that we would require an oppressive structure to take care of them over a lengthy period of time, they will be dealt with when their economic power is removed from them during a revolution, any opposition to workers' power, and what you might consider the "state", would be used to organise the workers.

In addition, if it is the state that we wish to abolish as a result of abolishing class, then why should we even consider utilising the very tool that has been responsible for corrupting even the most sincere Communist?

[davidasearles]

das:

workers' councils will have the same power as the state in these and in similar instances?

pal:

But they will have legitimacy, if we are considering an emancipated Communist society, there would no longer be class, and in turn, the state would also be removed.

Decision making organizations are there to organize, not oppress, which is what the state is for.

das:

"The state" was born of oppression, so was marriage. So what?

Have the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and there will be no more class control through the owners' control of the means of production, and no more class control through the owners being able to buy off the state.

I know that it will surprise a lot of people on this list but by in large most people in the US and other leading capitalist countries are rather fond of the states though which they are governed. Why would we say to them, we want you to want collective control of the means of production - BUT we don't want you to want it if at the same time you do not want to get rid of the state? That seems like it would be pretty stupid.

[Pogue]

To any Marx-Leninst -

Does the vanguard actually seize any power itself after the revolution?

Why does it have to be a party?

How does it stop corruption as seen in China, Russia etc?

Genuine questions, not rhetorical or snipy.

[Chicano Shamrock]

das:
I know that it will surprise a lot of people on this list but by in large most people in the US and other leading capitalist countries are rather fond of the states though which they are governed. Why would we say to them, we want you to want collective control of the means of production - BUT we don't want you to want it if at the same time you do not want to get rid of the state? That seems like it would be pretty stupid.

Who is fond of the state? I would say most people don't like paying taxes, being hassled by police, being told how to live their lives, being restricted by useless laws etc... Now there are a bunch of people who accept nationalistic rhetoric but it is out of ignorance of what it means, in my opinion of course. The ignorance that you have of anarchism is the same ignorance that causes most people to be accept the state. It also makes most people say "communism/anarchism sounds nice on paper, but it doesn't (or will never) work". I mean who here hasn't heard that one. :rolleyes:

There is no way that the workers would have economic control if there was a state. If we were in a situation where the working class was informed enough to take control of the means of production they wouldn't have fondness of being governed and they wouldn't like the state. So that hypothetical situation is pretty off base to begin with. As I already said though I don't think that people like being governed as it is.

Let's go through different stereotypes of people and think of which one likes being governed by the state. There's the redneck who doesn't like the feds touching his guns and taxing him for others benefit, theres the hippie that doesn't agree with the gov using their money to fight wars and pursue things that they don't agree with, theres the liberal who doesn't think the government has the right to say who can and can not be married etc... Now liberals are probably the closest out of anyone to being happy while being governed. If they weren't ignorant of our stances on how society would work their ideas would agree with our society. By the way when I say liberals I mean working class people who support the democratic party not people who are really into liberalism.

You really sound like you want an argument more than a discussion so if you are going to reply with something disrespectful like you did with the others don't bother because I won't respond to it.

[Patchd]

"The state" was born of oppression, so was marriage. So what?
I am one who would like to see the institution of marriage abolished.


Have the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and there will be no more class control through the owners' control of the means of production, and no more class control through the owners being able to buy off the state.
This doesn't remove the ability for the state to exploit and/or oppress the workers :rolleyes:

...and history has shown that all attempts at giving workers collective control over the means of production through the state, or with the state still in place, has totally fucked up. So what?


I know that it will surprise a lot of people on this list but by in large most people in the US and other leading capitalist countries are rather fond of the states though which they are governed. Why would we say to them, we want you to want collective control of the means of production - BUT we don't want you to want it if at the same time you do not want to get rid of the state? That seems like it would be pretty stupid.

They are also fond of Capitalism. You might as well give up now then right?:lol::rolleyes:

[god0fmusic]

i havent read all of the posts, but i read the first ones and the last ones. i will conclude:

how do you expect people to gain consciousness with the presence of the state? people might gain some kind of consciousness similar to nationalist consciousness, where they think that they are supporting a right cause and that things will change, but they are still slaves to the state. they are slaves to ideas and are not in control of their own lives. if there was a revolution like that of anarchists in spain on the other hand, people would have to work themselves, and they would have to organize themselves. i personally believe it should be mroe libertarian, meaning that there should be more market thrown in. if people are forced to ether work or not get payed, they are going to gain consciousness of the fact that you have to work for things to get better. especially in a society in which the state and the large corporations have just been overthrown, people would have a lot of consciousness. you would walk into your workplace, into a factory, a store, or whatever, and there would be no boss. you have to work, then you get payed for the products and services you sell, and with that money you go and do your stuff. but you would have to cooperate with your workers and with your neighbours. you wouldnt have the state to make a park by your home, or to clean the streets or to do any of that stuff. you would have to get together with your neighbours and organize that yourself. your workplace would be the same too. for students, they would organize their class, hire teachers, and cooperate so they can later on work on something. ether that or they can quit school and go to work, but most people would soon realize that it's useful to study. even though it would be a market, there would be a lot of community work. so do you get the picture of the kind of consciousness that would create? very different from that of the USSR, right? people would realize the importance of community and the importance of fair trade and cooperation in the workplace. after a few generations, this would dig into the minds of people.

[Pogue]

I think the obsession is with Leninists fetishing a big strong state to defend the revolution. Abolishing a state only to replace it with another and hoping it doesn't end up the same as all the other states throughout history (including the USSR) is insane.

[Mister X]

"I think the obsession is with Leninists fetishing a big strong state to defend the revolution. Abolishing a state only to replace it with another and hoping it doesn't end up the same as all the other states throughout history (including the USSR) is insane." Sorry comrade you are wrong here. Leninists are not obsessed with a "big strong state". As Marxists we understand that after the revolution a state is needed in order to repress the bourgeoisie among other things. This state has nothing in common with the bourgeois state. It is a workers state. By the way you write I can see that you are young. I 've been through a revolution in 1971-71 in Quebec (although I am from Alberta myself) . During the revolution the workers had created "Soviets" and through those in the midst of the general strike were distributing food and other things to working families. What had been created was a workers state amidst a capitalist state. But this was a contradiction needed to be solved. Unfortunately the bourgeoisie won in absence of a vanguard party. So practice shows that even if you start of by believing that you can abolish the state immediately after the revolution , practice shows that you can. Now as about the USSR and other degenerated or deformed workers states, even a blind man can see that it was due to the material conditions and not due to ideology. I suggest that you read some Lenin before you criticize Lenin and the Leninists.

[davidasearles]

das:

I know that it will surprise a lot of people on this list but by in large most people in the US and other leading capitalist countries are rather fond of the states though which they are governed. Why would we say to them - we want you to want collective control of the means of production - BUT we don't want you to want it if at the same time you do not want to get rid of the state? That seems like it would be pretty stupid.

c.s.:

Who is fond of the state? I would say most people don't like paying taxes, being hassled by police, being told how to live their lives, being restricted by useless laws etc...

das:

As I said, it would surprise you. Even with the taxes (which in the US are ridiclulosly low). Even with the police sometimes harrassing people, rarely instigating violence and even on the not rare enough occassions causing death, even with that damned state telling us to put a seat belt on or telling us that wo can't smoke pot, snort coke or shoot heroin - believe it or not most people are particularly fond of the states which govern them. I suggest that those are the people who will force the revolution -those who are fond of the state through which they are governed but who also see that continuing private ownership of the industrial means of production and distribution will ruin their country.

[davidasearles]

das:

"The state" was born of oppression, so was marriage. So what?

pal.:

I am one who would like to see the institution of marriage abolished.

das:

brave words until you fall.

[davidasearles]

das:

Have the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and there will be no more class control through the owners' control of the means of production, and no more class control through the owners being able to buy off the state.

pal.:

This doesn't remove the ability for the state to exploit and/or oppress the workers.

das:

darned right. The price of freedom? eternal vigialance.

pal.:

history has shown that all attempts at giving workers collective control over the means of production through the state, or with the state still in place, has totally fucked up. So what?

das:

so what indeed.

++++++++++++
pal quotes das:

by in large most people in the US and other leading capitalist countries are rather fond of the states though which they are governed. Why would we say to them, we want you to want collective control of the means of production - BUT we don't want you to want it if at the same time you do not want to get rid of the state?

pal comments:

They are also fond of capitalism. You might as well give up now then right?

das replies:

The left does a lousy job of articulating a goal of worker collective control of the industrial means of production that does not entail in the minds of most people a departure from democratic political government - in this the left encourages the population to confuse democratic political government with capitalism.

[Pogue]

"I think the obsession is with Leninists fetishing a big strong state to defend the revolution. Abolishing a state only to replace it with another and hoping it doesn't end up the same as all the other states throughout history (including the USSR) is insane." Sorry comrade you are wrong here. Leninists are not obsessed with a "big strong state". As Marxists we understand that after the revolution a state is needed in order to repress the bourgeoisie among other things. This state has nothing in common with the bourgeois state. It is a workers state. By the way you write I can see that you are young. I 've been through a revolution in 1971-71 in Quebec (although I am from Alberta myself) . During the revolution the workers had created "Soviets" and through those in the midst of the general strike were distributing food and other things to working families. What had been created was a workers state amidst a capitalist state. But this was a contradiction needed to be solved. Unfortunately the bourgeoisie won in absence of a vanguard party. So practice shows that even if you start of by believing that you can abolish the state immediately after the revolution , practice shows that you can. Now as about the USSR and other degenerated or deformed workers states, even a blind man can see that it was due to the material conditions and not due to ideology. I suggest that you read some Lenin before you criticize Lenin and the Leninists.

Nice one focusing on my age and making up some bullshit about your real life experience.

I suggest you read some history.

[davidasearles]

pal quotes das:

Have the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and there will be no more class control through the owners' control of the means of production, and no more class control through the owners being able to buy off the state.

pal.:

This doesn't remove the ability for the state to exploit and/or oppress the workers.

das:

darned right. The price of freedom? eternal vigialance.

pal.:

history has shown that all attempts at giving workers collective control over the means of production through the state, or with the state still in place, has totally fucked up. So what?

das:

so what indeed.

++++++++++++
pal quotes das:

by in large most people in the US and other leading capitalist countries are rather fond of the states though which they are governed. Why would we say to them, we want you to want collective control of the means of production - BUT we don't want you to want it if at the same time you do not want to get rid of the state?

pal comments:

They are also fond of capitalism. You might as well give up now then right?

das replies:

For the most part the left does a lousy job of articulating a goal of worker collective control of the industrial means of production that does not entail in the minds of most people a departure from democratic political government - in this the left encourages the population to confuse democratic political government with capitalism. I think if tthe masses were presented with a clear choice of being able to keep democratic political government but at the same time have collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers I think that they would go for it.

[Kassad]

To any Marx-Leninst -

Does the vanguard actually seize any power itself after the revolution?

Why does it have to be a party?

How does it stop corruption as seen in China, Russia etc?

Genuine questions, not rhetorical or snipy.

The reason I have always found Anarchists and the like to be surrealists was due to the fact that their constructive view of the revolution makes it appear as if we will tear down the buorgeoisie and we will all live happily ever after.

Many people are born into the bourgeoisie propaganda from the moment they open their eyes; this is notable especially in industrialized nations like the United States and England. Since the bourgeoisie are in power, they will do anything to maintain that power. When we discuss a vanguard party, Leninists like myself support the idea because we realize that it will take a massive group of devoted revolutionaries to achieve the change we seek. The best way to do this is through education and unity and a party of revolutionaries has the ability to reach broadly across a nation and to reach the proletariat from every walk of life. When a revolution occurs, the party and its followers should all play an instrumental role in the transitionary period between bourgeoisie-controlled enterprise and the nation of the proletariat.

In all honesty, a political party has a means of attracting supporters from all walks of life. It helps maintain organization and collective action in an organized fashion.

The corruption of the vanguard parties is a sensitive topic. I, for one, believe that Stalin received immense support due to the fact that the Russian populace feared aggression from the industrialized nations of the world. Stalin based his platform and ideology on promosing industrialization, which he did. He brought the Soviet Union out of some of the most turbulent economic times imaginable. He managed to rebuild the economy and he made the Union a contender on the national stage. The problem with Stalin is that he focused his energies on defense so much that he did not give the working class the power that was needed. He did not attempt to transition into the stage of giving power back to the proletariat, but I attribute most of his rash actions to the fact that he was constantly being threatened by Western colonialism. It was either industrialize and have a chance or meet inevitable demise. We must also note that after the October Revolution, the bourgeoisie did not just give up their battle. They existed in the Union and made many attempts to reclaim power by sabotaging the Party and the revolution. As long as capitalism exists worldwide, it will always unity against a socialist state that has promise and, unfortunately, it is a major impediment to the construction of a worldwide revolution.

[Bilan]

The reason I have always found Anarchists and the like to be surrealists was due to the fact that their constructive view of the revolution makes it appear as if we will tear down the buorgeoisie and we will all live happily ever after.

I don't I've heard any anarchists say that.
I've heard them say, though, that things will be better; that we will be on the road to freedom.



Many people are born into the bourgeoisie propaganda from the moment they open their eyes; this is notable especially in industrialized nations like the United States and England. Since the bourgeoisie are in power, they will do anything to maintain that power.

And some people aren't? To be born out of the realm of bourgeois power, now, entails being born into insolation from the rest of the world.
That, and or, a feudal society.



When we discuss a vanguard party, Leninists like myself support the idea because we realize that it will take a massive group of devoted revolutionaries to achieve the change we seek. The best way to do this is through education and unity and a party of revolutionaries has the ability to reach broadly across a nation and to reach the proletariat from every walk of life. When a revolution occurs, the party and its followers should all play an instrumental role in the transitionary period between bourgeoisie-controlled enterprise and the nation of the proletariat.


Nation? This is an extremely petit-bourgeois understand of revolution.
The revolution, 'the change we seek' is an act of proletarian self-emancipation. It can not be given, it can not be created by the party, it can only be created by the class itself.
Furthermore, the emphasis on nation is stupid. The nation state is not instrumental to our emancipation. Our revolution is international.



In all honesty, a political party has a means of attracting supporters from all walks of life. It helps maintain organization and collective action in an organized fashion.

So does a union.

[Kassad]

I don't I've heard any anarchists say that.
I've heard them say, though, that things will be better; that we will be on the road to freedom.

That's great. A road that can potentially be easily assaulted by the bourgeoisie and other groups seeking ownership of the means of production. Without proper preparation, a nation will fall right back into the traps it accepted before.


And some people aren't? To be born out of the realm of bourgeois power, now, entails being born into insolation from the rest of the world.
That, and or, a feudal society.

I didn't say that people aren't. I'm saying that it is not easy for everyone to break the shackles of their oppression. For some, it comes easy. For most, it never comes. That's why the system we are in continues to keep the working class from attaining power.


Nation? This is an extremely petit-bourgeois understand of revolution.
The revolution, 'the change we seek' is an act of proletarian self-emancipation. It can not be given, it can not be created by the party, it can only be created by the class itself.
Furthermore, the emphasis on nation is stupid. The nation state is not instrumental to our emancipation. Our revolution is international.

This is a very surrealist view of society. Each nation has its own individual social, economic, religious and social standards. The revolution will not just spark across the world at the same time. The October Revolution showed us this. Each nation has its own unique traits and we can hope that the nation adopts a revolutionary struggle all we want. There is nothing wrong with attaining socialism and attempting to promote it, but there is also nothing wrong with a few nations obtaining revolutions. The struggle has to begin somewhere and it's absurd to think that the world will just wake up one morning and throw off the shackles of oppression.


So does a union.

I suppose. A vanguard party would be a collection of all unions, all workers and all citizens in a nation that works towards common goals and prosperity. When I think a union, I think of a much smaller organization of individuals working specifically in one area, whereas the party encompasses all working habits, walks of life and people.

[Chicano Shamrock]

As I said, it would surprise you. Even with the taxes (which in the US are ridiclulosly low). Even with the police sometimes harrassing people, rarely instigating violence and even on the not rare enough occassions causing death, even with that damned state telling us to put a seat belt on or telling us that wo can't smoke pot, snort coke or shoot heroin - believe it or not most people are particularly fond of the states which govern them. I suggest that those are the people who will force the revolution -those who are fond of the state through which they are governed but who also see that continuing private ownership of the industrial means of production and distribution will ruin their country.

First of all, I don't think there is such a thing as ridiculously low taxes. By the way I live in the US and about 40% of my check is taxed. I live in Los Angeles so the police aren't sometimes harassing people... they are constantly killing unarmed people here. Every few weeks I hear about an unarmed person that was shot by the cops. The latest happened in Anaheim when a guy thought someone was robbing his house he picked up a bat and went outside after calling the cops. The cops came, saw the home owner, a black man, and assumed he was robbing the place and shot him.

You know that stating that people are fond of the states that govern them doesn't make it true... So you want nationalists to lead a revolt because of their love for the state that governs them... ewww shoot me when that happens. Well if that did happen I would be shot anyways because I would be on the opposite side of that.

[Chicano Shamrock]

When we discuss a vanguard party, Leninists like myself support the idea because we realize that it will take a massive group of devoted revolutionaries to achieve the change we seek. The best way to do this is through education and unity and a party of revolutionaries has the ability to reach broadly across a nation and to reach the proletariat from every walk of life.
So what is the point of having an official vanguard party or even calling it a vanguard. Wouldn't this organically occur when it is needed. Right now there are people who have the education needed so if there was a need to spread that knowledge couldn't they stand up themselves and help educate. What is the need of a "vanguard".

Could a party educate better than a free association of individuals?


In all honesty, a political party has a means of attracting supporters from all walks of life. It helps maintain organization and collective action in an organized fashion.
Look at the language you use to describe the party. You use phrases like "it helps maintain organization" and such. It? As long as the party is separate from the proletariat isn't IT just another way to alienate our power. It's the same problem most of us have with voting in capitalist elections. It takes our power away from us and uses it for it's own ends.

So in this sense isn't a decentralized free association of people better for our goal of ending privileged status and maximizing proletarian power?


The problem with Stalin is that he focused his energies on defense so much that he did not give the working class the power that was needed. He did not attempt to transition into the stage of giving power back to the proletariat,
If we are going to revolt and risk our lives and others for a better life is it really smart to wait for someone to decide when it is right to give you your power. Or should the power be taken for ourselves in the first place? Capitalists or party managers, it makes no difference to the working class. As long as we don't have the power and someone else does they are the enemy.

Supporting a state as a way to achieve liberation is illogical. There is no way it can be defended. I don't understand how people that have read this much about the subject can honestly not find this to be a contradiction.

[davidasearles]

das had written:

For the most part the left does a lousy job of articulating a goal of worker collective control of the industrial means of production that does not entail in the minds of most people a departure from democratic political government - in this the left encourages the population to confuse democratic political government with capitalism. I think if tthe masses were presented with a clear choice of being able to keep democratic political government but at the same time have collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers I think that they would go for it.

and further on c.s. quoted das:

As I said, it would surprise you. Even with the taxes (which in the US are ridiclulosly low). Even with the police sometimes harrassing people, rarely instigating violence and even on the not rare enough occassions causing death, even with that damned state telling us to put a seat belt on or telling us that wo can't smoke pot, snort coke or shoot heroin - believe it or not most people are particularly fond of the states which govern them. I suggest that those are the people who will force the revolution -those who are fond of the state through which they are governed but who also see that continuing private ownership of the industrial means of production and distribution will ruin their country.

c.s. stated:

First of all, I don't think there is such a thing as ridiculously low taxes. By the way I live in the US and about 40% of my check is taxed.

ds:

40% is just about what a family with a "medium income" pays.

Compared to the size of government -local, couty, state and federal 40% is way low - or else there wouldn't be deficits or massive govt. debt.

Does something prevent the state from simply raising taxes to cover all deficits and other govt. spending in the red? What is it?

c.s.:

I live in Los Angeles so the police aren't sometimes harassing people... they are constantly killing unarmed people here. Every few weeks I hear about an unarmed person that was shot by the cops. The latest happened in Anaheim when a guy thought someone was robbing his house he picked up a bat and went outside after calling the cops. The cops came, saw the home owner, a black man, and assumed he was robbing the place and shot him.

das:

Police do kill people on a not rare enough basis, agreed 100%. I had a friend of mine killed by the police. The cop said he saw something shiny, he pulled his gun and then tripped. Whoops. Much needs to be done. However for the most part when people get into trouble concerning someone breaking the law they call the police. Maybe you would have them call Vangaurd Party headquarters?

c.s.:

You know that stating that people are fond of the states that govern them doesn't make it true...

das:

Stating anything does't make it true.

c.s.

So you want nationalists to lead a revolt because of their love for the state that governs them...

das:

I suggest that most people identify with the state that governs them, particularly when, as in the US there is a perceived low level of repression. I suggest that these same people will be the ones to provide most of the political push to abolish private ownership of the industral means of production and distribution in favor of collective worker control in part becuase of their support for democratic political governement.

Nationalist? To a degree, yes.

[Kassad]

So what is the point of having an official vanguard party or even calling it a vanguard. Wouldn't this organically occur when it is needed. Right now there are people who have the education needed so if there was a need to spread that knowledge couldn't they stand up themselves and help educate. What is the need of a "vanguard".

Could a party educate better than a free association of individuals?

At the current time, or at least speaking from the current perspective of myself in the United States, the best way to reach people during a democratic election is to run a candidate. You can protest all you want outside their Conventions or you can pass out whatever you'd like, but when you can assign a figurehead to a Party, such as Gloria La Riva who I supported, it makes it incredibly easy to portray a list of beliefs. A group of individuals pouting against the Democratic system, though their complaints may be relevant and true, do not muster up the attention needed to spark a movement. That's why running candidates and managing a party is the best way to make change, in my opinion.


Look at the language you use to describe the party. You use phrases like "it helps maintain organization" and such. It? As long as the party is separate from the proletariat isn't IT just another way to alienate our power. It's the same problem most of us have with voting in capitalist elections. It takes our power away from us and uses it for it's own ends.

So in this sense isn't a decentralized free association of people better for our goal of ending privileged status and maximizing proletarian power?

Do you truly think the proletariat is going to agree on everything; before during and after the revolution? Of course not. Observe, after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries all had multitudes of disagreements on how to manage the post-revolutionary nation. Does that make any of them less-proletariat? No. At some point, it may be decided that the Party is no longer necessary to the struggle for workers liberation. But in all honesty, to achieve victory through struggle in the current system, there needs to be a group of individuals that can catch the eye of those who maybe have not crossed the barrier that awakens a level of class consciousness.


If we are going to revolt and risk our lives and others for a better life is it really smart to wait for someone to decide when it is right to give you your power. Or should the power be taken for ourselves in the first place? Capitalists or party managers, it makes no difference to the working class. As long as we don't have the power and someone else does they are the enemy.

Supporting a state as a way to achieve liberation is illogical. There is no way it can be defended. I don't understand how people that have read this much about the subject can honestly not find this to be a contradiction.

Again, more assertions that the working class is unified and in total agreement on all issues. The Party is not meant to be elitist. It is meant to embody the working class and unify it into an organizational manner that cannot be achieved by just tossing power to the sprawling masses. Can you honestly imagine the system just collapsing in the United States and the working class just seizing power? Would it not make more sense to be prepared and educate the working class for when that day comes?

[StalinFanboy]

First of all, I don't think there is such a thing as ridiculously low taxes. By the way I live in the US and about 40% of my check is taxed. I live in Los Angeles so the police aren't sometimes harassing people... they are constantly killing unarmed people here. Every few weeks I hear about an unarmed person that was shot by the cops. The latest happened in Anaheim when a guy thought someone was robbing his house he picked up a bat and went outside after calling the cops. The cops came, saw the home owner, a black man, and assumed he was robbing the place and shot him.

That happened recently in Stockton, except it was a Filipino man with a licensed gun. He lived in a crime infested neighborhood, and the police were chasing someone down his street. He went to the door with his gun to see what was going on and the police shot him.

[Chicano Shamrock]

At the current time, or at least speaking from the current perspective of myself in the United States, the best way to reach people during a democratic election is to run a candidate. You can protest all you want outside their Conventions or you can pass out whatever you'd like, but when you can assign a figurehead to a Party, such as Gloria La Riva who I supported, it makes it incredibly easy to portray a list of beliefs. A group of individuals pouting against the Democratic system, though their complaints may be relevant and true, do not muster up the attention needed to spark a movement. That's why running candidates and managing a party is the best way to make change, in my opinion.
Oh so you are talking about having a party in bourgeois elections... Well I don't think that helps anything either. Gloria who? How many people heard about this lady? The only way you could have known anything about this person is if you looked it up yourself. That makes nothing easier because 3rd party candidates don't get airtime. The protests outside the RNC got more attention than this Gloria person who I have never heard of.




Do you truly think the proletariat is going to agree on everything; before during and after the revolution? Of course not. Observe, after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries all had multitudes of disagreements on how to manage the post-revolutionary nation. Does that make any of them less-proletariat? No. At some point, it may be decided that the Party is no longer necessary to the struggle for workers liberation. But in all honesty, to achieve victory through struggle in the current system, there needs to be a group of individuals that can catch the eye of those who maybe have not crossed the barrier that awakens a level of class consciousness.
No I do not think that the proles will agree on everything. If you are looking to achieve a different kind of state then a party might be a good idea but if you are trying to achieve worker liberation then there is only one way that can be. To be free there needs to be no one above the worker telling them what to do.



Again, more assertions that the working class is unified and in total agreement on all issues. The Party is not meant to be elitist. It is meant to embody the working class and unify it into an organizational manner that cannot be achieved by just tossing power to the sprawling masses. Can you honestly imagine the system just collapsing in the United States and the working class just seizing power? Would it not make more sense to be prepared and educate the working class for when that day comes?No I don't think the working class is unified. Hell I don't even think a revolution should be based on the working class. Sure, maybe theoretically the party is not meant to be elitist but as long as it is a separate entity that can hold power over the working class it will be elitist.

A "party" is not needed to educate the working class. Why can't people just do it without a centralized group?

[Kassad]

Oh so you are talking about having a party in bourgeois elections... Well I don't think that helps anything either. Gloria who? How many people heard about this lady? The only way you could have known anything about this person is if you looked it up yourself. That makes nothing easier because 3rd party candidates don't get airtime. The protests outside the RNC got more attention than this Gloria person who I have never heard of.

You're missing the point. It isn't about winning the election. It's about getting a message across, which with proper attention and devotion, can be accomplished. Supporting a candidate of real change, despite their ability to win or lose, is better than being an armchair revolutionary.


No I do not think that the proles will agree on everything. If you are looking to achieve a different kind of state then a party might be a good idea but if you are trying to achieve worker liberation then there is only one way that can be. To be free there needs to be no one above the worker telling them what to do.

It isn't about having a party above the working class. It's about having a party that is the working class and serves their interests. Much like how Marx says the term 'state' is self-defeating, since in a communist 'state', there really is no state in the sense of the term we view it.


No I don't think the working class is unified. Hell I don't even think a revolution should be based on the working class. Sure, maybe theoretically the party is not meant to be elitist but as long as it is a separate entity that can hold power over the working class it will be elitist.

A "party" is not needed to educate the working class. Why can't people just do it without a centralized group?

...Then what is the point of the revolution if it is not based on the working class? That's a total contradiction of everything we are fighting for.

[Pogue]

Surely a vanguard though is any educating group? Anarcho-Syndicalist unions are revolutionary proletarians educating an organising.

[davidasearles]

B.I.:

That happened recently in Stockton, except it was a Filipino man with a licensed gun. He lived in a crime infested neighborhood, and the police were chasing someone down his street. He went to the door with his gun to see what was going on and the police shot him.

das:

And what does it prove?

That police kill people? They do. Doctors kill people. Hunters kill people. Drivers kill people. The point? When the shit hits the fan the great majority of people will call the police. You wouldn't? Ho hum - call Vangaurd Party hdqs. and they'll dispatch a unit of the "armed people" to help you out. How many will they shoot of their own just getting to the scene?

News story 12/10/08

STOCKTON, Calif. (CBS13)

Stockton Police have shot and killed an armed man who walked out of what appears to be his own home just as officers were attempting to arrest two suspects from an earlier chase who had ended up in the man's backyard.

The shooting happened early this morning after a short chase that began when a 1995 Honda failed to pullover for a traffic stop. The chase began and ended quickly after the suspect car crashed into at least two parked cars in the area of 8th Street and California Street. The car's driver and passenger escaped on foot.

Officers found the suspects running through backyards in the 2100 block of South Sutter Street. When officers were attempting to take one of the suspects into custody in the backyard of 2130 South Sutter, a man walked out of the home's garage with a gun. That's when an officer shot and killed the man. Stockton police say the officer feared for his own safety and that of other arresting officers.

Stockton police believe the dead man lived at the home. He is in his 30's and according to police does not have an extensive criminal background. They are continuing their investigation into the shooting.

Police say the chase suspect taken into custody is a Hispanic juvenile who is listed as a missing person out of Lodi and a documented gang member.

Police continue to search for the other suspect.

http://cbs13.com/local/stockton.police.shooting.2.884219.html

[Chicano Shamrock]

B.I.:

That happened recently in Stockton, except it was a Filipino man with a licensed gun. He lived in a crime infested neighborhood, and the police were chasing someone down his street. He went to the door with his gun to see what was going on and the police shot him.

das:

And what does it prove?

That police kill people? They do. Doctors kill people. Hunters kill people. Drivers kill people. The point? When the shit hits the fan the great majority of people will call the police. You wouldn't? Ho hum - call Vangaurd Party hdqs. and they'll dispatch a unit of the "armed people" to help you out. How many will they shoot of their own just getting to the scene?
So now you're a police apologist? Also when the shit hits the fan I have no need for the cops. I will now direct you to the thread where we talk about what guns we have and where the pics of mine are. ;)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-own-t89461/index3.html

[davidasearles]

c.s.

when the shit hits the fan I have no need for the cops. I will now direct you to the thread where we talk about what guns we have and where the pics of mine are.

das:

And of course you would be the police agent provocatuer. Don't they train you guys on how not to be so transparent?

[Chicano Shamrock]

c.s.

when the shit hits the fan I have no need for the cops. I will now direct you to the thread where we talk about what guns we have and where the pics of mine are.

das:

And of course you would be the police agent provocatuer. Don't they train you guys on how not to be so transparent?

LOL idk how much did they train you? You're the one who supports police, nationalism and everything else. Which ideology was it that you adhere to?

By the way it is perfectly fine to talk about the guns you own if you own them legally. They already know we own them.

[Patchd]

Oh man, your posting technique is very confusing.


pal.:

I am one who would like to see the institution of marriage abolished.

das:

brave words until you fall.
Until I fall? What the hell does that mean? If you are referring to post-revolutionary potential counter revolution due to say the abolition of marriage, I think you are mistaken. Marriage is not an issue that people really kick up a fight about, unlike say, religion. Still, I would assert that during a revolutionary period, once the material conditions were right, marriage would no longer be as big an issue as it is now (which isn't even that big to be honest), and would pose no counter-revolutionary threat to society.


das:

darned right. The price of freedom? eternal vigialance.
What makes you think that is the only price for freedom? We have seen that "eternal vigilance" is a load of crap, you seem to think of the working class as one single minded individual, with a revolutionary consciousness, truth is, there will be those in the working class who couldn't care less, what makes you think they will keep "eternal vigilance"?

In addition, I'd rather not have to stay alert constantly just to maintain my freedom when there are other alternatives, such as removing the very thing which is used to oppress us!


das:

so what indeed.
:lol: You don't seem to get my point. You haven't dealt with it, instead provided me with a "witty" remark.

So, I'll answer it for you...so what? So it means that the state has been shown to be ineffective in providing workers with freedom, therefore, it is my opinion that by advocating the use of the state, you are fighting a lost cause.


pal comments:

They are also fond of capitalism. You might as well give up now then right?

das replies:

For the most part the left does a lousy job of articulating a goal of worker collective control of the industrial means of production that does not entail in the minds of most people a departure from democratic political government - in this the left encourages the population to confuse democratic political government with capitalism. I think if tthe masses were presented with a clear choice of being able to keep democratic political government but at the same time have collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers I think that they would go for it.
Erm, in Britain, most of the left advocate that already, or at least claim to do so. The workers still haven't risen up to fight for the glorious revolution! What's wrong? Well, class spontaneity, there isn't a "need" for the workers to rise up yet, not until something fucks up completely anyway.

When that happens, there trust for the state will decrease as much as their trust for capitalism, as shown in Greece, although Greece isn't in a revolutionary situation.

[Mersault]

People seem to be missing the glaring fallacy in the premise of this thread: There is no workers movement to divert.

[davidasearles]

das:

I think if tthe masses were presented with a clear choice of being able to keep democratic political government but at the same time have collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers I think that they would go for it.


pal: in Britain, most of the left advocate that already, or at least claim to do so.

das:

Could you supply web references for same? Thanks, DAS

[StalinFanboy]

B.I.:

That happened recently in Stockton, except it was a Filipino man with a licensed gun. He lived in a crime infested neighborhood, and the police were chasing someone down his street. He went to the door with his gun to see what was going on and the police shot him.

das:

And what does it prove?

That police kill people? They do. Doctors kill people. Hunters kill people. Drivers kill people. The point? When the shit hits the fan the great majority of people will call the police. You wouldn't? Ho hum - call Vangaurd Party hdqs. and they'll dispatch a unit of the "armed people" to help you out. How many will they shoot of their own just getting to the scene?

News story 12/10/08

STOCKTON, Calif. (CBS13)

Stockton Police have shot and killed an armed man who walked out of what appears to be his own home just as officers were attempting to arrest two suspects from an earlier chase who had ended up in the man's backyard.

The shooting happened early this morning after a short chase that began when a 1995 Honda failed to pullover for a traffic stop. The chase began and ended quickly after the suspect car crashed into at least two parked cars in the area of 8th Street and California Street. The car's driver and passenger escaped on foot.

Officers found the suspects running through backyards in the 2100 block of South Sutter Street. When officers were attempting to take one of the suspects into custody in the backyard of 2130 South Sutter, a man walked out of the home's garage with a gun. That's when an officer shot and killed the man. Stockton police say the officer feared for his own safety and that of other arresting officers.

Stockton police believe the dead man lived at the home. He is in his 30's and according to police does not have an extensive criminal background. They are continuing their investigation into the shooting.

Police say the chase suspect taken into custody is a Hispanic juvenile who is listed as a missing person out of Lodi and a documented gang member.

Police continue to search for the other suspect.

http://cbs13.com/local/stockton.police.shooting.2.884219.html

You clearly missed the context of my post. But it's nice to see that your loyalties are NOT with the working class and the poor.

Also, do you know how to use the quote system? The way you do it is annoying.

[davidasearles]

b.i.:

That happened recently in Stockton, except it was a Filipino man with a licensed gun. He lived in a crime infested neighborhood, and the police were chasing someone down his street. He went to the door with his gun to see what was going on and the police shot him.

news report:

Stockton Police have shot and killed an armed man who walked out of what appears to be his own home just as officers were attempting to arrest two suspects from an earlier chase who had ended up in the man's backyard.

das to b.i.:

And what does it prove?

That police kill people? They do. Doctors kill people. Hunters kill people. Drivers kill people. The point? When the shit hits the fan the great majority of people will call the police. You wouldn't? Ho hum - call Vangaurd Party hdqs. and they'll dispatch a unit of the "armed people" to help you out. How many will they shoot of their own just getting to the scene?

b.i. states to das:

You clearly missed the context of my post. But it's nice to see that your loyalties are NOT with the working class and the poor.

das:

my position is that trained and armed police working at the behest of and answerable to established political governement is a requirement of civilized (get it?) society. Come the elimination of class rule I would expect that the need for such will abate but will not disappear entirely.

I would also suggest that any police officer who would have as a signature response about dead workers or dead poor persons "lots of laughs" ought to be permanenty barred from having a gun - just as that rule ought to apply to anyone whose signature response is "dead police lots of laughs". The rule especially ought to apply to agent provocatuers.

[StalinFanboy]

b.i.:

That happened recently in Stockton, except it was a Filipino man with a licensed gun. He lived in a crime infested neighborhood, and the police were chasing someone down his street. He went to the door with his gun to see what was going on and the police shot him.

news report:

Stockton Police have shot and killed an armed man who walked out of what appears to be his own home just as officers were attempting to arrest two suspects from an earlier chase who had ended up in the man's backyard.

das to b.i.:

And what does it prove?

That police kill people? They do. Doctors kill people. Hunters kill people. Drivers kill people. The point? When the shit hits the fan the great majority of people will call the police. You wouldn't? Ho hum - call Vangaurd Party hdqs. and they'll dispatch a unit of the "armed people" to help you out. How many will they shoot of their own just getting to the scene?

b.i. states to das:

You clearly missed the context of my post. But it's nice to see that your loyalties are NOT with the working class and the poor.

das:

my position is that trained and armed police working at the behest of and answerable to established political governement is a requirement of civilized (get it?) society. Come the elimination of class rule I would expect that the need for such will abate but will not disappear entirely.

I would also suggest that any police officer who would have as a signature response about dead workers or dead poor persons "lots of laughs" ought to be permanenty barred from having a gun - just as that rule ought to apply to anyone whose signature response is "dead police lots of laughs". The rule especially ought to apply to agent provocatuers.


lol stands for "laugh out loud."

[davidasearles]

das:

my position is that trained and armed police working at the behest of and answerable to established political government is a requirement of civilized (get it?) society. Come the elimination of class rule I would expect that the need for such will abate but will not disappear entirely.
b.i.:

I forgot how civilized capitalism is. Do you have any proof that a "civilized" society requires a "trained and armed police force?"

das to b.i.:

I'm sorry that I used the term civilization as a term that I thought that you may have had some familiarity with.

das quotes Engel quoting Morgan:

"Since the advent of civilization, the outgrowth of property has been so immense, its forms so diversified, its uses so expanding and its management so intelligent in the interests of its owners, that it has become, on the part of the people, an unmanageable power. The human mind stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation."

Can I "prove' that a trained armed police force will be required even after class rule comes to an end. The requirement for a police force can be argued for or against but not proved or disproved. I think that arguments that I have seen against the existence of police forces after the revolution are illogical, and most arguments in favor logical. That's why I identified necessity as my own opinion rather than an immutable rule.

[StalinFanboy]

das:

my position is that trained and armed police working at the behest of and answerable to established political government is a requirement of civilized (get it?) society. Come the elimination of class rule I would expect that the need for such will abate but will not disappear entirely.
b.i.:

I forgot how civilized capitalism is. Do you have any proof that a "civilized" society requires a "trained and armed police force?"

das to b.i.:

I'm sorry that I used the term civilization as a term that I thought that you may have had some familiarity with.

das quotes Engel quoting Morgan:

"Since the advent of civilization, the outgrowth of property has been so immense, its forms so diversified, its uses so expanding and its management so intelligent in the interests of its owners, that it has become, on the part of the people, an unmanageable power. The human mind stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation."

Can I "prove' that a trained armed police force will be required even after class rule comes to an end. The requirement for a police force can be argued for or against but not proved or disproved. I think that arguments that I have seen against the existence of police forces after the revolution are illogical, and most arguments in favor logical. That's why I identified necessity as my own opinion rather than an immutable rule.
I forgive you.

My opinion is that when you put a group of people in power of another group, the group in power is going to look out for it's own continued existence, rather than the well-being of everyone.

[davidasearles]

b.i.:

I forgive you. My opinion is that when you put a group of people in power of another group, the group in power is going to look out for it's own continued existence, rather than the well-being of everyone.

das:

Always a problem and it should always be recognized as such. Severely reducing capitalist influence over the political state via collective worker control of the industrial means of production, at the same time giving the now impoverished masses an actual stake in the cooperative society, at the same time relieving good police officers of the burden in their minds that they alone stand on the line that separates total societal breakdown from that of a well ordered society - these ought to ameliorate the problem significantly I would think.

[griffjam]

Pat Stack argues that "the idea that dominates anarchist thought" is "that the state is the main enemy, rather than identifying the state as one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed." ["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246] Marxist Paul Thomas states that "Anarchists insist that the basis source of social injustice is the state." [Karl Marx and the Anarchists, p. 2]
On the face of it, such assertions make little sense. After all, was not the first work by the first self-declared anarchist called What is Property? and contained the revolutionary maxim "property is theft"? Surely this fact alone would be enough to put to rest the notion that anarchists view the state as the main problem in the world? Obviously not. Flying in the face of this well known fact as well as anarchist theory, Marxists have constantly repeated the falsehood that anarchists consider the state as the main enemy. Indeed, Stack and Thomas are simply repeating an earlier assertion by Engels:

"Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and communism. The chief point concerning the former is that he does not regard capital, i.e. the class antagonism between capitalists and wage workers which has arisen through social development, but the state as the main enemy to be abolished . . . our view that state power is nothing more than the organisation which the ruling classes - landowners and capitalists - have provided for themselves in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only be the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production in the hands of a few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an essential one . . . the abolition of capital is precisely the social revolution." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 71] As will come as no surprise, Engels did not bother to indicate where he discovered Bakunin's ideas on these matters. Similarly, his followers raise this kind of assertion as a truism, apparently without the need for evidence to support the claim. This is hardly surprising as anarchists, including Bakunin, have expressed an idea distinctly at odds with Engels' claims, namely that the social revolution would be marked by the abolition of capitalism and the state at the same time. That this is the case can be seen from John Stuart Mill who, unlike Engels, saw that Bakunin's ideas meant "not only the annihilation of all government, but getting all property of all kinds out of the hands of the possessors to be used for the general benefit." ["Chapters on Socialism," Principles of Political Economy, p. 376] If the great liberal thinker could discern this aspect of anarchism, why not Engels?
After all, this vision of a social revolution (i.e. one that combined political, social and economic goals) occurred continuously throughout Bakunin's writings when he was an anarchist. Indeed, to claim that he, or anarchists in general, just opposed the state suggests a total unfamiliarity with anarchist theory. For Bakunin, like all anarchists, the abolition of the state occurs at the same time as the abolition of capital. This joint abolition is precisely the social revolution. As one academic put it:

"In Bakunin's view, the struggle against the main concentration of power in society, the state, was no less necessary than the struggle against capital. Engels, however, puts the matter somewhat differently, arguing that for Bakunin the state was the main enemy, as if Bakunin had not held that capital, too, was an enemy and that its expropriation was a necessary even if not sufficient condition for the social revolution . . . [Engels'] formulation . . . distorts Bakunin's argument, which also held capital to be an evil necessary to abolish" [Alvin W. Gouldner, "Marx's Last Battle: Bakunin and the First International", pp. 853-884, Theory and Society, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 863-4] In 1865, for example, we discover Bakunin arguing that anarchists "seek the destruction of all States" in his "Program of the Brotherhood." Yet he also argued that a member of this association "must be socialist" and see that "labour" was the "sole producer of social assets" and so "anyone enjoying these without working is an exploiter of another man's labour, a thief." They must also "understand that there is no liberty in the absence of equality" and so the "attainment of the widest liberty" is possible only "amid the most perfect (de jure and de facto) political, economic and social equality." The "sole and supreme objective" of the revolution "will be the effective political, economic and social emancipation of the people." This was because political liberty "is not feasible without political equality. And the latter is impossible without economic and social equality." This means that the "land belongs to everyone. But usufruct of it will belong only to those who till it with their own hands." As regards industry, "through the unaided efforts and economic powers of the workers' associations, capital and the instruments of labour will pass into the possession of those who will apply them . . . through their own labours." He opposed sexism, for women are "equal in all political and social rights." Ultimately, "[n]o revolution could succeed . . . unless it was simultaneously a political and a social revolution. Any exclusively political revolution . . . will, insofar as it consequently does not have the immediate, effective, political and economic emancipation of the people as its primary objective, prove to be . . . illusory, phoney." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 134-41]
In 1868, Bakunin was arguing the same ideas. The "Association of the International Brethren seeks simultaneously universal, social, philosophical, economic and political revolution, so that the present order of things, rooted in property, exploitation, domination and the authority principle" will be destroyed. The "revolution as we understand it will . . . set about the . . . complete destruction of the State . . . The natural and necessary upshot of that destruction" will include the "[d]issolution of the army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and clergy" and "[a]ll productive capital and instruments of labour . . . be confiscated for the benefit of toilers associations, which will have to put them to use in collective production" as well as the "[s]eizure of all Church and State properties." The "federated Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune." The people "must make the revolution everywhere, and . . . ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom up." [Op. Cit., pp. 152-6]
As these the words of a person who considered the state as the "chief evil" or "that the state is the main enemy"? Of course not, rather Bakunin clearly identified the state as one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed. As he put it, the "State, which has never had any task other than to regularise, sanction and . . . protect the rule of the privileged classes and exploitation of the people's labour for the rich, must be abolished. Consequently, this requires that society be organised from the bottom up through the free formation and free federation of worker associations, industrial, agricultural, scientific and artisan alike, . . . founded upon collective ownership of the land, capital, raw materials and the instruments of labour, which is to say, all large-scale property . . . leaving to private and hereditary possession only those items that are actually for personal use." [Op. Cit., p. 182] Clearly, as Wayne Thorpe notes, for Bakunin "[o]nly the simultaneous destruction of the state and of the capitalist system, accompanied by the organisation from below of a federalist system of administration based upon labour's economic associations . . . could achieve true liberty." ["The Workers Themselves", p. 6]
Rather than seeing the state as the main evil to be abolished, Bakunin always stressed that a revolution must be economic and political in nature, that it must ensure political, economic and social liberty and equality. As such, he argued for both the destruction of the state and the expropriation of capital (both acts conducted, incidentally, by a federation of workers' associations or workers' councils). While the apparatus of the state was being destroyed ("Dissolution of the army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and clergy"), capitalism was also being uprooted and destroyed ("All productive capital and instruments of labour . . . confiscated for the benefit of toilers associations"). To assert, as Engels did, that Bakunin ignored the necessity of abolishing capitalism and the other evils of the current system while focusing exclusively on the state, is simply distorting his ideas. As Mark Leier summarises in his excellent biography of Bakunin, Engels "was just flat-out wrong . . . What Bakunin did argue was that the social revolution had to be launched against the state and capitalism simultaneously, for the two reinforced each other." [Bakunin: The Creative Passion, p. 274]
Kropotkin, unsurprisingly, argued along identical lines as Bakunin. He stressed that "the revolution will burn on until it has accomplished its mission: the abolition of property-owning and of the State." This revolution, he re-iterated, would be a "mass rising up against property and the State." Indeed, Kropotkin always stressed that "there is one point to which all socialists adhere: the expropriation of capital must result from the coming revolution." This mean that "the area of struggle against capital, and against the sustainer of capital - government" could be one in which "various groups can act in agreement" and so "any struggle that prepares for that expropriation should be sustained in unanimity by all the socialist groups, to whatever shading they belong." [Words of a Rebel, p. 75 and p. 204] Little wonder Kropotkin wrote his famous article "Expropriation" on this subject! As he put it:

[I] "Expropriation - that is the guiding word of the coming revolution, without which it will fail in its historic mission: the complete expropriation of all those who have the means of exploiting human beings; the return to the community of the nation of everything that in the hands of anyone can be used to exploit others." [Op. Cit., pp. 207-8] This was because he was well aware of the oppressive nature of capitalism: "For the worker who must sell his labour, it is impossible to remain free, and it is precisely because it is impossible that we are anarchists and communists." [Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p. 305] For Kropotkin, "the task we impose ourselves" is to acquire "sufficient influence to induce the workmen to avail themselves of the first opportunity of taking possession of land and the mines, of railways and factories," to bring working class people "to the conviction that they must reply on themselves to get rid of the oppression of Capital." [Act for Yourselves, p. 32] Strange words if Marxist assertions were true. As can be seen, Kropotkin is simply following Bakunin's ideas on the matter. He, like Bakunin, was well aware of the evils of capitalism and that the state protects these evils.
Unsurprisingly, he called anarchism "the no-government system of socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] For Kropotkin, the "State is there to protect exploitation, speculation and private property; it is itself the by-product of the rapine of the people. The proletariat must rely on his own hands; he can expect nothing of the State. It is nothing more than an organisation devised to hinder emancipation at all costs." [Words of a Rebel, p. 27] Rather than see the state as the main evil, he clearly saw it as the protector of capitalism - in other words, as one aspect of a class system which needed to be replaced by a better society:

[I] "The very words Anarchist-Communism show in what direction society, in our opinion, is already going, and one what lines it can get rid of the oppressive powers of Capital and Government . . . The first conviction to acquire is that nothing short of expropriation on a vast scale, carried out by the workmen themselves, can be the first step towards a reorganisation of our production on Socialist principles." [Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, pp. 32-3] Similarly with all other anarchists. Emma Goldman, for example, summarised for all anarchists when she argued that anarchism "really stands for" the "liberation of the human body from the domination of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government." Goldman was well aware that wealth "means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade." She considered property "not only a hindrance to human well-being, but an obstacle, a deadly barrier, to all progress." A key problem of modern society was that "man must sell his labour" and so "his inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a master." Anarchism, she stressed, was the "the only philosophy that can and will do away with this humiliating and degrading situation . . . There can be no freedom in the large sense of the word . . . so long as mercenary and commercial considerations play an important part in the determination of personal conduct." The state, ironically for Stack's claim, was "necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73, p. 66, p. 50 and p. 51]
Errico Malatesta, likewise, stressed that, for "all anarchists," it was definitely a case that the "abolition of political power is not possible without the simultaneous destruction of economic privilege." The "Anarchist Programme" he drafted listed "Abolition of private property" before "Abolition of government" and argued that "the present state of society" was one in "which some have inherited the land and all social wealth, while the mass of the people, disinherited in all respects, is exploited and oppressed by a small possessing class." It ends by arguing that anarchism wants "the complete destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man" and for "expropriation of landowners and capitalists for the benefit of all; and the abolition of government." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 158, p. 184, p. 183, p. 197 and p. 198] Nearly three decades previously, we find Malatesta arguing the same idea. As he put it in 1891, anarchists "struggle for anarchy, and for socialism, because we believe that anarchy and socialism must be realised immediately, that is to say that in the revolutionary act we must drive government away, abolish property . . . human progress is measured by the extent government power and private property are reduced." [Anarchy, p. 54]
Little wonder Bertrand Russell stated that anarchism "is associated with belief in the communal ownership of land and capital" because, like Marxism, it has the "perception that private capital is a source of tyranny by certain individuals over others." [Roads to Freedom, p. 40] Russell was, of course, simply pointing out the obvious. As Brian Morris correctly summarises:

"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil, ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way anarchism has been defined, and partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude anarchism from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p, p. 40] All in all, Marxist claims that anarchists view the state as the "chief evil" or see the destruction of the state as the "main idea" of anarchism are simply talking nonsense. In fact, rather than anarchists having a narrow view of social liberation, it is, in fact, Marxists who do so. By concentrating almost exclusively on the (economic) class source of exploitation, they blind themselves to other forms of exploitation and domination that can exist independently of (economic) class relationships. This can be seen from the amazing difficulty that many of them got themselves into when trying to analyse the Stalinist regime in Russia. Anarchists are well aware that the state is just one aspect of the current class system but unlike Marxists we recognise that "class rule must be placed in the much larger context of hierarchy and domination as a whole." [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 28] This has been the anarchist position from the nineteenth century onwards and one which is hard not to recognise if you are at all familiar with the anarchist movement and its theory. As one historian notes, we have never been purely anti-state, but also anti-capitalist and opposed to all forms of oppression:

"Anarchism rejected capitalism . . . not only because it viewed it as inimical to social equality, but also because it saw it as a form of domination detrimental to individual freedom. Its basic tenet regarded hierarchical authority - be it the state, the church, the economic elite, or patriarchy - as unnecessary and deleterious to the maximisation of human potential." [Jose Moya, Italians in Buenos Aires's Anarchist Movement, p. 197] So we oppose the state because it is just one aspect of a class ridden and hierarchical system. We just recognise that all the evils of that system must be destroyed at the same time to ensure a social revolution rather than just a change in who the boss is.

[Mister X]

Nice one focusing on my age and making up some bullshit about your real life experience.

I suggest you read some history.

First of all I didn't focus on your age comrade.
Second of all I didn't make anything up. The internet is not property of the teens only but of adults too.
Also you don't read history , you study history. And as a materialist you just account events but you also have to understand their material context.
Marxism-Leninism is not about a single party dictatorship. Stalinist Russia was not Marxist-Leninist. As Hegel explained (I am paraphrasing here) "Even the best thing after changes and alterations can turn into its opposite"
This is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union due the material context of its building.

Also I would like to bring to your attention this Lenin quote from the 7th Congress in 1918 : "socialism cannot be implemented by a minority, by the Party. It can be implemented only by tens of millions when they have learned to do it themselves"


This shows the real ideas and ideals of the Leninists. This is what I wanted you to understand that Leninism is not Stalinism and that Leninism does not mean one party dictatorship.

[davidasearles]

griff. sums up a well written post with the following (in part):

"So we (anarchists) oppose the state because it is just one aspect of a class ridden and hierarchical system.

das to griff:

You make excellent sense in your argument as to how anarchism does not overly focus on the elimination of the state. Now perhaps you could look at the question: Would not the state be a more benign, and even a useful institution to have (assuming a political democracy with guaranteed minority rights as in the US Constitution) if class were eliminated through the establishment of collective worker control of the industrial means of production?

In my mind it is simply not enough to write that because the state is one aspect of a class ridden and hierarchical system that it must be gotten rid of.

An aspect is a view point or a facet (as on a cut stone). To me that does not accurately describe the relationship of the state to the class system. (I am generally opposed to the use analogous thought – it seems the better the analogy the more of a problem it becomes because it soon starts to substitute for actual thought.) What can you say about the relationship of the state to current class rule that necessarily would indicate that the state could not be a useful instrument for the workers during the ending of and even after the time of class rule?

Thanks,
Dave Searles

[griffjam]

The idea that a state (any state) can be used for socialist ends is simply ridiculous. This is because of the nature of the state as an instrument of minority class rule. As such, it precludes the mass participation required for socialism and would create a new form of class society. The state is defined by certain characteristics (most importantly, the centralisation of power into the hands of a few). Thus, for anarchists, "the word 'State' . . . should be reserved for those societies with the hierarchical system and centralisation." [Peter Kropotkin, Ethics, p. 317f] This defining feature of the state has not come about by chance. As Kropotkin argued in his classic history of the state, "a social institution cannot lend itself to all the desired goals, since, as with every organ, [the state] developed according to the function it performed, in a definite direction and not in all possible directions." This means, by "seeing the State as it has been in history, and as it is in essence today" the conclusion anarchists "arrive at is for the abolition of the State." Thus the state has "developed in the history of human societies to prevent the direct association among men [and women] to shackle the development of local and individual initiative, to crush existing liberties, to prevent their new blossoming - all this in order to subject the masses to the will of minorities." [The State: Its Historic Role, p. 56]

There is a contradiction at the heart of the Marxist theory of the state. On the one hand, it acknowledges that the state, historically, has always been an instrument of minority rule and is structured to ensure this. On the other, it argues that you can have a state (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") which transcends this historical reality to express an abstract essence of the state as an "instrument of class rule." This means that Marxism usually confuses two very different concepts, namely the state (a structure based on centralisation and delegated power) and the popular self-management and self-organisation required to create and defend a socialist society.

Lenin argued that while Marxists aimed "at the complete abolition of the state" they "recognise that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution" while anarchists "want to abolish the state completely overnight." This issue is usually summarised by Marxists arguing that a new state is required to replace the destroyed bourgeois one. This new state is called by Marxists "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or a workers' state. Anarchists reject this transitional state while Marxists embrace it. Indeed, according to Lenin "a Marxist is one who extends the acceptance of the class struggle to the acceptance of the dictatorship of the proletariat." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 358 and p. 294] So what does the "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually mean? Generally, Marxists seem to imply that this term simply means the defence of the revolution and so the anarchist rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat means, for Marxists, the denial the need to defend a revolution. This particular straw man was used by Lenin in The State and Revolution when he quoted Marx's article "Indifference to Politics" to suggest that anarchists advocated workers "laying down their arms" after a successful revolution. Such a "laying down [of] their arms" would mean "abolishing the state" while keeping their arms "in order to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie" would mean "giv the state a revolutionary and transitory form," so setting up "their revolutionary dictatorship in place of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." [Marx, quoted by Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 315]
That such an argument can be made, never mind repeated, suggests a lack of honesty. It assumes that the Marxist and Anarchist definitions of "the state" are identical. They are not. For anarchists the state, government, means "the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 41] For Marxists, the state is "an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another." [Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 274] That these definitions are in conflict is clear and unless this difference is made explicit, anarchist opposition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be clearly understood.
Anarchists, of course, agree that the current state is the means by which the bourgeois class enforces its rule over society. In Bakunin's words, "the political state has no other mission but to protect the exploitation of the people by the economically privileged classes." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 221] "Throughout history, just as in our time, government is either the brutal, violent, arbitrary rule of the few over the many or it is an organised instrument to ensure that domination and privilege will be in the hands of those who . . . have cornered all the means of life." Under capitalism, as Malatesta succulently put, the state is "the bourgeoisie's servant and gendarme." [Op. Cit., p. 21 and p. 23] The reason why the state is marked by centralised power is due to its role as the protector of (minority) class rule. As such, a state cannot be anything but a defender of minority power as its centralised and hierarchical structure is designed for that purpose. If the working class really were running society, as Marxists claim they would be in the "dictatorship of the proletariat," then it would not be a state. As Bakunin put it: "Where all rule, there are no more ruled, and there is no State." [Op. Cit., p. 223]
The idea that anarchists, by rejecting the "dictatorship of the proletariat," also reject defending a revolution is false. We do not equate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with the need to defend a revolution or expropriating the capitalist class, ending capitalism and building socialism. Anarchists from Bakunin onwards have taken both of these necessities for granted.
Anarchists, then, do not reject defending a revolution and our opposition to the so-called "revolutionary" or "socialist" state is not based on this, regardless of what Marx and Lenin asserted. Rather, we argue that the state can and must be abolished "overnight" during a social revolution because any state, including the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat", is marked by hierarchical power and can only empower the few at the expense of the many. The state will not "wither away" as Marxists claim simply because it excludes, by its very nature, the active participation of the bulk of the population and ensures a new class division in society: those in power (the party) and those subject to it (the working class). Georges Fontenis sums up anarchist concerns on this issue:
[I] "The formula 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has been used to mean many different things. If for no other reason it should be condemned as a cause of confusion. With Marx it can just as easily mean the centralised dictatorship of the party which claims to represent the proletariat as it can the federalist conception of the Commune. "Can it mean the exercise of political power by the victorious working class? No, because the exercise of political power in the recognised sense of the term can only take place through the agency of an exclusive group practising a monopoly of power, separating itself from the class and oppressing it. And this is how the attempt to use a State apparatus can reduce the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of the party over the masses.
"But if by dictatorship of the proletariat is understood collective and direct exercise of 'political power', this would mean the disappearance of 'political power' since its distinctive characteristics are supremacy, exclusivity and monopoly. It is no longer a question of exercising or seizing political power, it is about doing away with it all together!
"If by dictatorship is meant the domination of the majority by a minority, then it is not a question of giving power to the proletariat but to a party, a distinct political group. If by dictatorship is meant the domination of a minority by the majority (domination by the victorious proletariat of the remnants of a bourgeoisie that has been defeated as a class) then the setting up of dictatorship means nothing but the need for the majority to efficiently arrange for its defence its own social Organisation.
[...]
"The terms 'domination', 'dictatorship' and 'state' are as little appropriate as the expression 'taking power' for the revolutionary act of the seizure of the factories by the workers.
We reject then as inaccurate and causes of confusion the expressions 'dictatorship of the proletariat', 'taking political power', 'workers state', 'socialist state' and 'proletarian state'." [Manifesto of Libertarian Communism, pp. 22-3]
So anarchists argue that the state has to be abolished "overnight" simply because a state is marked by hierarchical power and the exclusion of the bulk of the population from the decision making process. It cannot be used to implement socialism simply because it is not designed that way. To extend and defend a revolution a state is not required. Indeed, it is a hindrance:
"The mistake of authoritarian communists in this connection is the belief that fighting and organising are impossible without submission to a government; and thus they regard anarchists . . . as the foes of all organisation and all co-ordinated struggle. We, on the other hand, maintain that not only are revolutionary struggle and revolutionary organisation possible outside and in spite of government interference but that, indeed, that is the only effective way to struggle and organise, for it has the active participation of all members of the collective unit, instead of their passively entrusting themselves to the authority of the supreme leaders. "Any governing body is an impediment to the real organisation of the broad masses, the majority. Where a government exists, then the only really organised people are the minority who make up the government; and . . . if the masses do organise, they do so against it, outside it, or at the very least, independently of it. In ossifying into a government, the revolution as such would fall apart, on account of its awarding that government the monopoly of organisation and of the means of struggle." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", pp. 13-49, The Poverty of Statism, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 27]
This is because of the hierarchical nature of the state, its delegation of power into the hands of the few and so a so-called "revolutionary" government can have no other result than a substitution of the few (the government) for the many (the masses). This, in turn, undermines the mass participation and action from below that a revolution needs to succeed and flourish. "Instead of acting for themselves," Kropotkin argued, "instead of marching forward, instead of advancing in the direction of the new order of things, the people, confiding in their governors, entrusted to them the charge of taking the initiative." However, social change is the product of "the people in action" and "the brain of a few individuals [are] absolutely incapable of finding solutions" to the problems it will face "which can only spring from the life of the people." For anarchists, a revolution "is not a simple change of governors. It is the taking possession by the people of all social wealth" and this cannot be achieved "be decrees emanating from a government." This "economic change" will be "so immense and so profound" that it is "impossible for one or any individual to elaborate the different social forms which must spring up in the society of the future. This elaboration of new social forms can only be made by the collective work of the masses" and "[a]ny authority external to it will only be an obstacle, a "drag on the action of the people." A revolutionary state, therefore, "becomes the greatest obstacle to the revolution" and to "dislodge it" requires the people "to take up arms, to make another revolution." [Anarchism, p. 240, p. 241, pp. 247-8, p. 248, p. 249, p. 241 and p. 242] Which, we should stress, was exactly what happened in Russia, where anarchists and others (such as the Kronstadt rebels) called for a "Third Revolution" against the Bolshevik state and the party dictatorship and state capitalism it had created.
For anarchists, the abolition of the state does not mean rejecting the need to extend or defend a revolution (quite the reverse!). It means rejecting a system of organisation designed by and for minorities to ensure their rule. To create a state (even a "workers' state") means to delegate power away from the working class and eliminate their power in favour of party power ("the principle error of the [Paris] Commune, an unavoidable error, since it derived from the very principle on which power was constituted, was precisely that of being a government, and of substituting itself for the people by force of circumstances." [Elisée Reclus, quoted John P. Clark and Camille Martin, Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 72]).
In place of a state anarchists' argue for a free federation of workers' organisations as the means of conducting a revolution (and the framework for its defence). Most Marxists seem to confuse centralism and federalism, with Lenin stating that "if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organise themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital . . . won't that be centralism? Won't that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism?" No, it would be federalism, the most consistent federalism as advocated by Proudhon and Bakunin and, under the influence of the former, suggested by the Paris Commune. Lenin argued that some "simply cannot conceive of the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine." [The Lenin Anthology, p. 348] Yet "voluntary centralism" is, at best, just another why of describing federalism - assuming that "voluntary" really means that, of course. At worse, and in practice, such centralism simply places all the decision making at the centre, at the top, and all that is left is for the communes to obey the decisions of a few party leaders.
Anarchists see this federation of workers' associations and communes (the framework of a free society) as being based on the organisations working class people create in their struggle against capitalism. These self-managed organisations, by refusing to become part of a centralised state, will ensure the success of a revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

Please, if you're going to quote the Anarchist FAQ, cut out the bullcrap about Marxism before doing so.

[The Feral Underclass]

Please, if you're going to quote the Anarchist FAQ, cut out the bullcrap about Marxism before doing so.

What, in case it upsets your sensibilities...? :confused:

[griffjam]

State and Capitalism, State and Capitalism,
Go together like a horse and carriage,
This I tell ya brother, you can't have one without the other.

State and Capitalism, State and Capitalism,
It's an institute you can't disparage,
Ask the local gentry, and they will say is element'ry.

Try, try, try to separate them,
It's an illusion.
Try, try, try and you will only come
to this conclusion.

State and Capitalism, State and Capitalism,
Go together like a horse and carriage,
Dad was told by mother
You can't have one
But you can have none
You can't have one without the other.


The State is not simply the tool of economic interests, but a structure of domination in its own right and with its own dynamics. History provides many examples of the way in which the State's drive to power has gone against the optimal development of the capitalist economy. Overall, the State and capitalism are like two inseparable Siamese twins- each requires the other. The State will always defend the ruling class. This is because the State is funded by taxes and loans generated in the process of exploitation, because the top personnel of the State are mainly drawn (like the bosses of the companies) from the few who own all the wealth (thus sharing common values and interests), and because the State was created specifically in order to defend the ruling class. In addition, those controlling the State develop a vested interest in the power and wealth that they derive from their position, thus turning them into zealous defenders of the class system.

[davidasearles]

das:

What can you say about the relationship of the state to current class rule that necessarily would indicate that the state could not be a useful instrument for the workers during the ending of and even after the time of class rule?

griff:

The idea that a state (any state) can be used for socialist ends is simply ridiculous. This is because of the nature of the state as an instrument of minority class rule. As such, it precludes ...

griff again:

The State is not simply the tool of economic interests, but a structure of domination in its own right and with its own dynamics.

das:

apaprt from economuc interests - That much I will grant.

griff:

Overall, the State and capitalism are like two inseparable Siamese twins- each requires the other.

das:

Then it seems that you may be missing something. The political state existed long prior to capitalism so it would seem that it does not in all cases require capitalism. And despite voluminous history of the state being used as an instrument of class rule, where classes exist, I do not see any evidence but assertion that the state would be inimical to the workers once class rule has ended.

Your posts are written with a high degree of integrity and I respect you for that. Also I have heard for quite some time now the statement that the state under all circumstances and at all times because of its nature is inimical to the interests of the workers. I have long held that very same view. However it is one thing to assert that it would be necessarily adverse to the workers interests and another to demonstrate how and why it would be necessarily be adverse. I didn't see where that has been addressed at all.

[StalinFanboy]

Please, if you're going to quote the Anarchist FAQ, cut out the bullcrap about Marxism before doing so.
Marxism isn't Anarchism.

[davidasearles]

If you think that you know that and that you can authoritively state it, perhaps you could explain to us exactly what Marxism is?

[StalinFanboy]

If you think that you know that and that you can authoritively state it, perhaps you could explain to us exactly what Marxism is?
Are you arguing that Marxism IS Anarchism?

[davidasearles]

b.i. stated seemingly quite authoritatively that:

"Marxism is not Anarchism. "

Since the statement was seemingly so authoritative I asked b.i. if he could tell us exactly what Marxism is.

Now b.i. is asking me (das) if I think that Marxism and Anarchism is the same.

Luckily I can claim ignorance and seldom will anyone doubt my sincerity. In this case I must confess my own ignorance and state that I was hoping that you could help me out. Can you give a statement of what Marxism is, and of what Anarchism is, at least sufficient for one to definitively conclude that Marxism is not Anarchism? I was just wondering.

[griffjam]

das:


das:

Then it seems that you may be missing something. The political state existed long prior to capitalism so it would seem that it does not in all cases require capitalism. And despite voluminous history of the state being used as an instrument of class rule, where classes exist, I do not see any evidence but assertion that the state would be inimical to the workers once class rule has ended.



The state has always been a tool of the ruling class and the ruling class is now capitalists, yes capitalism in its current form is relatively new the form being an ideology with reasons and explanations for its ways and other things like stock exchanges and the current monetary system, but thousands of years prior to "the wealth of nations" capital was still in the hands of a small group of elites and they charged people to use it to make a living. Even in Cuba and Vietnam which are lauded as the most socialist of marxist countries are in reality, state capitalist, with the means of production in the hands of the state and delegated to workers who believe, through elections and trade unions have a say and make up the state. A socialist ruling class has been created.

In the U.S.S.R. the government owned the businesses, in the U.S.A. the businesses owns the government.

[davidasearles]

griff:

The state has always been a tool of the ruling class and the ruling class is now capitalists.

das:

I could not agree with you more.

But as the text in my signature suggests - it is now being questioned whether the political agitation that is allowed under several state regimes, the US included, could could be used to try to convince enough people to conclude that the workers ought to be in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution, sufficient that the people convinced would constitute a political force to effect a change in the organic laws of the nation to recognize the right of the workers to collective control. And that once there was this political force and that class rule was clearly on its way out, that the representatives that determine what the state did would then adhere to the interests of the workers both because of the superior numbers of the workers and their superior economic strength.

[griffjam]

The question of Marxists demanding (in the words of Lenin) "that the proletariat be prepared for revolution by utilising the present state" while anarchists "reject this." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 358] By this, Lenin meant the taking part of socialists in bourgeois elections, standing candidates for office and having socialist representatives in Parliament and other local and national state bodies. In other words, what Marx termed "political action" and the Bolsheviks "revolutionary Parliamentarianism." For anarchists, the use of elections does not "prepare" the working class for revolution (i.e. managing their own affairs and society). Rather, it prepares them to follow leaders and let others act for them. In the words of Rudolf Rocker:

"Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to Socialism, but thanks to this method, Socialism has almost been completely crushed and condemned to insignificance . . . Participation in parliamentary politics has affected the Socialist Labour movement like an insidious poison. It destroyed the belief in the necessity of constructive Socialist activity, and, worse of all, the impulse to self-help, by inoculating people with the ruinous delusion that salvation always comes from above." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 54] While electoral ("political") activity ensures that the masses become accustomed to following leaders and letting them act on their behalf, anarchists' support direct action as "the best available means for preparing the masses to manage their own personal and collective interests; and besides, anarchists feel that even now the working people are fully capable of handling their own political and administrative interests." Political action, in contrast, needs centralised "authoritarian organisations" and results in "ceding power by all to someone, the delegate, the representative". "For direct pressure put against the ruling classes by the masses, the Socialist Party has substituted representation" and "instead of fostering the class struggle . . . it has adopted class collaboration in the legislative arena, without which all reforms would remain a vain hope." [Luigi Galleani, The End of Anarchism?, pp. 13-4, p. 14 and p. 12]
Anarchists, therefore, argue that we need to reclaim the power which has been concentrated into the hands of the state. That is why we stress direct action. Direct action means action by the people themselves, that is action directly taken by those directly affected. Through direct action, we dominate our own struggles, it is we who conduct it, organise it, manage it. We do not hand over to others our own acts and task of self-liberation. That way, we become accustomed to managing our own affairs, creating alternative, libertarian, forms of social organisation which can become a force to resist the state, win reforms and, ultimately, become the framework of a free society. In other words, direct action creates organs of self-activity (such as community assemblies, factory committees, workers' councils, and so on) which, to use Bakunin's words, are "creating not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself."
The idea that socialists standing for elections somehow prepares working class people for revolution is simply wrong. Utilising the state, standing in elections, only prepares people for following leaders - it does not encourage the self-activity, self-organisation, direct action and mass struggle required for a social revolution. Moreover, as Bakunin predicted use of elections has a corrupting effect on those who use it. The history of radicals using elections has been a long one of betrayal and the transformation of revolutionary parties into reformist ones. Using the existing state ensures that the division at the heart of existing society (namely a few who govern and the many who obey) is reproduced in the movements trying to abolish it. It boils down to handing effective leadership to special people, to "leaders," just when the situation requires working people to solve their own problems and take matters into their own hands:

"The Social Question will be put . . . long before the Socialists have conquered a few seats in Parliament, and thus the solution of the question will be actually in the hands of the workmen [and women] themselves . . . "Under the influence of government worship, they may try to nominate a new government . . . and they may entrust it with the solution of all difficulties. It is so simple, so easy, to throw a vote into the ballot-box, and to return home! So gratifying to know that there is somebody who will arrange your own affairs for the best, while you are quietly smoking your pipe and waiting for orders which you have only to execute, not to reason about." [Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 34]
Only the struggle for freedom (or freedom itself) can be the school for freedom, and by placing power into the hands of leaders, utilising the existing state ensures that socialism is postponed rather than prepared for. As such, strikes and other forms of direct action "are of enormous value; they create, organise, and form a workers' army, an army which is bound to break down the power of the bourgeoisie and the State, and lay the ground for a new world." The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 384-5] In contrast, utilising the present state only trains people in following leaders and so socialism "lost its creative initiative and became an ordinary reform movement . . . content with success at the polls, and no longer attributed any importance to social upbuilding." [Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 55]
Which highlights another key problem with the notion of utilising the present state as Marxist support for electioneering is somewhat at odds with their claims of being in favour of collective, mass action. There is nothing more isolated, atomised and individualistic than voting. It is the act of one person in a box by themselves. It is the total opposite of collective struggle. The individual is alone before, during and after the act of voting. Indeed, unlike direct action, which, by its very nature, throws up new forms of organisation in order to manage and co-ordinate the struggle, voting creates no alternative social structures. Nor can it as it is not based on nor does it create collective action or organisation. It simply empowers an individual (the elected representative) to act on behalf of a collection of other individuals (the voters). Such delegation will hinder collective organisation and action as the voters expect their representative to act and fight for them - if they did not, they would not vote for them in the first place!
Given that Marxists usually slander anarchists as "individualists" the irony is delicious!

[davidasearles]

griff:

For anarchists, the use of elections does not "prepare" the working class for revolution (i.e. managing their own affairs and society). Rather, it prepares them to follow leaders and let others act for them.

das:

For the most part I would have to agree with this assessment.

I used to be a member of the SLP. It ran condidates up to about 1976 when it couldn't afford to run them. And then , god forbid if a candidate was run for a minor office and the candidate won? Get out of town quick.

Prior to the revolution I would envision very little of the running of candidates. I can more see a heighteing of public opinion for collective control - that the people will turn up the political pressure that office holders, even with many of those elected from "capitalist" parties supporting the issue of collective worker control to the point of the US Congress proposing an amendment such as the one below, anf 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying it.

[StalinFanboy]

b.i. stated seemingly quite authoritatively that:

"Marxism is not Anarchism. "

Since the statement was seemingly so authoritative I asked b.i. if he could tell us exactly what Marxism is.

Now b.i. is asking me (das) if I think that Marxism and Anarchism is the same.

Luckily I can claim ignorance and seldom will anyone doubt my sincerity. In this case I must confess my own ignorance and state that I was hoping that you could help me out. Can you give a statement of what Marxism is, and of what Anarchism is, at least sufficient for one to definitively conclude that Marxism is not Anarchism? I was just wondering.


The most obvious difference is that Marxists envision a transitory period of a worker controlled state. Marxists often do not see the state as a source of oppression, or see the state as a neutral tool, where Anarchists see the state and capitalism as sources of oppression. There are philosophies that are heavily influenced by Marx, and compatible with Anarchism. And of course I recognize Marx as an extremely influential revolutionary thinker. But Marxism and Anarchism are two schools of thought that come from different thinkers.

I do not claim to be any sort of expert, and I'm quite open with the fact I'm still learning.

[ZeroNowhere]

The most obvious difference is that Marxists envision a transitory period of a worker controlled state.
Worker-controlled state?
We use the term 'state' to refer to the enforcement of one class' interests over another's. Thus, as long as the bourgeoisie exist, a classless commune would be against their interests. Of course, the Anarchist FAQ goes on one of its silly little rants about this that goes something like this: "OMG THE BOURGEOISIE WILL STILL EXIST OMGOMGOMG!!!!!!!!!" They then go on to praise the Spanish communes, during which the bourgeoisie certainly did exist, and were funding Franco (or, in the case of the Russian bourgeoisie, backstabbing the anarchists). Who knows? Perhaps they believe that the only way a revolution can be successful is that it succeeds internationally at the exact same time, which is silly.
We don't see a "workers' state" as something that has to be made for a revolution to succeed, merely that it is something that will exist after a successful socialist revolution in an area before the revolution is successful internationally. Marx also used the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to differentiate from the Blanquist 'educational dictatorship' of a minority, something which we oppose. Well, should oppose, many 'Marxists' don't.


Marxists often do not see the state as a source of oppression, or see the state as a neutral tool, where Anarchists see the state and capitalism as sources of oppression.
Wait, are you saying that Marxists see the state as neutral somehow? That's actually something Engels criticized Bakunin for, though he was probably misrepresenting Bakunin's views. That's nothing compared to what Bakunin managed, but anyhow.
We see the capitalist state as the enforcement of bourgeois class interests, especially the upholding of private property. We don't then take its other properties, such as their current structure and whatever else, into our definition, as we don't see them as essential characteristics of a state. The only way to abolish the state is to abolish capitalism.

[StalinFanboy]

Worker-controlled state?
We use the term 'state' to refer to the enforcement of one class' interests over another's. Thus, as long as the bourgeoisie exist, a classless commune would be against their interests. Of course, the Anarchist FAQ goes on one of its silly little rants about this that goes something like this: "OMG THE BOURGEOISIE WILL STILL EXIST OMGOMGOMG!!!!!!!!!" They then go on to praise the Spanish communes, during which the bourgeoisie certainly did exist, and were funding Franco (or, in the case of the Russian bourgeoisie, backstabbing the anarchists). Who knows? Perhaps they believe that the only way a revolution can be successful is that it succeeds internationally at the exact same time, which is silly.
We don't see a "workers' state" as something that has to be made for a revolution to succeed, merely that it is something that will exist after a successful socialist revolution in an area before the revolution is successful internationally. Marx also used the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to differentiate from the Blanquist 'educational dictatorship' of a minority, something which we oppose. Well, should oppose, many 'Marxists' don't.


Wait, are you saying that Marxists see the state as neutral somehow? That's actually something Engels criticized Bakunin for, though he was probably misrepresenting Bakunin's views. That's nothing compared to what Bakunin managed, but anyhow.
We see the capitalist state as the enforcement of bourgeois class interests, especially the upholding of private property. We don't then take its other properties, such as their current structure and whatever else, into our definition, as we don't see them as essential characteristics of a state. The only way to abolish the state is to abolish capitalism.

If there is hierarchy, then it's not Anarchist. I'm not trying to be a dick, but to say that somehow Anarchism and Marxism are the same is to ignore the fact that they are two distinct political philosophies.

[ZeroNowhere]

If there is hierarchy, then it's not Anarchist. I'm not trying to be a dick, but to say that somehow Anarchism and Marxism are the same is to ignore the fact that they are two distinct political philosophies.
What hierarchy? Hierarchy is in no way inherent to Marxism.
On the other hand, I have seen 'anarchists' who defend the current schooling system, but anyways...

[davidasearles]

b.i. origonally stated:

Marxism is not Anarchism.

das asked b.i. if he could define both sufficnet that a person could make that distiction.

b.i. then wrote:

The most obvious difference is that Marxists envision a transitory period of a worker controlled state. Marxists often do not see the state as a source of oppression, or see the state as a neutral tool, where Anarchists see the state and capitalism as sources of oppression.

das writes to b.i.:

Pardon me but you are evading the question. You had made a definitive statement regarding Marxism and Anarchism not being the same - and then when I called you on it and asked for you to define both sufficient so that we could discern the actual differneces according to you - you waffle and tell us what you think the differences are between what "Marxists" and "Anarchists" see. It's all very circular isn't it?

[davidasearles]

Zero:

We (Marxists) don't see a "workers' state" as something that has to be made for a revolution to succeed, merely that it is something that will exist after a successful socialist revolution in an area before the revolution is successful internationally.

das:

Whatever it was that Marx wrote about the state it was not so inspired by God that we should consider it holy writ and substitute those writings for our own well reasoned thoughts in this day.

I agree that we do not have to make a workers state for the revolution to succeed. In several instances, such as in the US it is at least conceivable that with sufficient political pressure through a well informed and vocal populous that the state will accede to a demand to alter the organic law of the nation to recognize the right of the workers to collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution. With the means of production under the collective control of the workers that ends the undue influence that capitalism currently exerts over the state. With the workers in collective control of the industries they will possess both the economic power and overall numbers to be able to utilize political democracy as an adjunct to their control over the industries. No reason whatsoever to get rid of the state, something that could be so useful if not under class control.

"before the revolution is successful internationally"

Even when the revolution is successful internationally there is no reason that the present political demarcations would have to be done away with, right away, or at anytime. The demarcations could be altered or abolished as the people saw fit as expressed through their elected governments.

[manic expression]

Had a lot of work on, so didnt reply for a while.

Same here.


No, just different. Much bigger for one thing. See, the capitalist class as a whole doesnt technically control the state. Part of it does, and uses the state against other parts of it to shrink the capitlaist class, driving the competition into the working class. By similar mechanisms, one would expect a 'workers state' to continually endeavour shrink the 'rulling-working' class, driving more and more of it into a ruled, more traditional, working class. Such is the nature of classes and states.

The capitalist class, as a whole, most assuredly controls the state. The state is not used to drive capitalists out of business, that is done in the market. What you're talking about is mostly bourgeois v petty bourgeois, which is tangential. If you want to say that some parts of the capitalist class are somehow disenfranchised, that is simply ridiculous because it ignores the entire character of the capitalist state. This is why anarchists can't theorize their way out of a paper bag.

Further, size of a class is wholly irrelevant. If one thinks democratic organs of governance can, to any degree, function appropriately, then there is absolutely nothing with which to question the ability of the working class to wield state power. Your position remains patronizing because it essentially views the workers as unfit to rule.


I am interested to know if you guys have any theory explaining why and how the working class is to remain united and coordinated under your 'workers state'.

We have theory, but we also have practice, which I find much more important:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)
(Please view the "Democracy in Cuba" section on the left-hand side)


Why do you beleive this? Clearly the place is run by an effectively unaccountable bureaucracy. Try Dolgoff's 'the cuban revolution: a critical perspective'.

Because the Cuban working class does control the state. Please view the above link, and note that it cites reputable sources in each of its claims. The Cuban state is controlled and directed by community-based processes which promote democratic discussion and deliberation within the working class. It's all there.

If I can find that book, I will skim it, but realize that I can't go out and read a book because someone told me it proves their point. Please cite something in specific or cite something more immediately accessible.


Eh? By the same token you could say that the bourgeois relys entirely on politicians/the police. As I have said, I think class is all about power, and this is why politicians/the police are rulling class. I dont see the use of this cumbersome priveledging of the role of economic power.

What are you talking about? The bourgeoisie does NOT rely upon the police or politicians for their livelihoods or their income, so your comparison is beyond foolish and has no relation to what I said.

And again, you continue to repeat your "thoughts" about class and power, and I continue to repeat the facts: the bourgeoisie existed BEFORE it conquered political power, and the bourgeoisie exists AFTER it is overthrown. If it was all about power, the bourgeoisie could not exist anywhere without political authority, and yet it did and does and will. If you find it so cumbersome to privilege the truth, that is your problem.


Why do you beleive this?

You might as well ask me what Marxism is. Google the Manifesto or youtube the Communist Manifestoon if you want the short illustrated version.

To be brief, class is defined through production because, well, that's its basis of existence. Slave-driven production (most notably chattle slavery) gives rise to the classes of slave and master and their auxiliaries; agricultural-based production gives rise to peasant and small tradesman, lord and king. Without the production, none of those classes could ever exist. All of those societies saw power, all of them had political authority, but all had different classes. Therefore, production MUST be the defining factor.


In many cases it was the other way round. Slave states came into being because their rulling classes conquered political power, allowing them to set up the slavery system of production. Economic power is one and only one form of power. It may be the main factor in the dominance of a ruling class, or it may not.

What the hell is a "slave state"? Anyway, tell me, what conquest of political power occurred prior to the establishment of slavery in the American colonies? It was a simple matter of needing cheap, expendable labor to grow cash crops in the south. When industrial developments made this outdated, slavery became outdated with it.

Slavery, specifically chattle slavery, developed through colonialism and the primitive accumulation of wealth. There was no conquest of political power, as the same British ruling classes who so depended on slavery were the ones who eventually abolished it in the 1830's. Your ideas make no sense when history is considered.


According to the ethics held by most of the human race.

That's borderline comical. So the ethics already held by the majority of humanity is against the existence of states? How extraordinary, I've been living in a world of perfect Bakuninites and I was never the wiser.

If you're going to make such a laughably grandiose claim you might want to give us a few clues as to what, exactly, you mean. Saying the majority of the human race holds certain ethics and promptly moving on is perhaps as weak of an argument as you can imagine.

And even if your "moral majority" exists, it doesn't change the situation at hand. We're talking about what to do about capitalism, what to do about class society, which includes the necessity of a state...waxing poetic about imagined ethics is basically irrelevant. Save it for the sermon, but don't pretend it has much to do with class conflict.


This is as relevant to most states as the laws of south american states are to ms-13 in areas where it can enforce its rule.

I've read this about a dozen times and it still makes no sense. If you're saying the laws of MS-13(!) are the same as South American states, I'd say you're oversimplifying South America and further forgetting about the entire history of the development of law (imagine MS-13 with a Napoleonic Code or an English Common Law system!). If you're saying MS-13 acts as the state where other states are powerless, I'd say you're forgetting that MS-13 is most powerful in Central America.

At the end of the day, it still makes no sense.


Do explain how. Remembering that by the anarchist definition state = organisation which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given teritory. I don't see why an instrument of class rule or organisation for the defence of a revolution has to be this.

The whole point is that the anarchist definition of the state is impossibly naive. If Jimmy Joe and Johnny Jim get a shotgun and claim a monopoly of legitimate force in their backyard, are they now a state? According to you, they are, and that speaks volumes about how pathetic anarchist non-theory really is.

Nevertheless, for a revolution to be defended from an enemy, that enemy must be suppressed. Therefore, an apparatus for suppression must be developed. Translated for your sake, this means that the workers will have to "claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force", because for the revolution, the force of the workers is legitimate and others are not.

For crying out loud, a revolution is nothing but the use of force by the working class. If that makes a state in your eyes, it only helps my arguments because every revolution is, in effect, a state through your definition.


Why is whether it is 'legal' or not at all relevant? In areas where they can enforce their rule they make the 'law'. This doesn't stop them being a state any more than lack of recognition by the UN stops the fiefdoms of somalian warlords being states.

Legality matters because the prevailing state sets the prevailing laws, those who break those laws are acting in opposition to that state, not as a state themselves. Street gangs to not make laws in any meaningful sense, they simply claim power over areas are profit from illegal activities. If an organization makes no real laws of its own and further have not the capacity to carry them out, how can we really call it a state? The reason I brought this up is because it is patently silly to call a street gang a state, and yet your definition does.

I should note that since you ignore the importance of class conflict (namely, the fact that a state's only real purpose is to suppress other classes), it is fitting that you have no ability to carry it out. Marxists understand class conflict, and so unlike the anarchists, they play a central role in promoting revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

Remembering that by the anarchist definition state = organisation which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given teritory.
Wait a minute, since when was there suddenly a single definition of the state used by all anarchists?
Isn't that basically just the Weberian definition? Certainly, I don't see how the hell that is the 'anarchist definition'.


Whatever it was that Marx wrote about the state it was not so inspired by God that we should consider it holy writ and substitute those writings for our own well reasoned thoughts in this day.No, you see, Marx was god. :rolleyes:


In several instances, such as in the US it is at least conceivable that with sufficient political pressure through a well informed and vocal populous that the state will accede to a demand to alter the organic law of the nation to recognize the right of the workers to collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.
Why?
"But if your course was wholly different - If you distilled nectar from your lips and discoursed sweet music [...] do you imagine you could prevail on us to give up a thousand millions of dollars in the value of our slaves[...] ?"
Oh, wait, of course, the capitalists would think that we were doing them a favour. :)


With the workers in collective control of the industries they will possess both the economic power and overall numbers to be able to utilize political democracy as an adjunct to their control over the industries.
What's to stop the 'representatives' in the government from being bribed, or just power-hungry? Capitalists have capital strike/flight. Do you perhaps believe that a general strike is a good idea, then?
I mean, I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a socialist revolution that's not based on an idea of, "Don't worry, we'll get the right leaders this time!"


No reason whatsoever to get rid of the state, something that could be so useful if not under class control.
Useful? How?


The demarcations could be altered or abolished as the people saw fit as expressed through their elected governments.
Why not through them actually voting on it?

[davidasearles]

das:

I agree that we do not have to make a workers state for the revolution to succeed. In several instances, such as in the US it is at least conceivable that with sufficient political pressure through a well informed and vocal populous that the state will accede to a demand to alter the organic law of the nation to recognize the right of the workers to collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

zero:

Why?
do you imagine you could prevail on (the representatives of capital within the state) to give up a thousand millions of dollars in the value of (the) slaves?"
Oh, wait, of course, the capitalists would think that we were doing them a favor

das:

Excellent point. Up to this moment the left has always figured that the capitalists would fight tooth and nail to retain private control of the industries. If it were in fact the case the proposal to alter the organic law of the nation through political pressure would be a hard sell. It wouldn't make the proposal not viable but it would be a hard sell.

I am here to suggest to you that capitalism or a controlling sector of capitalism wouldn't give much of a give a shit over retaining private ownership of the industrial means of production. Example - in my own lifetime General Motors was the largest corporation in the world. The value of its outstanding stock times the number of shares far far exceeded that of the second largest. BUT that outstanding value has fallen so far relatively, that at one point just a few years ago - the outstanding value of YAHOO stocks was higher than that of GM's. (Yahoo which owns essentially no productive facilities) .

After a hundred years of brilliant capitalist economic thought (for which a Nobel memorial prize has been established to commemorate) by far and in general neither capitalists nor their governmental representatives even believe that workers produce wealth!! I have seen this dozens of times, a company will get rid of industrial jobs and its stock price will rise - it's more profitable.

We have to change our tactics as conditions change. I suggest that right now would be a good time for peoples in counties where this is allowed to politically push the states in their respective countries to recognize the right of collective worker control of the industrial means of production.

[StalinFanboy]

griff:

The state has always been a tool of the ruling class and the ruling class is now capitalists.

das:

I could not agree with you more.

But as the text in my signature suggests - it is now being questioned whether the political agitation that is allowed under several state regimes, the US included, could could be used to try to convince enough people to conclude that the workers ought to be in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution, sufficient that the people convinced would constitute a political force to effect a change in the organic laws of the nation to recognize the right of the workers to collective control. And that once there was this political force and that class rule was clearly on its way out, that the representatives that determine what the state did would then adhere to the interests of the workers both because of the superior numbers of the workers and their superior economic strength.

I will not debate with someone who remains flexible so they don't have to set themselves to standards, but expects everyone else to. It's opportunistic.

[davidasearles]

To b.i.: Yes there is something that I reject that you do not. However you are mistaken that I expect you to adhere to what you thought were standards. There is no standard except informed logic. You've apparently memorized a few quotations about the state and you've allowed yourself to assume that those quotations contained eternal truths. You are right, you cannot debate until you are able to think for yourself. Opportunistic? Oh yes, we'd better be. As I stated above, we have to change our tactics as conditions change.

[StalinFanboy]

To b.i.: Yes there is something that I reject that you do not. However you are mistaken that I expect you to adhere to what you thought were standards. There is no standard except informed logic. You've apparently memorized a few quotations about the state and you've allowed yourself to assume that those quotations contained eternal truths. You are right, you cannot debate until you are able to think for yourself. Opportunistic? Oh yes, we'd better be. As I stated above, we have to change our tactics as conditions change.
I'm not talking about changing tactics. I'm talking about how at one point you've defended the police and proposed an armed police force and a centralized state, and then, when it worked for you, you agreed with the Anarchist analysis of the state being a tool of oppression.

Apparently, you've confused free thought with cherry picking and changing ideals. Me being a beginner to the study of theory does not mean I am not able to think for myself. Get off your high horse.

[davidasearles]

b.i. to das:

I'm talking about how at one point you've defended the police and proposed an armed police force and a centralized state, and then, when it worked for you, you agreed with the Anarchist analysis of the state being a tool of oppression.

das:

The state is a tool at the disposal of capitalism and class rule while capitalism and class rule exist. No doubt.

But in the US at least over the last 230 years it has been established that the state is controllable through political democracy. One of the signal accomplishments of the last third of the last millennium brought about in large part by the bourgeoisie.

Political democracy would be amendable to to the interests of the workers in recognizing a right of the workers to collective control of the means of production and distribution IF the workers and people interested in survival of civilization were able to express in a unified voice that it should be recognized. I have seen too many things that supposedly could never happen, in fact happen, to believe that such an uncomplicated thing such as the voice of democracy ultimately prevailing could not in fact prevail.

The problem with a large portion of the left is that it for much of the day it is so busy prophesizing that it can never prevail that it prolongs the time until it does. Such is the human condition.

But not to dodge the comment on me "supporting" armed police. Trained armed police under the capitalist state are supported by me no more and no less than public school teachers are supported by me. Given a non-class ruled society with democratic worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and an actual democratic political democracy I suspect that the need for armed police and public school teachers shall be significantly reduced, however I don't see the need for either going down to zero. Does that make me a bad person? I can live with it.

[Pogue]

What do you mean when you say 'das'?

[davidasearles]

sorry. "das" the initials of my name

[Pogue]

It might be easier to just use the quote system or underline or use bold/italics to differentiate between whose saying what and whats directed at who.

[Bilan]

The Leninist obsession with the anarchist movement diverts their attention from more useful things.

[ComradeOm]

@davidasearles: Many of your posts, both in this thread and others, are good but they really are difficult to follow. I'd echo H-L-V-S and advise you to use some other form of formatting (preferably the quote function) if only because your current style detracts, to my mind at least, from the post contents


The Leninist obsession with the anarchist movement diverts their attention from more useful things.Have you spent the past three months thinking that one up? ;)

Anyway, your comment reminds me of those anarchist posters we used to have around (RAAN? That lot still around?) who took a great deal of pride in vandalising "Leninist" bookstores, and the like, to the seeming exclusion of anti-capitalist activities. Just a comment on sweeping one-liners

[StalinFanboy]

@davidasearles: Many of your posts, both in this thread and others, are good but they really are difficult to follow. I'd echo H-L-V-S and advise you to use some other form of formatting (preferably the quote function) if only because your current style detracts, to my mind at least, from the post contents

Have you spent the past three months thinking that one up? ;)

Anyway, your comment reminds me of those anarchist posters we used to have around (RAAN? That lot still around?) who took a great deal of pride in vandalising "Leninist" bookstores, and the like, to the seeming exclusion of anti-capitalist activities. Just a comment on sweeping one-liners

Still around. Still sexy. And still anti-Leninist.

[Bilan]

Have you spent the past three months thinking that one up? ;)

You'd almost pass for witty if you weren't such an idiot. :lol:



Anyway, your comment reminds me of those anarchist posters we used to have around (RAAN? That lot still around?) who took a great deal of pride in vandalising "Leninist" bookstores, and the like, to the seeming exclusion of anti-capitalist activities. Just a comment on sweeping one-liners

You fail. but I mean, I suppose its easier to act like a dumb ass - of which you're doing a smashing job at, btw - then actually read someones post.
Keep up the good work, Chuck.

[ComradeOm]

You'd almost pass for witty if you weren't such an idiot. :lol:Come now, I'm an idiot? I'd expect better from someone who reads Sartre before breakfast ;)


You fail. but I mean, I suppose its easier to act like a dumb ass - of which you're doing a smashing job at, btw - then actually read someones post.
Keep up the good work, Chuck.Ah, I clearly missed the subtext of your one line generalisation. My fault for not being able to read up to thirteen words at a time. I won't even start on how foolish it was of me to suggest that the "Leninists" were not unique in engaging in inane sectarianism. So please, feel free to enlighten me by expanding on your original post and spelling out that which I've so unforgivably overlooked


Still around. Still sexy. And still anti-LeninistWell two out of three ain't bad :lol:

chimx still around on RevLeft? I always liked his posts

[Bilan]

Come now, I'm an idiot? I'd expect better from someone who reads Sartre before breakfast ;)

What a bizarre thing to say.



Ah, I clearly missed the subtext of your one line generalisation. My fault for not being able to read up to thirteen words at a time. I won't even start on how foolish it was of me to suggest that the "Leninists" were not unique in engaging in inane sectarianism. So please, feel free to enlighten me by expanding on your original post and spelling out that which I've so unforgivably overlooked

Evidently, you missed the parody of my post on the title of this thread (of which I'm over contributing to in a serious way, considering it wont go anywhere for the basic reason that the nature of the state differs between anarchists and marxists, and hence an argument about it by two sides which aren't even going to agree on the definition is utterly futile).
"The anarchist obsession with the state divides the workers movement". Apart from being utterly stupid (like anarchists are the driving force behind the division in the workers movement, as opposed to national chauvinism perpetuated by Trade Unions and bourgeois parties; racism, etc), it also demonstrates a peculiar factor about Leninists: they are obsessed with anarchists and "our failures", or "our faults". It gets to the point of insane.

I mean, really, you can't read an article from the biggest or most prominent socialist group in this or that country without reading some inane critique of anarchists - and every socialist group has one. Every socialist group in existence at this point in time - and no doubt in history - has their own critique of anarchism which mirrors the utterly idiotic critiques written by their predecessors - indeed, they border on blatant plagiarism, negating the fact that the initial critiques (except Marx's) were utterly false.

This is most eloquently demonstrated by Lenin, who was totally unable to critique anarchism from an objective point of view - though his façade of Marxian analysis allowed him to cover his ignorance in a veil of intelligence and objectivity.

And this in itself is humourous, and hence worthy of a satirical retaliation.

Evidently, the anarchist critiques are often just as unsubstantiated as the Leninist ones - they make criticisms of Russia, and what have you, without understanding the material conditions of the revolution.
See for example, Rudolf Rockers critique of Marx. It's utter bullshit.

The only tendency of communists who have, to this date, been able to criticise anarchism are the Left Communists, as they don't try and analyse what anarchism isn't, but what anarchism actually is, and hence we are often presented with critiques which will spark discussion that is above the usual aggression of Leninist vs Anarchist discussions.

[Bilan]

Oh come on, you rile me up and then nothing?!

[Bakunist]

Well, I'd like to add something if I may. I feel that Anarchism will be seen in new and different manifestations in the coming years. Things that history may teach us very little about, unless we look for diverse examples of dissent and civil disobedience, may start to happen. What does the shaping of a new society look like, you may have asked yourself? I think we may see even new forms of communist thought begin to be brought into the real world, communist examples that have yet to be. We'll all see what happens. I suggest placing faith in god though, not public figures with no real solutions. The atheist aspect has always turned me away from communism, though the impact it has had, and could have for humanity's future, are undeniable. We need to share ideas for the future of our race, all of us, not just some elite of corrupt politicians, lawmakers, corporate bosses, let alone some elite of communists, anarchists, or any who feel that their destiny is not intertwined with those around them. I don't know, i feel a rant coming on.

Peace

[Black Sheep]

I suggest placing faith in god thoughWTF

Despite your good intentions on that post, we should, as logical thinkers and proponents of social progress and mental clarity of the proletariat, reject and cast aside ideas which are "common sense" but have never been proven or justified.

i.e. bourgeoisie ideological branches. For example takig the existence of god as granted, considering that communism is bad, that 'the freeer the market, the freeer the people'.

All of the above are quite popular on the capitalist-propagandized mind, but still unbacked extraordinary claims that consist and support the status quo.

[Bakunist]

I don't see why you have leapt to such conclusions. The claim that knowing god is an idea we can simply cast aside because it would support the status quo is straight-up nonsense. We live in a God-less world. This is 'common sense' as you say, though I refuse to accept it. I honestly cannot envision much social progress occuring without true inspiration and motivation from divine forces. I am aware that it is a fact that religion is the cause of a great many problems as we move into 2009. However, I suggest that religion has no part to play in spiritual progress anymore. Most holy places aren't, as spiritual darkness seems to cloud everything these days. Religion can and should be avoided as a hindrance to free thought and a personal relationship with God. Though it goes without saying that some religious organizations are doing tremendous amounts of good for people everywhere. I don't necessarily take the existence of God as a given, I lived most of my life in unbelief, and have come to know the error of my ways. I can tell this is a touchy subject, at least it is for me, but I'll look for some more threads on the subject so as not to waste your time here. I don't see Communism as bad simply because of the rejection of faith and the materialist approach, as the ideas behind it I can most of the time understand as beneficial for all of us. Nor do I believe in free-markets, considering the worldwide devastation they have brought about, among other reasons. I don't know, I've already said a lot, it just seems like you made assumptions about faith and how people really come to know spiritual truths that I see as false. Churches, mosques, and synagogues often have nothing to do with it. I don't really know where to begin in explaining my viewpoint, as I have no idea who, you are, what your beliefs may be, etc. All that I ask is that you not make assumptions about me, as I try to afford the same respect, not to get golden-rule on you, but yea. I am aware that bringing up this topic is sure to make all kinds of grief come my way, though here among people I consider to be open-minded, I am hoping for your intelligent response.

- Ross

[ComradeOm]

Oh come on, you rile me up and then nothing?!Apologies, I work away from home during the week. Well, at least I did until very recently


Evidently, you missed the parody of my post on the title of this threadWell I'd have to be an idiot to miss that... oh wait :rolleyes:

To be honest though I'm fairly sorry that I asked you to expand on your post. Largely because there isn't much there that couldn't be summed up in the original thirteen words. You claim "Leninists" are distracted by anarchists, I suggest the latter are not exactly innocent on that same charge... really that's about it. Disappointing

Of course I maintain that a parody, no matter how clever, is somewhat wasted three months later. If we're to compare internet threads to cultural fads, then you've just made a joke about digital watches

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

conclusions. The claim that knowing god is an idea we can simply cast aside because it would support the status quo is straight-up nonsense.

No we can cast it aside because its bollocks and as shown time and time again to be dangerous bollocks.





We live in a God-less world. This is 'common sense' as you say, though I refuse to accept it.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm
Get reading.



I honestly cannot envision much social progress occuring without true inspiration and motivation from divine forces.

Why not?


I am aware that it is a fact that religion is the cause of a great many problems as we move into 2009. However, I suggest that religion has no part to play in spiritual progress anymore.

What the fucks spiritual progress?


Most holy places aren't, as spiritual darkness seems to cloud everything these days.

What the fucks Spiritual darkness


Though it goes without saying that some religious organizations are doing tremendous amounts of good for people everywhere.

You mean charities?


I don't necessarily take the existence of God as a given, I lived most of my life in unbelief, and have come to know the error of my ways.

How did you come to believe in god?


Also im pretty sure this stuff belongs in the religion forum.

[Pogue]

Still around. Still sexy. And still anti-Leninist.

Do you actually support people vandalising Leninist bookstores?