The weaknesses of class-strugglist anarchism

[Die Neue Zeit]

Before I begin, I would like to state that my hopefully comradely critique of class-strugglist anarchism does NOT address the question of the state, and that class-strugglists specifically are being critiqued here because other anarchists (utopia-making, lifestylist, hooliganist, and insurrectionist) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-move-towards-t87701/index.html?p=1228955) have at least one of these weaknesses and worse.



Platformism as Sectarianism

The class-strugglist Wayne Price belongs to a very small anarchist group:

http://www.ainfos.ca/06/jan/ainfos00298.html


Pro-organizational, class struggle, anarchism (including Platformism) advocates radically-democratic federations built on a revolutionary program. This is counterposed to anti-organizationalist anarchism and to the Leninist program of the centralized, monolithic, "vanguard" party. Central to pro-organizational/class struggle anarchism is the belief that anarchists should organize themselves according to their beliefs. This particularly applies to those who agree on a program of antiauthoritarian social revolution to be carried out by the international working class and all oppressed people. They should organize a specifically anarchist voluntary association. It would be structured as a democratic federation of smaller groups. Such an organization would put out political literature and work to spread its ideas. With programmatic and tactical unity, members would participate in broader, more heterogeneous, associations, such as labor unions, community organizations, antiwar groups, and--when they arise in a revolutionary period--workers’ and community councils.

The latter part of the article is an anarchist analysis of the "Leninist" party model that, alas, fails to take into account the original organizational ideal for the "Leninist" party model (as remarked upon by Lars Lih and rejected by most self-styled "Leninists") (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabh-ngige-sozialdemokratische-t95038/index.html). The "democratic federation of smaller groups" is inherently ineffective at "putting out political literature and working to spread its ideas" (economies of scale), and goes right back to the circle spirit prior to the formation of the RSDLP (not unlike today's sectarianism).

More on the disunity problem:

http://www.turbulence.org.uk/index.php?s=fumagali


Simultaneously, the 'movement of movements' finds itself in crisis too. We would seem to have run up against our own limits. The current cycle is drawing to an end; entering a 'downturn', if not necessarily quantitatively, then certainly qualitatively. The movements' beginnings (the time when 'we were winning') were characterised by a tremendous celebration of our 'unity in diversity' […] However, a movement as broad and contradictory as ours was always going to have to ask (and try to answer): 'Walking where, actually?' and 'What sort of world?' [...] If the challenge, then, is to move beyond a relatively uncritical celebration of unity in diversity, without slipping back into the 'old' (tried, tested and failed) ways of doing things, surely the question is as follows: How do we set in motion a process by which one group (most often, but not always, a party) is no longer able to dominate all the others, seeking to remake them in its own image; and where, at the same time, we are able to move beyond merely existing indifferently alongside each other?

In regards to Latin America, for example, the Brazilian "Workers" Party was able to render ineffective the efforts of the decentralized social movements.

Furthermore more, each "smaller group" would be akin to that little known sect of Rosa Luxemburg's known as the SDKPiL:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/revolutionary-strategy/


If you think the fruits of Luxemburg’s policy - the SDKPiL hyper-centralist sect in Poland, no *organised* left in Germany before the war broke out - or those of Trotsky’s policy - the August bloc, perhaps? - are comparable to the construction of the Bolshevik party to the point where it had the majority in the workers’ curia before the outbreak of war and still had tens of thousands of members, under complete illegality, at the outbreak of the February revolution - then you are certainly no Trotskyist, since Trotsky criticised both himself and Luxemburg for their attitude to the party question before 1917 (e.g. on himself, in My Life, in several places)



The Question of Power


Such anarchist organizations would not be “parties,” because they would not aim at achieving power for themselves. They would seek to lead by ideas and by example, not by taking over and ruling the popular organizations, let alone by taking state power.

Wayne Price claims to have read his Marx in further popularizing class-strugglist anarchism. Alas, what did Marx say about the [mass] party question, or what I call partiinost?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm


This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm


In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it;

Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes [...]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm


That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party



Tred-Iunionizm

“People talk about stikhiinost. But the stikhiinyi development of the worker movement goes precisely to its subordination to bourgeois ideology [...] because the stikhiinyi worker movement is tred-iunionizm, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei – and tred-iunionizm is precisely the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie.” (Vladimir Lenin) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fetishizing-decentralized-social-t93982/index.html)

Linked to the decentralization fetish is the albeit-"red" tred-iunionizm (left syndicalism) of so many class-strugglist anarchists. Often this means merely being part of something like the IWW, advancing immediate economic demands pertain to mere segments of the working class as a whole and economistically (http://www.revleft.com/vb/broad-economism-t97399/index.html) disregarding the political struggle (the struggle for revolutionary socialism being actually economic of a "higher order," as opposed to political).

[Devrim]

Jacob, do you imagine that this article will in anyway encourage anarchists to engage in discussion with you?

Devrim

[davidasearles]

Another demonstration by the person who identifies himself as Jacob Richter of a seeming inability to break out of an almost absolute reliance gibberish words that no one including he can discern the meanings of to attempt to appear that intelligence is being conveyed.

"Class strugglist"? Aren't there two classes and that everyone is caught up into the class struggle? Every instance of labor being bought and sold on the labor market for a certain price not a manifestation of the class struggle? Every instance of a worker trying to at least temporarily avoid the labor market by attempting to establish some small business at which he or she usually receives even les return on their time than if they sold their labor outright not an instance of the class struggle. Every small shop keep or small business person run out of business and into the ever swelling labor market not an instance of the class struggle?

The class struggle is game that must be played as long as there are classes but it is a losing game and everyone knows it.

Organize as a class? The workers are a class in rout and disintegration. A class strugglist approach to ending the class system would mean exactly what apart from only seeing that as long as there are classes there will be a class struggle, a concept essentially as useful saying that as long as there is gravity we must struggle against it to avoid being hopelessly pinned to a particular position on the surface of the earth.

Unless there is a significant focus upon altering the current social relationship of the workers to the machine, fatally, as in the "class strugglist approach" the focus will always be only upon trying to survive within the class system and not trying to survive it by ending it.

I suggest that this is far more than a weakness, but a fatal flaw of the movement.

The time has long since come that persons seeking to influence the movement who do not openly foucus upon altering the basic social relationship of the workers to the machine ought to be branded as traitors.

[Junius]

I see some problems in anarchism ideologically and practically. I will keep it as brief as I can:

1. Fetishism of anti-authoritarianism as a guiding principle for a political movement. If you are against a party substituting itself for a class struggle then that's fine. But Marx was arguing that 150 years ago against the likes of Bakunin. Too much emphasis on role of organization as decentralized.

2. Anti-fascism and the emphasis on democracy. Anti-fascism used as a defense for the deployment of workers for a faction of capital. Democracy and its illusions are just as dangerous.

3. Anarchist emphasis on self-management. Self-managing your own exploitation isn't something to support. Anarchist support for 'grass-roots' movements which don't have any class basis at all. Various anarchists seeing trade unions as a revolutionary weapon versus a barrier.

4. Anarchists giving support to national liberation groups so long as they are 'grass roots' movements and wave red/black flags. For example, the EZLN. When anarchists do oppose national liberation movements, it has more to do with opposing the formation of a new state, rather than an internationalist stance.

5. Anarchists failing to see that the Bolsheviks were a working class party which represented the interests of the international proletariat. Anarchists seeing the revolution as something betrayed by the evil intentions of Lenin versus degenerating owing to the failure of the revolution to spread and the material backwardness of Russia.

6. Life style politics. Your eating habits have nothing to do with class struggle. Propaganda of the deed actions as isolated, ineffective and misguided. Identity politics, like feminism, being single-issue movements and typically imbued with liberalism and lack of a class perspective.

7. Anarchist confusement as to what defines a state, and hence, whether to support one or not.

8. Anarchists defining 'good' Marxists as libertarian Marxists. Self-emancipation began from the Marxist tradition via Marx's critiques of Stirner, Proudhon & Bakunin. Pannekoek, Bordiga, Luxemburg had nothing to do with anarchism. Left Communists aren't concerned with being 'libertarian.'

9. Generally very poor music tastes.

[apathy maybe]

[I]I see some problems in anarchism ideologically and practically. I will keep it as brief as I can:
I too will keep my response brief, to summarise, you seem to misunderstand what anarchism actually is.

1. Fetishism of anti-authoritarianism as a guiding principle for a political movement. If you are against a party substituting itself for a class struggle then that's fine. But Marx was arguing that 150 years ago against the likes of Bakunin. Too much emphasis on role of organization as decentralized.
Anarchism is by definition against authoritarianism. To say that anarchists has a "fetish" for anti-authoritarianism is just silly.

Regarding the Marx-Bakunin arguments, we all know Bakunin won those... (which is to say, which set of assumptions you agree with, will determine who you say won).

2. Anti-fascism and the emphasis on democracy. Anti-fascism used as a defense for the deployment of workers for a faction of capital. Democracy and its illusions are just as dangerous.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Anarchists are of course anti-fascist, but not all anarchists focus on it (where fascists are more of a danger, you are likely to see a more general anti-fascist presence, consisting not just of anarchists). Anarchists are anti-democracy, if by democracy you mean "representative". If you mean by democracy, "rule by the people over there own lives", then anarchists are for it all the way. I don't understand what you mean by the "illusions" of democracy, are you for the rule of a small number of people? Can you see times when this would be a good thing? I can't.

3. Anarchist emphasis on self-management. Self-managing your own exploitation isn't something to support. Anarchist support for 'grass-roots' movements which don't have any class basis at all. Various anarchists seeing trade unions as a revolutionary weapon versus a barrier.
Nothing wrong with self-management, not all anarchists emphasis it though. Nothing wrong with supporting movements which fight against oppression, even if they aren't "class based". (There are anarchists which tend to focus on class based issues, and movements though.)
Not all anarchists see trade unions as revolutionary. Those that do generally recognise the difference between most present day unions which are centrally controlled to a large degree (rather than by the constituent workers), and actual revolutionary unions.

This is a great example of attacking all anarchists because of the "sins" (the argued mistakes) of the few.


4. Anarchists giving support to national liberation groups so long as they are 'grass roots' movements and wave red/black flags. For example, the EZLN. When anarchists do oppose national liberation movements, it has more to do with opposing the formation of a new state, rather than an internationalist stance.
Most anarchists don't support EZLN as such. (The crazy platformist with the constantly changing name isn't an anarchist by my understanding, no matter what he calls himself.) Anarchists of course oppose the formation of new states in general (though some anarchists may support the break up of states as a tactical measure, rather than a strategic measure). Anarchists are internationalist, and invariably oppose national liberation movements for this reason.
(Regarding the waving of flags, if there is a movement against a state in a particular region, which isn't for a new state, but instead a non-hierarchical socialist society, how could we condemn it? EZLN is an example of a group that are not fighting for a new state, but instead merely control, by the people, over their own lives.)


5. Anarchists failing to see that the Bolsheviks were a working class party which represented the interests of the international proletariat. Anarchists seeing the revolution as something betrayed by the evil intentions of Lenin versus degenerating owing to the failure of the revolution to spread and the material backwardness of Russia.
Many anarchists supported the Bolsheviks at the time. Anarchists since learnt the lesson of the time though. Don't ever trust the Bolsheviks or those that claim the legacy of them.

Anarchists don't all (some are ignorant and may) claim that Lenin was evil, instead we generally point to what Bakunin said. If you have a state in control, it won't go away.

This is a good example, I guess, of you being ignorant of anarchist thought on an issue. (I don't mean the young ignorant anarchist thought...)

6. Life style politics. Your eating habits have nothing to do with class struggle. Propaganda of the deed actions as isolated, ineffective and misguided. Identity politics, like feminism, being single-issue movements and typically imbued with liberalism and lack of a class perspective.
You haven't been paying attention to even the arguments on this very board against "lifestylism". Not all anarchists are as you say. Not all support "propaganda of the deed" types acts.

Regarding feminism etc., liberalism for the win! (Fuck off with your "class perspective" if you ignore the oppression of people who are suffering for reasons other then class.)

7. Anarchist confusement as to what defines a state, and hence, whether to support one or not.
Anarchists know full well what the state is, and oppose all states in all forms according to the definition that is used.


8. Anarchists defining 'good' Marxists as libertarian Marxists. Self-emancipation began from the Marxist tradition via Marx's critiques of Stirner, Proudhon & Bakunin. Pannekoek, Bordiga, Luxemburg had nothing to do with anarchism. Left Communists aren't concerned with being 'libertarian.'
The only good Marxist is a libertarian one (i.e. an anarchist one). That is not to say that all other Marxists are bad (unlike when one says "the only good fascist is a dead one").


9. Generally very poor music tastes.
Irrelevant. But on that subject, I have very broad musical tastes, and enjoy classical music through to punk.

----

In short, again, you have demonstrated amply that you are confused by what anarchism actually is. I suggest you browse the anarchist forum to see some of the disagreements you are obviously ignorant of (such as lifestylism). I also suggest you don't comment further on anarchism until you understand why anarchists, by definition, are opposed to all states (as defined by anarchists).

[apathy maybe]

Jacob Richter:
You also appear not to understand what is meant by "anarchism" (if you think that there are only class struggle anarchists and "other anarchists (utopia-making, lifestylist, hooliganist, and insurrectionist)").

Regarding the rest of your post, you attack the entire "class strugglist" bloc of anarchists based on the writings of Wayne Price? Someone you admit "belongs to a very small anarchist group"? That doesn't do a lot for your argument I'm afraid.

You then quote Marx on parties (the class being organised as a party), as if it were scripture... I never was convinced by that part of Marxism, and you quoting Marx doesn't do anything for your argument.

Finally you discuss unionism.
"Linked to the decentralization fetish is the albeit-"red" tred-iunionizm (left syndicalism) of so many class-strugglist anarchists."
I highlighted the relevant word for this section. Not all class-struggle anarchists support unionism. Not all anarchists that support unionism are class struggle anarchists.

----

Basically, this thread once more highlights the ignorance of many people on the "revolutionary left" regarding anarchism.

Let me spell it out in big bold words:

Anarchism is not a unified single bloc of ideas and thought.

You can not paint all anarchists with the one brush unless you are painting the core ideas. These ideas are basically anti-hierarchy, anti-oppression, and for freedom.

[rebelmouse]

bravo apathy maybe. you explained very good.
I would just add, that I support insurrectionist and armed actions and I would like to say something about it (see my signature).
very good book is Bonnot Gang (type in google, you can find and download as PDF).
-anarchists before "100" years were extremly poor people.
for example: man who repair shoes take weapon and start to rob rich people. he associate himself with other and they act together. then come some philosopher and start to make theory about it: he find theory of Stirner, for example, and make big theory about their actions. he try to put them in some box. but the fact is: people made attacks on rich people and on politicians, because of ravange and to rob them, to feed their families and to finance movement. they, personally, didn't declare themselves as this or that. they just did what they saw as the only possibility in some period of their life. italian king gave rder to soldiers to shoot people who asked him for food, later anarchist in USA gathered money from friends and came to italy and killed king because of it.
some people can call it propaganda by deed, but in fact many of them who did it, they didn't think that they will spread anarchist idea in that way.
it is like that now I attack politicians, and someone make theory about it and say that I wanted to spread anarchist idea with attacking of politicians.
there was support of anarchist newspaper of that time for such actions, but people who did such actions did it without to make theory about it. other, who didn't do it, made theory about it.
when we speak abut something in the past, we must be always careful about atmosphera in that time in the movoment, and in personal life of people. today, western anarchist are not hungry, they get doctor when they are sick, they even travel all over the world. before 100 years people ate grass to survive, nobody helped tem when they are sick, etc. even today homeless don't get so good medical care like people who have insurrance. so even today we are not all in the same position. although we are all in class struggle with riches.

and sorry: it is without sense to expect from hungry people to wait for revolution million years. western people can wait, hungry people must survive and many of them will get wish for ravange against exploiters. it is not spreading of idea: it is surviving and ravange.

for example, if you suffer because of me many years, you will get wish to attack me. very simple, without big philosophy. we are human beings, with feelings. Therefore I respect RAF even their theory was not anarchist one. anyone who damage fckn exploiters, on the basis of class consciousness, I like him. and I will not speak against him in order to save my ass, as many people do: "let's go to wait for revolution, we will be under repression if someone make armed action". if you are so much affraid from repression, watch TV, don't fight for revolution. we need solidarity and support each for other, we don't need elements in movement who will spread words against sensible people who decided to attack ruling class. pacification of movement is interest of ruling class. and movement is pacified in last 30 years, from the side of many Junius. I would like to say to all people like Junius: don't think that there is only one method of fight against ruling class, there are many. help each other how much you can and don't speak against people who take so big risk because they don't want to live in such injustice anymore. nobody push you to help. criticize ruling class, leave alone insurrectionists and other type of guerillas. insurrectionism is just introduction, getting of experience for something bigger.

[Forward Union]

Anarchism is not a unified single bloc of ideas and thought.
It should be.


You can not paint all anarchists with the one brush

You should be able to. Most people in Spain can tell you exactly what anarchism stands for. And it's a specific set of policies. Not some vague philosophical ramblings.

[apathy maybe]

Anarchism is not a unified single bloc of ideas and thought.It should be.
Why should it be? It wouldn't be anarchism if it was.

Anarchism is not an ideology. It is a super-set, a group, of ideologies. The common core (of anti-hierarchy etc.) doesn't provide enough to give an ideology.

You want some "libertarian communism" or something similar, but anarchism is much more then communism.




You can not paint all anarchists with the one brush unless you are painting the core ideas. These ideas are basically anti-hierarchy, anti-oppression, and for freedom.You should be able to. Most people in Spain can tell you exactly what anarchism stands for. And it's a specific set of policies. Not some vague philosophical ramblings.
They could tell you what their anarchism stood for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

There were several variants of anarchism in Spain: the peasant anarchism in the countryside of Andalusia; urban anarcho-syndicalism in Catalonia, particularly its capital Barcelona; and what is sometimes called "pure" anarchism in other cities such as Zaragoza. However, these were complementary trajectories, and shared a great deal of ideological similarities.

http://libcom.org/history/articles/anarchism-in-spain

By 1900 the UGT had expanded its membership to 15,000 and Spanish anarchism could be divided into several branches: some purely anarchist propaganda groups of somewhat individualistic men with considerable impact upon artistic and literary circles (as in France around the same time); some groups eager to trigger a revolutionary upheaval by means of violent attentats (as was to be seen in 1894 in imitation of the bombs of Henry and Vaillant, followed up by a wave of torture employed against activists in the Montjuich fortress in Barcelona) and some groups of industrial and/or rural workers with strong regional footholds (such as the ones described by Diaz del Moral in the Córdoba region).

I could no doubt find and post more quotes demonstrating that anarchism in Spain was not a unified bloc of thought. The point is, to try and claim that anarchism has ever been unified beyond the core is just wrong. To want it to be unified is absurd. We are not the ones to write the blue prints for a future perfect society, that is the job of the people in that society. And they will choose a system that best matches them. Whether that be communism, or something else, is not up to us to choose.

Regardless though, "freedom" is not philosophical rambling, but it is what anarchism is for. The freedom to do what you want without interference from others (so long as you don't interfere with others). That's pretty damn simple, and that's almost all that anarchism is.


By the way everyone, the man just quoted, The Levellers' Standard, is the "crazy platformist with the constantly changing name isn't an anarchist by my understanding, no matter what he calls himself" that I mentioned earlier.
A much better label would be "libertarian communist" I suggest, as he doesn't want anarchism at all (what with the permanent police, etc.), by my understanding of anarchism.

That isn't a slur though, and I still respect his opinion on many things, just not when it comes to anarchism.

[Devrim]

Anarchism is by definition against authoritarianism. To say that anarchists has a "fetish" for anti-authoritarianism is just silly.

But you have to understand that most people from a Marxist background don't even understand what anarchists mean by authoritarian. If you disregard a few fools on here who will claim to be authoritarian and proud of it merely to annoy anarchists, it is not really a point that Marxists consider.

I am not really sure what anarchists mean by 'authoritarianism'. I don't think there is a meaningful critique there. I understand LC's use of the word fetish.


Regarding the Marx-Bakunin arguments, we all know Bakunin won those... (which is to say, which set of assumptions you agree with, will determine who you say won).

Actually, I think that Marx won in any practical sense. Bakuinin was expelled from the International at the Hague Congress in 1872.

On the point of the actual arguments, I think that most anarchists aren't aware of what Bakunin's arguments really were.

Let's let him speak for himself though:


It is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will make up the very life of the revolution, the unity of revolutionary thought and action should be embodied in a certain organ. That organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brothers.
...
The number of these individuals should not, therefore be too large. For the international organisation throughout Europe one hundred serious and firmly united revolutionaries would be sufficient.


[t]here is only one power and one dictatorship whose organisation is salutary and feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those who are allied in the name of our principle.
...
this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and effective for not being dressed up in any official power or extrinsic character.

There were many arguments in the international, on some I think Marx was wrong, on the argument about organisation though, about whether the International should be an open democratic political organisation or as Bakunin advocated an 'invisible dictatorship', I feel forced to side with Marx.

To be honest Bakunin's argument is as bad as that of the worst anarchist caricatures of Lenin.


I don't quite understand what you mean here. Anarchists are of course anti-fascist, but not all anarchists focus on it (where fascists are more of a danger, you are likely to see a more general anti-fascist presence, consisting not just of anarchists). Anarchists are anti-democracy, if by democracy you mean "representative". If you mean by democracy, "rule by the people over there own lives", then anarchists are for it all the way. I don't understand what you mean by the "illusions" of democracy, are you for the rule of a small number of people? Can you see times when this would be a good thing? I can't.

Without going into this point in depth, I think that the Second World war gives a good example. Workers were mobilised for an imperialist war in the name of democracy and the struggle against fascism.The point here is that anti-fascism can be used as an ideology to mobilise workers in defence of the state.

I hope that makes it more clear.


Nothing wrong with self-management, not all anarchists emphasis it though.

Self management by itself has no socialist content. There can not be 'socialism in one factory'.


Nothing wrong with supporting movements which fight against oppression, even if they aren't "class based". (There are anarchists which tend to focus on class based issues, and movements though.)

Is it revolutionary though.


Not all anarchists see trade unions as revolutionary. Those that do generally recognise the difference between most present day unions which are centrally controlled to a large degree (rather than by the constituent workers), and actual revolutionary unions.

It brings up a lot of questions about the nature of the unions. Can they be revolutionary would maybe be a place to start?


This is a great example of attacking all anarchists because of the "sins" (the argued mistakes) of the few.

I think you are right here. There are certain things that are common to all anarchists, like I think the 'anti-authoritarian fetish'. However, we can't attack all of anarchism over the specific policies of some anarchists.


Anarchists are internationalist, and invariably oppose national liberation movements for this reason.

I don't think this is true. Many anarchists support them.


You haven't been paying attention to even the arguments on this very board against "lifestylism". Not all anarchists are as you say.

I don't consider that those sort of people are anarchists though I know that they may will account for the majority of what passes itself off for anarchism in some countries. I don't think you can criticise anarchism for what it is not.


Regarding feminism etc., liberalism for the win! (Fuck off with your "class perspective" if you ignore the oppression of people who are suffering for reasons other then class.)

It is not about 'ignore the oppression of people who are suffering for reasons other then class'. It is about recognising that only the working class has the power to change society.


The only good Marxist is a libertarian one (i.e. an anarchist one). That is not to say that all other Marxists are bad (unlike when one says "the only good fascist is a dead one").

But what is a libertarian Marxist? As far as I can see it is an term invented by anarchists do describe Marxists that they like?

Am I a 'libertarian Marxist'? It depends on your opinion of me. I have been described as such by anarchists though I have never personally claimed to be either a 'Libertarian' or a 'Marxist'.


Irrelevant. But on that subject, I have very broad musical tastes, and enjoy classical music through to punk.

I think that that was supposed to be a joke.


In short, again, you have demonstrated amply that you are confused by what anarchism actually is.

Personally I think that the problem is that anarchism is confused as to what it is.


I also suggest you don't comment further on anarchism until you understand why anarchists, by definition, are opposed to all states (as defined by anarchists).

If you want I will find many examples of anarchists not only not opposing but actually defending the Lebanese state and Hezbollah in the last war.

To be honest I think that the communist left is much more consistently anti-state than most anarchists are.

Devrim

[lombas]

Reading through all of this makes me wonder: is Luxemburg's view of these things not the ideal, respectful compromise?

[Bilan]

I see some problems in anarchism ideologically and practically. I will keep it as brief as I can:

1. Fetishism of anti-authoritarianism as a guiding principle for a political movement. If you are against a party substituting itself for a class struggle then that's fine. But Marx was arguing that 150 years ago against the likes of Bakunin. Too much emphasis on role of organization as decentralized.

2. Anti-fascism and the emphasis on democracy. Anti-fascism used as a defense for the deployment of workers for a faction of capital. Democracy and its illusions are just as dangerous.

3. Anarchist emphasis on self-management. Self-managing your own exploitation isn't something to support. Anarchist support for 'grass-roots' movements which don't have any class basis at all. Various anarchists seeing trade unions as a revolutionary weapon versus a barrier.

4. Anarchists giving support to national liberation groups so long as they are 'grass roots' movements and wave red/black flags. For example, the EZLN. When anarchists do oppose national liberation movements, it has more to do with opposing the formation of a new state, rather than an internationalist stance.

5. Anarchists failing to see that the Bolsheviks were a working class party which represented the interests of the international proletariat. Anarchists seeing the revolution as something betrayed by the evil intentions of Lenin versus degenerating owing to the failure of the revolution to spread and the material backwardness of Russia.

6. Life style politics. Your eating habits have nothing to do with class struggle. Propaganda of the deed actions as isolated, ineffective and misguided. Identity politics, like feminism, being single-issue movements and typically imbued with liberalism and lack of a class perspective.

7. Anarchist confusement as to what defines a state, and hence, whether to support one or not.

All of this, I'd say is true. But...



8. Anarchists defining 'good' Marxists as libertarian Marxists. Self-emancipation began from the Marxist tradition via Marx's critiques of Stirner, Proudhon & Bakunin. Pannekoek, Bordiga, Luxemburg had nothing to do with anarchism. Left Communists aren't concerned with being 'libertarian.'

This I'd say wasn't. (Although, funny you mentioned Bordiga - wtf? :lol:).
I remember from reading Obsolete Communism (Cohn-Bendit), describing many of those who particpated in the uprising in Paris, 68, who rejected the PCF, and the trade union bureaucrats, described as Libertarian Marxists.
I'd say, in alot of respects, I identify as a 'libertarian Marxist', in the sense that my politics are influenced by anarchist ideas as heavily as they are by Marx. That's how I understand Libertarian Marxism, anyway, as a combination of the ideas of anarchism with that of Marx.
I think its wrong of us to proclaim Pannekoek or Luxemburg as Libertarian Marxists (because they weren't), but not wrong to say they were influential in those ideas.




9. Generally very poor music tastes.


Lies!

[Bilan]

Reading through all of this makes me wonder: is Luxemburg's view of these things not the ideal, respectful compromise?

Compromise, or spot on? ;)
the more I read by her, the more I agree with her.

[lombas]

Compromise, or spot on? ;)
the more I read by her, the more I agree with her.

It's the same for me... Both sides have very valid points of critique and defence in this topic - but we may not forget that JR's opening post is not a new discussion among socialists of all kinds. Apart from the sectarian debate we could have over and over again, talking about parties, democracy, "self-respect" &c. is very educating.

Having read some of Luxemburg's more important works and still being fascinated by her, I guess she is a very good source to understand and compromise (whether you like the term or not) these problems.

[Tower of Bebel]

Having read some of Luxemburg's more important works and still being fascinated by her, I guess she is a very good source to understand and compromise (whether you like the term or not) these problems.
I think that actually depends on you understanding of Rosa Luxemburg ;). You see, even Richter has a picture of Luxemburg in his avater. It's really not that simple. What would you conclude from this, for example?

But apart from these few “revolutionary” groups, what is the actual role of anarchism in the Russian Revolution? It has become the sign of the common thief and plunderer; a large proportion of the innumerable thefts and acts of plunder of private persons are carried out under the name of “anarchist-communism” – acts which rise up like a troubled wave against the revolution in every period of depression and in every period of temporary defensive. Anarchism has become in the Russian Revolution, not the theory of the struggling proletariat, but the ideological signboard of the counterrevolutionary lumpenproletariat, who, like a school of sharks, swarm in the wake of the battleship of the revolution. And therewith the historical career of anarchism is well-nigh ended.
The mass strike (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch01.htm)

[Forward Union]

Why should it be? It wouldn't be anarchism if it was.

Anarchism is not an ideology. It is a super-set, a group, of ideologies. The common core (of anti-hierarchy etc.) doesn't provide enough to give an ideology.

The point I am trying to make is that this is a repugnant state of affairs.

When it comes to organising, and trying to build an organisation, or even simply to coordinate with the wider class-struggle if we don't have set policies, we have nothing. As Makhno said

"People will not go blindly to their dooms"

When I go to organise in my local community, for example now we are doing a door to door survey about housing issues, if I am asked what we stand for. I want a solid answer, on housing, energy, transport etc. I dred to think what certain comrades might say.

The problem is that when someone says they are an Anarchist, you have no idea what they will say next. They can all proclaim completely contradictory statements, and all be anarchists. How is the public meant to get behind that? It's more likely to reenforce the conception that we're not really for anything.


I could no doubt find and post more quotes demonstrating that anarchism in Spain was not a unified bloc of thought. The point is, to try and claim that anarchism has ever been unified beyond the core is just wrong.

No political organisation has ever been completely unified, they all have 'factions' and 'backbenchers'. I see no reason why Anarchism can not be as unified and agreed as any other, currently we are not.


Regardless though, "freedom" is not philosophical rambling, but it is what anarchism is for.

No. "freedom" is rethorical rambling. Everyone goes on about freedom. We want to replace the management structures with democratic workplaces councils and the government with a federation (NOT a Confederation) of community councils. We call that "freedom" ...

[apathy maybe]

The point I am trying to make is that this is a repugnant state of affairs.

When it comes to organising, and trying to build an organisation, or even simply to coordinate with the wider class-struggle if we don't have set policies, we have nothing. As Makhno said

"People will not go blindly to their dooms"

When I go to organise in my local community, for example now we are doing a door to door survey about housing issues, if I am asked what we stand for. I want a solid answer, on housing, energy, transport etc. I dred to think what certain comrades might say.

The problem is that when someone says they are an Anarchist, you have no idea what they will say next. They can all proclaim completely contradictory statements, and all be anarchists. How is the public meant to get behind that? It's more likely to reenforce the conception that we're not really for anything.



No political organisation has ever been completely unified, they all have 'factions' and 'backbenchers'. I see no reason why Anarchism can not be as unified and agreed as any other, currently we are not.



No. "freedom" is rethorical rambling. Everyone goes on about freedom. We want to replace the management structures with democratic workplaces councils and the government with a federation (NOT a Confederation) of community councils. We call that "freedom" ...
The point is old fellow that you don't want "anarchism" you want something else, perhaps "anarchist communism", perhaps "libertarian communism", perhaps something else again. But you don't want anarchism, because anarchism isn't anything at all!

You can't just grab a label ("anarchism") and say, that it shouldn't mean what it currently means, but instead should mean this much more narrow definition.

Some anarchists want "federations", some want "confederations", some want ad hoc confederations, some want something else, but you can't say that "anarchism is for 'federations'", because it is obviously incorrect!


You want a label that is one word is that it? Well stiff! You can't have anarchism for what you want. Anarchism isn't one thing, and that's what you are trying to do.

You are like redstar2000 talking about how anarchism isn't unified, and that it's one of the big problems with anarchism (actually, it is a strength), except that at least he recognised various currents in anarchism (such as "platformism") as being stable, and easy to point at.

I can point to a platformist, and give a much clearer picture of what they want than if I just point to a random "anarchist". That's fine, that doesn't matter.

I can also point to an "individualist" anarchist and tell you approximately what they would like to see, or a syndicalist and tell you how they think the revolution will occur.

Can you see how none of these labels are just "anarchist"？　We have platformist anarchism (if that is anarchism at all), individualist anarchism, syndicalist anarchism, communist anarchism, etc. etc. And you want to get rid of all of them, except for your narrowly defined "anarchism" (which as you keep describing it, doesn't sound like anarchism at all).

How about you drop the label "anarchist" and run with "libertarian communist" (you'll get a lot fewer people saying you aren't one of them). Use a label (even if it has more than one word), that actually describes better what you are.

You say that anarchism is a "political organisation", it isn't in any way an organisation, it is a philosophical idea.

Maybe, in your group, you can narrowly define yourselves, feel free, but don't try and grasp the mantle "anarchist" and claim that only those who follow in your footsteps are anarchists.

-----

You aren't the only one to do it of course, there are people around here that say that pacifists cannot be anarchists, or that anarchism is only a "class war" philosophy. They also ignore generations of anarchist thought that hasn't been promoting "class war" in their sense.

Anyway who wishes to eject all pacifists, all individualists, all collectivists, all insurrectionists, and others from the ranks of anarchism, you won't be able to. Feel free to say that they aren't your sort of anarchist, that they aren't "communist anarchists" or whatever, but they are just as much in the anarchist tradition as communists. The followers of Godwin and Tucker have as much right as the followers of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin to call themselves anarchists.

[lombas]

I think that actually depends on you understanding of Rosa Luxemburg ;). You see, even Richter has a picture of Luxemburg in his avater.

I don't deny that. I don't claim my views to be dogma's or something, nor do I claim Luxemburg's are. I just think that, from what I've read of her, she offers a good starting point to bridge both sides in this discussion.



It's really not that simple. What would you conclude from this, for example?

The mass strike (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch01.htm)

That she's right. In 1905, the main anarchist organization was a marginal, non-coordinated, uselessly violent group, consisting of mainly lumpenproletariat indeed.

[StalinFanboy]

I too will keep my response brief, to summarise, you seem to misunderstand what anarchism actually is.

Anarchism is by definition against authoritarianism. To say that anarchists has a "fetish" for anti-authoritarianism is just silly.

Regarding the Marx-Bakunin arguments, we all know Bakunin won those... (which is to say, which set of assumptions you agree with, will determine who you say won).

I don't quite understand what you mean here. Anarchists are of course anti-fascist, but not all anarchists focus on it (where fascists are more of a danger, you are likely to see a more general anti-fascist presence, consisting not just of anarchists). Anarchists are anti-democracy, if by democracy you mean "representative". If you mean by democracy, "rule by the people over there own lives", then anarchists are for it all the way. I don't understand what you mean by the "illusions" of democracy, are you for the rule of a small number of people? Can you see times when this would be a good thing? I can't.

Nothing wrong with self-management, not all anarchists emphasis it though. Nothing wrong with supporting movements which fight against oppression, even if they aren't "class based". (There are anarchists which tend to focus on class based issues, and movements though.)
Not all anarchists see trade unions as revolutionary. Those that do generally recognise the difference between most present day unions which are centrally controlled to a large degree (rather than by the constituent workers), and actual revolutionary unions.

This is a great example of attacking all anarchists because of the "sins" (the argued mistakes) of the few.


Most anarchists don't support EZLN as such. (The crazy platformist with the constantly changing name isn't an anarchist by my understanding, no matter what he calls himself.) Anarchists of course oppose the formation of new states in general (though some anarchists may support the break up of states as a tactical measure, rather than a strategic measure). Anarchists are internationalist, and invariably oppose national liberation movements for this reason.
(Regarding the waving of flags, if there is a movement against a state in a particular region, which isn't for a new state, but instead a non-hierarchical socialist society, how could we condemn it? EZLN is an example of a group that are not fighting for a new state, but instead merely control, by the people, over their own lives.)


Many anarchists supported the Bolsheviks at the time. Anarchists since learnt the lesson of the time though. Don't ever trust the Bolsheviks or those that claim the legacy of them.

Anarchists don't all (some are ignorant and may) claim that Lenin was evil, instead we generally point to what Bakunin said. If you have a state in control, it won't go away.

This is a good example, I guess, of you being ignorant of anarchist thought on an issue. (I don't mean the young ignorant anarchist thought...)

You haven't been paying attention to even the arguments on this very board against "lifestylism". Not all anarchists are as you say. Not all support "propaganda of the deed" types acts.

Regarding feminism etc., liberalism for the win! (Fuck off with your "class perspective" if you ignore the oppression of people who are suffering for reasons other then class.)

Anarchists know full well what the state is, and oppose all states in all forms according to the definition that is used.


The only good Marxist is a libertarian one (i.e. an anarchist one). That is not to say that all other Marxists are bad (unlike when one says "the only good fascist is a dead one").


Irrelevant. But on that subject, I have very broad musical tastes, and enjoy classical music through to punk.

----

In short, again, you have demonstrated amply that you are confused by what anarchism actually is. I suggest you browse the anarchist forum to see some of the disagreements you are obviously ignorant of (such as lifestylism). I also suggest you don't comment further on anarchism until you understand why anarchists, by definition, are opposed to all states (as defined by anarchists).

Got it in one

[davidasearles]

People, use operational definitions or you're never going anywhere.

[davidasearles]

"Dead cops lol"


Again the distinct aroma of decomp, why of course it's the agent provocatuer!

[The Feral Underclass]

Before I begin, I would like to state that my hopefully comradely critique of class-strugglist anarchism does NOT address the question of the state, and that class-strugglists specifically are being critiqued here because other anarchists (utopia-making, lifestylist, hooliganist, and insurrectionist) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-move-towards-t87701/index.html?p=1228955) have at least one of these weaknesses and worse.



Platformism as Sectarianism

The class-strugglist Wayne Price belongs to a very small anarchist group:

http://www.ainfos.ca/06/jan/ainfos00298.html



The latter part of the article is an anarchist analysis of the "Leninist" party model that, alas, fails to take into account the original organizational ideal for the "Leninist" party model (as remarked upon by Lars Lih and rejected by most self-styled "Leninists") (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabh-ngige-sozialdemokratische-t95038/index.html). The "democratic federation of smaller groups" is inherently ineffective at "putting out political literature and working to spread its ideas" (economies of scale), and goes right back to the circle spirit prior to the formation of the RSDLP (not unlike today's sectarianism).

More on the disunity problem:

http://www.turbulence.org.uk/index.php?s=fumagali



In regards to Latin America, for example, the Brazilian "Workers" Party was able to render ineffective the efforts of the decentralized social movements.

Furthermore more, each "smaller group" would be akin to that little known sect of Rosa Luxemburg's known as the SDKPiL:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/revolutionary-strategy/





The Question of Power



Wayne Price claims to have read his Marx in further popularizing class-strugglist anarchism. Alas, what did Marx say about the [mass] party question, or what I call partiinost?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm





Tred-Iunionizm

“People talk about stikhiinost. But the stikhiinyi development of the worker movement goes precisely to its subordination to bourgeois ideology [...] because the stikhiinyi worker movement is tred-iunionizm, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei – and tred-iunionizm is precisely the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie.” (Vladimir Lenin) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fetishizing-decentralized-social-t93982/index.html)

Linked to the decentralization fetish is the albeit-"red" tred-iunionizm (left syndicalism) of so many class-strugglist anarchists. Often this means merely being part of something like the IWW, advancing immediate economic demands pertain to mere segments of the working class as a whole and economistically (http://www.revleft.com/vb/broad-economism-t97399/index.html) disregarding the political struggle (the struggle for revolutionary socialism being actually economic of a "higher order," as opposed to political).

There seems to be a rather massive assumption in this post that people who read it are going to be able to understand what you're talking about. Unfortunately I fail to grasp it.

It seems to me that you have just found any old stuff written on anarchism, selected particular aspects of it and then decided to construct paragraphs of opinion. Not to mention that Wayne Price is hardly representative of the international anarchist movement and, unfortunately, there exists a movement outside of America, which you fail to mention.

Your criticism of one of Wayne Price's article is not a criticism on class struggle anarchism, not that I can ascertain what those criticisms really are.

[The Feral Underclass]

1. Fetishism of anti-authoritarianism as a guiding principle for a political movement...Too much emphasis on role of organization as decentralized.

Of course an authoritarian would say that. That's hardly a profound objection to anarchism. Most bourgeois media outlets say pretty much the same thing only usually even less articulate than yourself.


2. Anti-fascism and the emphasis on democracy. Anti-fascism used as a defense for the deployment of workers for a faction of capital. Democracy and its illusions are just as dangerous.It's very difficult to understand the relevance of this paragraph without knowing what you're referring to. It's true that militant anti-fascists tend to be anarchists but I'm not sure what your objection to that is?

As for 'democracy', I assume you're referring to bourgeois democracy(?), although I can't be sure. I understand you wanted to be brief, but I think making sense should take priority.


3. Anarchist emphasis on self-management. Self-managing your own exploitation isn't something to support.Are you referring to anarchists who call for workers to self-manager their workplace within capitalism? If you are then surely workers managing their workplace is preferable to their boss doing that. Although I agree, self-management means very little if wage-slavery still exists, but I've not met an anarchist who would argue that self-management within class society is an end in itself.


Anarchist support for 'grass-roots' movements which don't have any class basis at all.Such as what? And surely everything has a "class basis"?


4. Anarchists giving support to national liberation groups so long as they are 'grass roots' movements and wave red/black flags.I totally agree and sometimes they don't even need red and black flags. This really only exists in the neo-platformist/anarcho-leftist tendencies.


For example, the EZLN.I know of no anarchists who support the EZLN without criticism and let's not forget that they are an army. The Chiapas communities are the real basis of progressive change.

I think you should take the time to educate yourself more about the EZLN and the anarchist response to them, both in and outside of Mexico.


When anarchists do oppose national liberation movements, it has more to do with opposing the formation of a new state, rather than an internationalist stance.That's unadulterated nonsense.


5. Anarchists failing to see that the Bolsheviks were a working class party which represented the interests of the international proletariat. Even if we were to "see" that, what quantifiable difference would it make to anything? The fact is that the Bolsheviks were a statist, authoritarian political organisation that ultimately subjugated the Russian working class and smashed a genuine revolution that saw the construction of truly revolutionary and working class structures in the Ukraine, and indeed in Russia.


Anarchists seeing the revolution as something betrayed by the evil intentions of Lenin versus degenerating owing to the failure of the revolution to spread and the material backwardness of Russia.I don't accept your assumption that had Lenin and the Bolsheviks existed in an industrialised country their methods and objections would have been any different. The fact is that Leninists wish to construct centralised authority that executes its own hegemonic political and economic system, which will invariably act independently of the workers demands, irrespective of how revolutionary and progressive they may be.

The Ukrainian experiment falsifies this assertion that the conditions in Russia were not prepared for decentralised workers democracy and organsiation. The peasents and workers of the Ukraine constructed and formed such democracy and organisation that lasted right up until the point Trotsky and his red army smashed them and terrorised or murdered their participants


6. Life style politics. Your eating habits have nothing to do with class struggle.Totally agree, but you must remember to make distinctions between this sort of politics and that of class struggle anarchists.


Propaganda of the deed actions as isolated, ineffective and misguided.It's not 1892 anymore.


Identity politics, like feminism, being single-issue movements and typically imbued with liberalism and lack of a class perspective. Feminism, gay liberation are class issues and while ultimately capitalism must be destroyed for these struggles to mean anything it does not mean it is necessary to dismiss immediate struggles especially when they take on a class perspective.


7. Anarchist confusement as to what defines a state, and hence, whether to support one or not.There's absolutely no confusion on what defines a state.

[The Feral Underclass]

It should be.

Even if that were desirable it is totally impossible. How do you expect to form a monolithic ideology that acts both theoretically and tactically? It's a pipe dream.

[davidasearles]

There's absolutely no confusion on what defines a state.

oh?

ADMIN EDIT: Please start using the quoting system. It exists to prevent this style of posting, which is evidently confusing.

[The Feral Underclass]

A.T.

There's absolutely no confusion on what defines a state.

das:

oh?

I've never encountered any.

[davidasearles]

Never encountered what? Confusion or a definition?

[The Feral Underclass]

Never encountered what? Confusion or a definition?

Confusion.

[Forward Union]

4. Anarchists giving support to national liberation groups so long as they are 'grass roots' movements and wave red/black flags. For example, the EZLN. When anarchists do oppose national liberation movements, it has more to do with opposing the formation of a new state, rather than an internationalist stance.

The EZLN isn't ideologically nationalist.

They are quite openly trying to build an International (www.ezln.org.mx) (http://www.ezln.org.mx) of) of those "below and to the left" and fully recognise their enemy is capitalism and that capitalism is international.

This is a conclusion I have made based on actually talking to the Zapatistas and reading their declarations and statements. Two things I assume you have never done.

Unless you are arguing that the EZLN should be an army of International Liberation, should declare war on Polands government and Invade via Germany....

[davidasearles]

das to T.A.T.

Of course there are several defintions of the word "state."

here's one: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people.

I used to be a member of an organization which thought that the exitence of a state concurrent with the workers being in control of the indutrial means of production and distribution would be anathema to the interests of the workers. (Socialist Labor Party - from 1912 to today) Apparently this was in line with remarks on the "state" by Engels in Socialism Utopia and Scientific (Chap. 9 Origins Family Private Property and State) and Marx on the Paris Commune. Apparently also Bakunin made similar comments.

But I never have seen how specifically

"a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people"

would necesarilry be anthema to the intersts of the workers if class rule were eliminated through collective worker control of the industrial menas of production and distribution.

Is it becuase of the mere fact in and of itself that the people may have given such a body "authority" and even that officers of the state might employ force under defined circumstances?

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, it's true that there are different definitions of the state.

[Lamanov]

Jacob, what is "Turbulence" - I've never heard of it - and why is Tony Benn* (who's he?) and Platformism taken as a representative of historical and present class-struggle anarchism?

You need to change your approach. Investigate what currents can actually be taken as a representation of class-struggle anarchism. I'll give you a hint: it's not Platformism.

Edit: not Tony Benn; my bad. I meant Wayne Price.

[Devrim]

Jacob, what is "Turbulence" - I've never heard of it - and why is Tony Benn (who's he?) and Platformism taken as a representative of historical and present class-struggle anarchism?

You need to change your approach. Investigate what currents can actually be taken as a representation of class-struggle anarchism. I'll give you a hint: it's not Platformism.

'Turbulence' in real life is the effect that makes an aeroplane shake when it is in the air.

Tony Benn is a British Labour politician who once sent armed police against striking workers.

Devrim

[Lamanov]

:lol:

Yeah, I know what's "turbulence" in physics and real life, but he posted some link to a website called "Turbulence".


Tony Benn is a British Labour politician who once sent armed police against striking workers.

Whoops. I meant Wayne Price (and all those other people he quotes). :blushing:

[The Feral Underclass]

Wayne Price is a pretty hard-core Neo-Platformist/anarcho-lefist.

[nuisance]

TTrue, though I do like his book, 'The Abolition of the State'.

[davidasearles]

das to T.A.T.

... I never have seen how specifically

"a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people"

would necesarilry be anthema to the intersts of the workers if class rule were eliminated through collective worker control of the industrial menas of production and distribution.

Is it becuase of the mere fact in and of itself that the people may have given such a body "authority" and even that officers of the state might employ force under defined circumstances?




Yes, it's true that there are different definitions of the state.

das:

The question then becomes:

"a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people"

would necessarily be anathema or not necessarily be anathema to the interests of the workers if class rule were eliminated through collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution?

[The Feral Underclass]

Yeah, but that's not an anarchist definition of the state.

[Junius]

Apathy Maybe: you said a lot of interesting and true things.

But the true things weren’t interesting, and the interesting things weren’t true.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
I too will keep my response brief, to summarise, you seem to misunderstand what anarchism actually is.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
You can not paint all anarchists with the one brush unless you are painting the core ideas. And you just as equally misunderstand what Marxism is. Further, you seem to think that because anarchism is not a unified ideology, that therefore it cannot be criticized as such. Wrong.

I understand that it is not a unified ideology, which is why my statements apply to some, and don’t apply to others. Obviously criticism of an anarcho-communist would be different to a syndicalist or different to an insurrectionist or to a…whatever.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
These ideas are basically anti-hierarchy, anti-oppression, and for freedom. Define hierarchy. Does this preclude a political party from electing members to fulfill certain duties? To elect leaders? To elect people with positions in authority? If so, then that is hierarchy, whether you’d like to admit it or not. And if you are opposed to this hierarchy, then it shows that you fetishize a political ideal over hard reality.

‘Anti-oppression’ is a moral phrase. I’m all for the oppression of the ruling class, there is no moralization about it. ‘Freedom’ has perhaps the most loose definition of a word in existance. All sorts of demagogues talk about freedom, from Bush to …whatever. Trying to define your political ideology on these principles is like building a house on mud. Drop the cute phrases and grow up.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
The freedom to do what you want without interference from others (so long as you don't interfere with others). This is a moral/ethical philosophy. It says nothing about anything. Try applying it in a political situation. If I want to strike, doing something that I want, then that would certainly interfere with others, hence would be ‘wrong’ according to your philosophy. So, its something that sounds nice and lovely along with all golden principles, but when reality kicks in people need a class basis to defend their actions, not a vague philosophy.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
That's pretty damn simple, and that's almost all that anarchism is. Exactly: it’s a simple minded philosophy.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Anarchism is by definition against authoritarianism. To say that anarchists has a "fetish" for anti-authoritarianism is just silly. It's actually very bizarre and a very misguided criteria to which to base your politics on. What is ‘authoritarianism?’ I am all for authoritarianism – I want the working class to have complete authority; i.e. a class dictatorship. But then I recognize that that dictatorship can only come about by the majority of the working class and through its own self-emancipation. So what am I? Authoritarian or libertarian? (Personally, I don't care; they are empty phrases).

You have no definition, except your own morality, to which to base your standards on. Which is why one anarchist will differ from the next. Which is why anarchism is derives from an individualist point of view.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Regarding the Marx-Bakunin arguments, we all know Bakunin won those... (which is to say, which set of assumptions you agree with, will determine who you say won).I'm glad to see that you edited your post. Nevertheless, let's see:

Bakunin:

"It is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will make up the very life of the revolution, the unity of revolutionary thought and action should be embodied in a certain organ. That organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brothers.

The number of these individuals should not, therefore be too large. For the international organisation throughout Europe one hundred serious and firmly united revolutionaries would be sufficient.”
and


“[t]here is only one power and one dictatorship whose organization is salutary and feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those who are allied in the name of our principle.

this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and effective for not being dressed up in any official power or extrinsic character.”

"The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the IWMA" 1873

Versus:

Marx:


“So far as we are concerned, after our whole past only one way is open to us. For nearly 40 years we have raised to prominence the idea of the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and particularly the class struggle between bourgeois and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; hence, we can hardly go along with people who want to strike this class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International, we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.

We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down, by the philanthropic big and petty bourgeois. Should the new party organ take a position that corresponds with the ideas of those gentlemen, become bourgeois and not proletarian, then there is nothing left for us, sorry as we should be to do so, than to speak out against it publicly and dissolve the solidarity within which we have hitherto represented the German party abroad. But we hope it will not come to that.”

and

To assure the success of the revolution one must have 'unity of thought and action'. The members of the International are trying to create this unity by propaganda discussion and the public organization of the proletariat. But all Bakunin needs is a secret organization of 100 people. The privileged representatives of the revolutionary idea, the general staff in the background, self appointed and commanded by the permanent 'Citizen B'

So, its rather ironic of you to suggest that the Russian revolution proved Bakunin right and proved Marx wrong. Isn’t it funny that anarchists critique Lenin for being an elitist where Bakunin was the true conspirator.

But I’ll answer your pathetic liberalism regarding the Russian revolution below. So far as the International is concerned; Bakunin conspired to have it destroyed. On this he showed his true colors.

Now, I am not suggesting that every anarchist follows the words of Bakunin. I doubt any do. I am only addressing the ideas of Bakunin versus the ideas of Marx and the ill conceived notion that Marx was an 'authoritarian' and Bakunin a 'libertarian.'


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
I don't quite understand what you mean here [anti-fascism]I’m commenting on the fact that anarchists have been prominent in calling on workers to defend one nation state against another in the name of anti-fascism. In other words, all their talk about being anti-state turned to dirt.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Anarchists are of course anti-fascist, but not all anarchists focus on it (where fascists are more of a danger, you are likely to see a more general anti-fascist presence, consisting not just of anarchists). That's right; you'll collude with liberals, republicans, social democrats all in the name of anti-fascism.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Anarchists are anti-democracy, if by democracy you mean "representative". If you mean by democracy, "rule by the people over there own lives", then anarchists are for it all the way. This is confused, much like your whole ideology. What is ‘authoritarian’ when I vote for someone to represent me, say, in a worker’s council? There is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, its practical. Nor does voting someone as a representative prevent me from ‘ruling my own life.’ Unless, of course, you have some pathetic definition of what ‘autonomy’ means. If so, then I suggest you start making your own clothes, growing your own food and building your own computer, so that you will be in "true control over your own life." Until then, perhaps you should leave the philosophical questions elsewhere, least of all trying to apply the abstract to the real.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
I don't understand what you mean by the "illusions" of democracy, are you for the rule of a small number of people? Yes, that’s exactly what I’m for: rule of a small number of people. :rolleyes:

Are you stupid? Democracy is an illusion because it presents the idea that the working class is in control of their own lives, whereas in a capitalist system there is only one class which has true power. It hides economic exploitation and subordination with political equality.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Can you see times when this would be a good thing? I can't. I support a centralized party. I also support accountability. You're throwing away the baby with the bathwater.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Nothing wrong with self-management, not all anarchists emphasis it though. It says nothing about class relations. In fact, bosses sometimes prefer workers to self-manage; it cuts administrative costs, it puts the burden of achieving goals on the worker, and it gives a sense of empowerment to workers.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Nothing wrong with supporting movements which fight against oppression, even if they aren't "class based". Only if you’re a communist and see the working class as the only class which can emancipate itself.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
(There are anarchists which tend to focus on class based issues, and movements though.) I'd agree.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Not all anarchists see trade unions as revolutionary. Those that do generally recognize the difference between most present day unions which are centrally controlled to a large degree (rather than by the constituent workers), and actual revolutionary unions. Its not a matter of a union being centrally controlled or ‘decentralized.' In fact, most unions are democratically elected, and the stewards are typically recallable. The idea of a revolutionary union is an oxymoron.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
This is a great example of attacking all anarchists because of the "sins" (the argued mistakes) of the few. Actually, I would say that few anarchists hold onto Bakunin’s views today, which is probably a good thing. But you’re either a liar or stupid to paint Bakunin as some anti-authoritarian and Marxists as the converse.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Most anarchists don't support EZLN as such. I would say most do.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
The crazy platformist with the constantly changing name isn't an anarchist by my understanding, no matter what he calls himself. And by what authority? That’s right: by your word alone. I never have to ask a Left Communist their stance, for example, on national liberation; all Left Communists have agreement on it. I would also never have to ask a Maoist their stance on national liberation; all Maoists have agreement on it. Most Trotskyists consistently support it, differing on specific cases. Nevertheless, their inconsistency is consistent.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Anarchists of course oppose the formation of new states in general (though some anarchists may support the break up of states as a tactical measure, rather than a strategic measure). Care to give an example? I think supporting the breaking up of states as a "tactical measure" would just be as a betrayal to internationalism as siding with an existing state. Do you see an Iraq with a separate Kurdish state as something to support? A separate Sunni state?

How about a ‘free’ Tibet? :lol:

I'd hope not. But glad to see your internationalism showing.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Anarchists are internationalist, and invariably oppose national liberation movements for this reason. So you say, but then you post such garbage as:



EZLN is an example of a group that are not fighting for a new state, but instead merely control, by the people, over their own lives. Wildcat on EZLN. (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/antizap_wildcat.html)


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Regarding the waving of flags, if there is a movement against a state in a particular region, which isn't for a new state, but instead a non-hierarchical socialist society, how could we condemn it? Only on the basis that a revolution must be international; not divided amongst certain ethnic groups but the emancipation of humanity as a whole.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Anarchists since learnt the lesson of the time though. Don't ever trust the Bolsheviks or those that claim the legacy of them. Which would include Left Communists.

But please, tell me how the Bolsheviks whom:

1. Argued for an internationalist position against WW1 (contrary to that useless anarchist prince Kropotkin).
2. Argued for all power to the Soviets; the legitimate independent organs of the working class.
3. Opposed the liberals in parliament who wanted the war to continue. Abolished their power.
4. Argued for the socialization of society.
5. Had majority support of the workers and soldiers in the Soviets; were a working class party.

Should not be ‘trusted?’

Any group which claims this legacy is worthy of support. The fact is, few groups actually continue this legacy, and have betrayed it.

How about you question why Lenin supported these stances, yet later ordered for the shooting of workers. Did he decide it was all a "bad idea?" Or was there something deeper at work here; i.e. a material explanation.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Anarchists don't all (some are ignorant and may) claim that Lenin was evil, instead we generally point to what Bakunin said. If you have a state in control, it won't go away. What a pathetic analysis. But, let’s, for a moment, pretend that we were back in 1917/18. Would you call for the Soviets to be abolished? Would you call for worker’s councils to be abolished? Well then, we can see that your view is little more than utopianism.

How about, for a moment, you question why such organs were formed, the material requirements for their existence. If you have a problem with the Bolsheviks embedding themselves in the Soviets, then say so. But trying to paint the Bolsheviks as ‘tricking’ the workers into supporting them is historically dishonest and presents workers as ignorant and naive. The workers sided with the current which best presented the stance of the international proletariat; no more, no less.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
This is a good example, I guess, of you being ignorant of anarchist thought on an issue. (I don't mean the young ignorant anarchist thought...)And this is a good example of a liberal idiot attacking a proletariat revolution on the basis of Utopian individualism.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
You haven't been paying attention to even the arguments on this very board against "lifestylism". By all means, show to me how dumpster diving is something which advances class struggle. Show to me how squatting is something which advances class struggle. Show to me how vegetarianism is something which advances class struggle. Show to me how animal rights is something which advances class struggle. Show to me how environmentalism is something which advances class struggle.

Whilst actual political work, i.e. propagating a communist stance & participating in the class struggle, might not be as ‘fun’ as eating out of a dumpster, its far more important. That might make my politics ‘boring as fuck’ but I’d rather be that then ‘useless as fuck’ which most lifestylist anarchists are.

Franky, I don’t care what you do in your personal time as a form of entertainment. But trying to equate that entertainment as political work is laughable.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Not all anarchists are as you say. Not all support "propaganda of the deed" types acts.Once again, some anarchist support it, some don’t. When looking at something as broad as anarchism, guess what happens? You have to generalize!

Some anarchists support propaganda of the deed and its reminiscent of Nechayev.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Regarding feminism etc., liberalism for the win! I’m glad you admitted the basis of your political philosophy. Liberalism; the idea that since we are equal in rights that we are therefore equal in reality.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Fuck off with your "class perspective" if you ignore the oppression of people who are suffering for reasons other then class.) Well, I would say that all social problems are ultimately class problems. And they must be fought on class grounds. Unless of course you would like to campaign the state for abortion rights, indigenous rights, gay marriage rights. As an anarchist I doubt you would. Which leads you to...what?


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Anarchists know full well what the state is, and oppose all states in all forms according to the definition that is used. No. I don’t think you have a clue on what defines a state, as you have demonstrated in this thread. Is a Soviet a state? Is therefore it something to be opposed? One anarchist might yes, another will say no. That’s what happens when something like anarchism is confused as it is.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
The only good Marxist is a libertarian one (i.e. an anarchist one).Would you like me to post the quotes from above of your beloved libertarian Bakunin? Or the authoritarian Marx? :rolleyes:

Ultimately it matters little. There are far more important issues apart from the question of the imagined future state. Your stance on internationalism, on electoralism, on trade unions, on class struggle, etc are far more important than anarchist focus on the form of an organization rather than the political current which it professes.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
That is not to say that all other Marxists are bad (unlike when one says "the only good fascist is a dead one"). But look what you’re doing here! You’re generalizing that only libertarian Marxists are good! Stop! Stop!


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
In short, again, you have demonstrated amply that you are confused by what anarchism actually is.I don’t think anarchism knows what it is. If I’m confused, its only because anarchism is.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
I also suggest you don't comment further on anarchism until you understand why anarchists, by definition, are opposed to all states (as defined by anarchists). I’d suggest you kindly pull your head out of your arse and drop the liberalism.

Opposed to all states? Well, what defines a state? Why should I oppose it? How can I oppose it?

I respect anarchists who hold a class line. Just like I'll respect any political current which holds a class line, be it the Bolsheviks or whatever. Anarchists like Bookchin, which proclaim the "myth of the proletariat", are a waste of time.

[Leo]

Junius made a good post addressing lots of the issues brought up. I'd like to respond to a few other issues:



9. Generally very poor music tastes. But on that subject, I have very broad musical tastes, and enjoy classical music through to punk.Disregarding exceptions, I'd say both of your examples prove the point Junius makes.


The EZLN isn't ideologically nationalist. They play the national anthem regularly and carry national flags wherever they go.


They are quite openly trying to build an International Liberals, conservatives and social democrats all have their Internationals and have nationalist ideologies as well. An international of nationalists would not be a united body with a united international ideology like that of internationalists, it would be a formal gathering of different nationalist groups that "support" each other.


This is a conclusion I have made based on actually talking to the Zapatistas and reading their declarations and statements. Two things I assume you have never done.Their declarations and statements openly call for nationalization and defense of national state property.

[davidasearles]

The question then becomes:
"a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people"
would necessarily be anathema or not necessarily be anathema to the interests of the workers if class rule were eliminated through collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution?


Yeah, but that's not an anarchist definition of the state.

Absolutely.


Then whatever

"a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people"


defines or does not define, the question remains: Would having such ("politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ....) necessarily be anathema to collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution if class rule were eliminated?

It seems by your response that it would not but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[Bilan]

David, look. Two definitions most commonly adhered to on this forum:

a/ State: an organ of class rule
b/ State: a centralized political organ of class rule.

[apathy maybe]

Radical Graffiti, most of those aren't really accurate criticisms of Left Coms.

Just like most of the criticisms of "anarchists" by Junius aren't really accurate criticisms of anarchists...

I read it as a parody. (Of course, if it isn't, then I can agree that there is a problem there.)

Finally, at @Junius, apparently you are a sock puppet. A pity.

(Also, apparently, the system has been restored from back up, folks who gave me rep within the last 24 hours, try again.)

Oh crap, apparently we lost a bunch of posts too...

[Bilan]

Just like most of the criticisms of "anarchists" by Junius aren't really accurate criticisms of anarchists...

Well, yeah, alot of them were accurate.
There are alot of anarchists who do just what was mentioned in the list, and also, there are alot of anarchists who don't. But the criticisms which were made against Left communism by Radical graffiti were way off.

[apathy maybe]

Well, yeah, alot of them were accurate.
There are alot of anarchists who do just what was mentioned in the list, and also, there are alot of anarchists who don't. But the criticisms which were made against Left communism by Radical graffiti were way off.

It is a pity that the criticism is gone. But my understanding, it was a parody, against Marxists.

If you take what J wrote about "anarchists" and applied that to (for example) "class war anarchists", most of them wouldn't be relevant. In other words, to attack all anarchists, because of some is damn stupid. You don't say that all Marxists are wanna be dictators, even if there are one or two that are. Just like you don't say that all anarchists are "lifestylists" (or think that it is revolutionary), even though a small minority are.

It is the massive generalisations that are the problem.

[Bilan]

ah, I get cha.

[apathy maybe]

Reposted:

@Junius
I was thinking of responding to your entire post, however I realised it would be a waste of time. You appear to wish to generalise to all anarchists the thoughts of a few, and then condemn them all because of these few.

For example, you condemn all anarchists because of Bakunin's "authoritarianism" and Kropotkin's support for the Allies during World War One. However, as many other people have said before, anarchists can pick and choose what they like, not accepting everything that an author wrote as gospel, but rejecting the bad. (You'll also note that most anarchists at the time condemned the support of the Allies during WW1, Malatesta wrote much one the issue (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu:16080/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html).)

I also had some other stuff here as well, such as anarchists on the state:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html (from An Anarchist FAQ).

And some other stuff regarding liberalism, namely start a new thread on why anarchists are liberals, and I'll explain why it is bullshit.

[davidasearles]

David, look. Two definitions most commonly adhered to on this forum:

a/ State: an organ of class rule
b/ State: a centralized political organ of class rule.

So if we have worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and thereby have no classes we could pretty much have a governmental structure as in the US Constitution with identical authority and it wouldn't be a state to you?

To me it would be a state (because I don't use those definitions above) but that doesn't really matter because state is only a word as long as we agreed on the concept that there really isn’t that much wrong with the current structure (what they do within that structure is another thing) if we got rid of class rule. Is that unreasonable?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think that actually depends on you understanding of Rosa Luxemburg ;). You see, even Richter has a picture of Luxemburg in his avater. It's really not that simple. What would you conclude from this, for example?

The mass strike (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch01.htm)

Meh. I'm more inclined to respond to your post with this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm


Paul Levi now wants to get into the good graces of the bourgeoisie—and, consequently, of its agents, the Second and the Two-and-a-Half Internationals—by republishing precisely those writings of Rosa Luxemburg in which she was wrong. We shall reply to this by quoting two lines from a good old Russian fable: “Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.” Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken on the question of the independence of Poland; she was mistaken in 1903 in her appraisal of Menshevism; she was mistaken on the theory of the accumulation of capital; she was mistaken in July 1914, when, together with Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky and others, she advocated unity between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks; she was mistaken in what she wrote in prison in 1918 (she corrected most of these mistakes at the end of 1918 and the beginning of 1919 after she was released). But in spite of her mistakes she was—and remains for us—an eagle. And not only will Communists all over the world cherish her memory, but her biography and her complete works (the publication of which the German Communists are inordinately delaying, which can only be partly excused by the tremendous losses they are suffering in their severe struggle) will serve as useful manuals for training many generations of Communists all over the world. “Since August 4, 1914, German Social-Democracy has been a stinking corpse"—this statement will make Rosa Luxemburg’s name famous in the history of the international working class movement.

I would also add one more mistake: her position on spontaneity (which affected her position on the mass strike).

[Cumannach]

So if we have worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and thereby have no classes we could pretty much have a governmental structure as in the US Constitution with identical authority and it wouldn't be a state to you?

To me it would be a state (because I don't use those definitions above) but that doesn't really matter because state is only a word as long as we agreed on the concept that there really isn’t that much wrong with the current structure (what they do within that structure is another thing) if we got rid of class rule. Is that unreasonable?

I think there is a bit of definition mashing here along with some good points. Maybe it would be useful in this situation to introduce the word 'government' and distinguish somewhat between the 'government' and the 'state';

The government; the organized enforcement of commonly agreed upon laws by society.

The state; the organized repressive force of one class against the other.

Then government is just the institutions society uses to keep civil society ordered and organized beneficially and prevent lawlessness.

The state is the tool the bourgeoisie uses to enforce the current relations of production, which benefit the bourgeoisie but are detrimental to the proletariat (and to the further development of the productive forces).

The bourgeois 'state' can use the institutions of government for it's purposes, and must control at least some of them outright.

The most conspicuous institution is sometimes the Army which occasionally looks like having nothing to do with government and being exclusively a tool of the state, revealing this distinction and breaking up the great illusion.

[Bilan]

Meh. I'm more inclined to respond to your post with this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm



I would also add one more mistake: her position on spontaneity (which affected her position on the mass strike).

That quote was awful. It states she is wrong, and then leaves it at that.
What a rubbish argument.
I'm yet to see anyone actually prove her wrong.

[davidasearles]

The state; the organized repressive force of one class against the other.

....

The state is the tool the bourgeoisie uses to enforce the current relations of production, which benefit the bourgeoisie but are detrimental to the proletariat (and to the further development of the productive forces).

The bourgeois 'state' can use the institutions of government for it's purposes, and must control at least some of them outright.



What I've been trying to get at is if there is no bourgeois - then the government and governmental authority that now exists ought to be properly controlable with the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and disribution ?

[Cumannach]

What I've been trying to get at is if there is no bourgeois - then the government and governmental authority that now exists ought to be properly controlable with the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and disribution ?

I agree. Of course the institutions of government can and must then, come fully under the control of the working class. This is precisely what happened in the socialist revolutions of the 20th century. But in order for this to come about there must be no bourgeoisie as you said. The existence of the bourgeoisie require they hold state power, that is dominant control of the government institutions. They are in that sense, the state power, the 'state'. To eradicate them, the state power must be seized which requires 'smashing' the bourgeois state's control of certain aspects of the governmental institutions - smashing the state power, the state. State power is then assumed by the working class; with this power the old relations of production are changed to new ones and the bourgeoisie disappear as a class. Now the 'state' is the organized power of the working class enforcing the new relations of production (working class ownership of the means of production) and the government institutions are fully in control of the working class, both for this purpose and for the purpose of upholding everyday law and order.

Then the development of Communism has begun; Socialism has begun.

[ZeroNowhere]

What I've been trying to get at is if there is no bourgeois - then the government and governmental authority that now exists ought to be properly controlable with the workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and disribution ?

What do the bourgeoisie do if the state pisses them off? Capital strike or flight.
If the government decides to take power for itself, do the workers have to go on a general strike? Why not just become a syndie, in that case?

[rouchambeau]

Meh. I'm more inclined to respond to your post with this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm



I would also add one more mistake: her position on spontaneity (which affected her position on the mass strike).
You should really start using your own words to respond to people you disagree with. It's not fair to throw a quote or essay at someone and expect then to decipher the message you want to convey.

[Lamanov]

1. Fetishism of anti-authoritarianism as a guiding principle for a political movement. If you are against a party substituting itself for a class struggle then that's fine. But Marx was arguing that 150 years ago against the likes of Bakunin. Too much emphasis on role of organization as decentralized.

Decentralised doesn't have to mean disorganised. Anarcho-syndicalism stands for an organization based on federalism. It's not a fetish, but a historical logic: means must reflect the ends. You can't achieve "power of the workers' councils" if your organizational philosophy is not based on the premises on which that power is tied. If you want workers' councils, your organization must reflect them in all their structural aspects.

2. Anti-fascism and the emphasis on democracy. Anti-fascism used as a defense for the deployment of workers for a faction of capital. Democracy and its illusions are just as dangerous.

You mean prefering democracy over oligarchy? I don't know if it's obvious enough, but you can't organize revolutionary alternative that easy in a police state.

What anti-fascism are we talking about? No one is suggesting "political action" with petitions to the parliament or formal "alliances" with bourgeois parties.

3. Anarchist emphasis on self-management. Self-managing your own exploitation isn't something to support. Anarchist support for 'grass-roots' movements which don't have any class basis at all. Various anarchists seeing trade unions as a revolutionary weapon versus a barrier.

There's nothing wrong with supporting this or that usefull grassroots action. Saying "don't support it" would be kind of sectarian. But I do agree that the revolutionary means per se must be class based.

As far as self-management goes: it depends. I support "complete/total self-management" - that's communism, based on workers' councils. We use that semantics to explain communism, or transitory stages to it.

Running isolated factories in existing capitalist society could be used as a defensive measure: against forecloisure, mass lay-offs and capitalist sabotage. I don't see it as "revolution" (it is "direct action" though). Wouldn't you agree?

4. Anarchists giving support to national liberation groups so long as they are 'grass roots' movements and wave red/black flags. For example, the EZLN. When anarchists do oppose national liberation movements, it has more to do with opposing the formation of a new state, rather than an internationalist stance.

I don't like EZLN and I don't trust it to be something relevant to the working class in general. I'm an internationalist. Most of anarchists I know in person share my view.

5. Anarchists failing to see that the Bolsheviks were a working class party which represented the interests of the international proletariat. Anarchists seeing the revolution as something betrayed by the evil intentions of Lenin versus degenerating owing to the failure of the revolution to spread and the material backwardness of Russia.

Hierarchical "working class party" lead by intellectuals that put themselves in Sovnarkom without any means to be recalled. Party who leaders represented "interests of the international proletariat" by insisting on parliamentary and bureaucracy-mediated union struggle.

6. Life style politics. Your eating habits have nothing to do with class struggle. Propaganda of the deed actions as isolated, ineffective and misguided. Identity politics, like feminism, being single-issue movements and typically imbued with liberalism and lack of a class perspective.

Yeah, I fucking hate that too. :cool:

7. Anarchist confusement as to what defines a state, and hence, whether to support one or not.

This point should be made more clear.

8. Anarchists defining 'good' Marxists as libertarian Marxists. Self-emancipation began from the Marxist tradition via Marx's critiques of Stirner, Proudhon & Bakunin. Pannekoek, Bordiga, Luxemburg had nothing to do with anarchism. Left Communists aren't concerned with being 'libertarian.'

I am a Marxist. I'm also a syndicalist. You can see some other people with this orientation: like Syndicalisme ou Barbarie. I like Marx's writings against Proudhon; I agree with some stuff Marx says about Stirner and Bakunin. I never read Bakunin. But I do believe anarcho-syndicalism is the best solution to revolutionising working class movement. While I like Pannekoek and Ruhle, I also like Santillan and Maximoff.

9. Generally very poor music tastes.

I like jazz. You know... John Coltrane, Miles Davis. I also like blues and alternative.

I hate punk. And I hate punk clothing, style, behavior. I hate the fact that anarchism is associated with punk music. People who become anarchists via punk usually misunderstand allot of things (not all of them, but allot - usually many punks are into mentioned "identity politics", and would support anything that moves).

[Old Man Diogenes]

1. Fetishism of anti-authoritarianism as a guiding principle for a political movement. If you are against a party substituting itself for a class struggle then that's fine. But Marx was arguing that 150 years ago against the likes of Bakunin. Too much emphasis on role of organization as decentralized.

Whats wrong with deccentralization? Organizing yourself without leaders to me is the ultimate act common sense.



2. Anti-fascism and the emphasis on democracy. Anti-fascism used as a defense for the deployment of workers for a faction of capital. Democracy and its illusions are just as dangerous.

You got a problem with Democracy now as well, ok its not perfect but its pretty good. :thumbup1:



3. Anarchist emphasis on self-management. Self-managing your own exploitation isn't something to support. Anarchist support for 'grass-roots' movements which don't have any class basis at all. Various anarchists seeing trade unions as a revolutionary weapon versus a barrier.

They won't be managing there exploitation, how will they be exploited, their will be no bosses, and society will be classless (hopefully) so emphasis on class wouldn't matter.



4. Anarchists giving support to national liberation groups so long as they are 'grass roots' movements and wave red/black flags. For example, the EZLN. When anarchists do oppose national liberation movements, it has more to do with opposing the formation of a new state, rather than an internationalist stance.

I doubt anyone supports all national liberation groups, and if they were going to abolish the State that'd be even better.



5. Anarchists failing to see that the Bolsheviks were a working class party which represented the interests of the international proletariat. Anarchists seeing the revolution as something betrayed by the evil intentions of Lenin versus degenerating owing to the failure of the revolution to spread and the material backwardness of Russia.

The Bolsheviks were not a working class party, a political party, with politicians that were in it to gain power, and Lenin had some pretty good ideas for example, "While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." and I don't know why they weren't carried through. The quote, “If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tzar himself.” by Mikhail Bakunin fits all too well here.



6. Life style politics. Your eating habits have nothing to do with class struggle. Propaganda of the deed actions as isolated, ineffective and misguided. Identity politics, like feminism, being single-issue movements and typically imbued with liberalism and lack of a class perspective.

Whats wrong with Feminism? And I'll agree with you there about eating habits.




8. Anarchists defining 'good' Marxists as libertarian Marxists. Self-emancipation began from the Marxist tradition via Marx's critiques of Stirner, Proudhon & Bakunin. Pannekoek, Bordiga, Luxemburg had nothing to do with anarchism. Left Communists aren't concerned with being 'libertarian.'

"We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves." - Errico Malatesta



9. Generally very poor music tastes.


What the fuck? Thats completely irrelevant and a matter of opinion. I listen to loads of different artists as my comrade Lamanov said above, "I hate punk. And I hate punk clothing, style, behavior. I hate the fact that anarchism is associated with punk music. People who become anarchists via punk usually misunderstand allot of things (not all of them, but allot - usually many punks are into mentioned "identity politics", and would support anything that moves)."

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This whole argument is a farce based on false accusations and hearsay. The claims against Anarchist organisation and organisations are frankly ridiculous.