Caj

"Okay, so the use of violence by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat is "natural," regardless of the "opinion" of the latter regarding such violence."

Yes, it is natural for a human being, when he sees himself in a position that improvse his survivability, to do whatever is necessary to maintain that level of living.


"Most anarchists, including you, advocate class suppression. The totality of the apparatuses and organs used for this suppression constitutes the "state" according to us Marxists. An anarchist state, then, would probably be composed of militaries or militias, ideally decentralized and non-hierarchical as in accordance with libertarian doctrine."

I know what you are trying to say, but you know how much being called a statist offends an anarchist.

"By whom or what?"

By revolutionaries, volunteers and militia.

It impresses me how authoritarian you guys are. How can you honestly beleive that having a single party state who holds absolute power is not going to end badly, even if this state is combined with soviets it will still end badly.

If the next revolution will be like the Russian revolution, and your state begins pursuing anarchists who don't cooperate, and destroying anarchist areas and organizations, then it will end exactly like the Russian revolution.

I also have no idea how you guys, with all the study you do, have not yet figured out that state is not a weapon.

Really, why did you become an authoriatarian? Study of socialist writings cannot be the only reason.

Your marxist books will tell you how the capitalist system opresses the proletariat, and will tell you every step you must take in order for the proletariat to reach power, then it will tell you how state is a weapon that can be used by the proletariat to win the civil war and opress the bourgeosie, and it will tell you that once the state has completed its porposes it will "wither away", giving dawn to a communist society.

You marxists many times accuse anarchists of being utopians and dreamers, but we just see the world in a diferent prespective.

"And your decision to do that was due to material interactions between neurons in your brain."

Perfect.

"Reading more Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bordiga, etc. and learning more about the Russian Revolution."

Reading anarchist books and reading marxist books is very diferent, when you read an anarchist book it will tell you of the character of capitalist society and how it opresses the individual, and how individual liberty can only truly acheived through colective liberty, it will tell you the connections between state and the capitalists, and how the state serves only for opression, and such is unfit for reaching liberty. It will also tell you about human nature, and human tendency for social behavior and mutuality.

CONTINUES...

"I never denied this. What I said was, from the Marxian perspective, both are statists."

According to Marx, isn't the proletariat state an organ used by the proletariat to opress the bourseosie?
How can anarchists be statists if they refuse to use an organ for class opression.

"Once the bourgeoisie and its allise are suppressed, won't the apparatus(es) (e.g. the military) involved with such a task be 'corrupted by power' and begin oppressing the proletariat?"

Exactly, that is why there must not be an organ for class opression, instead the opression should be done throught the colectivisation process.

"So I guess, according to this definition, a society in which only a minority group within the population is sytematically persecuted by the rest of society is a "libertarian" society. "

That is a problem, but after the revolution, isn't one of the goals to abolish classes?
If there are no classes there is no minority.

"I don't know. You proposed the definition; you tell me. I wasn't sure if your definition applied only to humans or to non-human animals as well."

If humans and many other animals have been hunting to eat since they originated, yes it is natural.

"Subjection of one to violence is a violation of one's will. Therefore, according to you, violence is "unnatural.""

Then hunting would be unnatural too, since the animal being hunted does not want to be killed.
An action is unnatural when the one who commits it (the hunter) is forced to do it against his will (or need), the opinion of the affected by the action (the animal) does not count.


"I'm not distorting anything. It's a completely valid argument. I've demonstrated how, based on both the Marxian and Berkmanian #cut for space# I will cease to engage in discussion with you if you continue with such intellectual dishonesty."

Your argument is like those complicated mathematical equations one can use to, for example, prove that 1=2.

"What??? "

I hit my printer, for no aparent reason, doing it had no benefits to me, I did it anyway, the only thing I managed to acheive from it was hurting my hand.

"Yes, and thought has as its basis material interactions. Where the hell did you think thought came from? Magical pixie dust?"

I think living beings always have to have a reason for doing anything, because they have limited energy and thus cannot do something that gives no benefit to the individual.
According to you thought has to do with material, do you mean thought is a consequence of material.

Also, why did you turn your back on anarchism and became a leninist.

"Yes, because the suppression of the bourgeoisie is one of the primary functions of the proletarian state. Once the state fulfills its functions, it withers away."

I thought we had already concluded that a state wishes to remain in power, it will not allow itself to wither away.

"Also, you say that the use of violence for freedom #cut for space# always means the use of violence for the freedom of one class and the suppression of another."

The diference between authoritarian and liertarian is not one of "freedom, or no freedom", it is one of "freedom for whom?", when a minority has freedom and a majority is opressed it is an authoriatarian system, when the majority has freedom and a minority is opressed it is libertarian. Anarchists may sound like utopians but we know what we are talking about.

"The state is simply the means by which the proletariat as a class accomplishes this."

You already know what I am going to say about this...

"The use of violence, no matter whom it is used against, constitutes an "unnatural" act based on this definition."

Then when a hunter uses violence to kill an animal it is also unnatural?
The use of violence is natural, but if one was to use violence against his will it would be unnatural.

"C: You, and most other anarchists, support the use of the state (i.e., "organized violence") against the bourgeoisie and its allies."

That is the invalid part, you are distorting something to make it look like you are right, even if you were you would not acomplish anything, fact is anarchists want to abolish state and therefore do not wish to use a state during the period of revolution. Anarchists and marxists are diferent.