Results 1 to 20 of 28
Anarchists in a Socialist State? What happens next?
Ok, so what does actually happen Anarchists in a Socialist society?
If the left can't agree before a revolution what makes people think we'd agree after a revolution? Wouldn't we simply degenerate into factional fighting, as in with AK47's? Look what happened during the Spanish Republic. We're all pushing for the emancipation of workers but after that emancipation has happened will we go apeshit against each other?
What will Anarchists do if they wake up one fine sunny morning and find themeselves living in a Socialist State? What will the Socialists within that State do to the Anarchists who being Anarchists will want to see that society dismantled and who will most likely act accordingly?
I know it's a bit jump the gun seeing as we are not even at a revolutionary stage yet and there sure are far more important thiings to worry about but I'm just wondering how folks would eventually see it playing out? I guess I am wondering can Anarchism and Socialism co-exist in the real world as opposed to a message board. Thanks.
Last edited by unpopularfreedomfront; 12th August 2011 at 22:23.
It depends on what kind of socialist state.
The Bavarian Soviet Republic was declared by anarchists and Marxists. The Socialists of the UGT and the anarchists of the CNT also co-operated.
As long as there are no Stalinists suppressing anarchists and Trotskyists while we're off fighting against reactionaries or fascists--as happened in the Spanish civil war--we'll be fine.
True hard line anarchists attempting to overthrow a Socialist state, like the DPRK, the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao, will be arrested and convinced that they should not follow anarchism. If they refuse to stop promoting anarchism and the overthrow of socialism then they will be held indefinitely. An anarchist in a socialist state is effectively in the same rank as a counter-revolutionary reactionary.
Here's what I don't get.
Why would anarchists take part in the establishment and eventual government of a socialist state?
Albert Meltzer put it well:
"Communism is not necessarily anarchist, even if it is not "state communism" but the genuine authoritarian form of communism (total state control without having degenerated into absolute power from above, or even governmental dominated socialization)."
In other words, anarchists are perfectionists.
In a best case scenario, I think they'd probably play the same sort of role that democratic populists play in a democratic republic...trying to take and extend the principles that lay the bedrock of the society to their farthest points, as opposed to more moderate voices.
The worst case scenario...well, we all know. For further reference, look up "literally all of anarchist-Marxist interactions for the past 150 years."
Yeah, god forbid they'd prevent it from devolving into private capitalism.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
No wonder your ass is restricted. If you think the DPRK constitutes a socialist state, I believe it is you, sir, who needs to be "held indefinitely," as if that's someone any socialist would believe in.
"If those in charge of our society — politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television — can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
-Howard Zinn
If anything, Anarchists in a socialist society would cause dissent and allow inroads to the overthrow of the government and its eventual replacement with private capitalism, as has happened in former Soviet Block countries where dissident movements helped overthrow the government, most (none?) of these movements were neo-liberal but their dissent allowed capitalism to gain a foothold.
Of course, it was the all-mighty Anarchist movement that destroyed the glorious worker democracies of the Soviet Block, allowing the capitalists to gain a foothold. It wasn't as if the countries were a sham of socialism...of course not...
I love how you speak of dissent as if it's the root of all evil. If you're going to lock up anarchists who dissent, you deserve to be first in line for any detention that's taking place.
"If those in charge of our society — politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television — can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
-Howard Zinn
Haha. That's one way of looking at it: that a few artists and dissidents overthrew a vast governmental structure & military.
Another way would be to recognize that the Stalinist legacy of bureaucratic careerism led to a stagnant socio-political order comprised of a bunch of individuals only concerned with the perpetuation of a particular hierarchy that led them to positions of influence, and were willing to destroy the socialist project as soon as the material impetus arose to do so. That's how I look at it.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
The state regardless if it has the "working class interests" in mind is a tool for oppression and needs to be done away with. So long a you have the state you have oppression and in many of the authoritarian socialist governments turned into a oligarchical bureaucratic nightmare and reverted backed into capitalism.
"If there is a State, then there is domination, and in turn, there is slavery. " - Mikhail Bakunin
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them. " - Karl Marx
“Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” - Emma Goldman
Anarchists should hold ALL authority accountable and should work to get rid of ALL unjust authority, not matter who's in power, one of the socialist revolutions I consider to be a model was the Hungarian revolution against the USSR.
To the OP:
What makes you think the Socialists are not also Anarchists?
If a 'proletarian party' seizes control of the revolutionary territory and declares itself the government of a 'socialist state' then it will be acting against the revolution and the Anarchists (and I hope a good many non-Anarchist socialists) will be doing what they did before - advocating the revolution against capitalism and the state. It's not the job of the party to take power on behalf of the working class. If it does it becomes counter-revolutionary.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
if it is a truly "socialistic state" there would be something like counils and elections, so anarchists could be elected into these councils as well as other socialists/communists and from then we would see what happens.
well anarchists wont stand up and think "herp, there is a socialist state, lets go fight it, derp". as i said above if it is a truly socialistic state anarchists will fight for support for their ideas to bring communism. and there is no problem with that at all.
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
tbh, I'd probably encourage everyone I know in the network to assemble and get the fuck away from the towns until we can work out what's going on and how to respond. I ain't getting purged by anyone without a fight.
===========
You got your history wrong.
If the example of the Spanish revolution actually shows something explicitly, then it is the fact that self-professed communists did push for workers' self-emancipation and in stead aimed at maintaining the so called popular bloc in power (including bourgeois parties) at the expense of workers' struggle for power.
Well, first of all, anarchists would hardly wake up to witness a fully erect socialist state to their amazement, since in all probability they will have organized against bourgeois rule just the same as those forces comprising the political and ideological core of the workers' state.
Also, anarchists do not aim for the dismantling of society. That is a ridiculous formulation. Anarchists in stead usually aim at dismantling the apparatuses of political power which function as hierarchies of command, and advocate a replacement found in base assemblies which comprise of every willing participant.
I'm not quite sure what are you expecting here. It seems that you want an assurance that everything will go as smoothly as possible. Well, no one can assure that.
My position is that no repression within the proletarian camp is to be tolerated. In other words, no, I wouldn't support repression aimed at anarchists even though I do not think of myself as an anarchist.
Socialism is nothing but the abolition of capital as a social relation, consequent to the establishment of a classless, stateless society.
What you're asking is whether communists and anarchists can peacefully operate within a society enmeshed in social revolution.
I think that the most important thing here is not to mistake party-state rule with the dictatorship of the proletariat. The working class cannot organize itself as the ruling class just as the bourgeoisie have organized themselves as the ruling class. And self-empowerment of the working class includes the creation of organs of direct rule of the class as a whole. This, on the other hand, is the basic precondition for dealing with every attempt at violence on behalf of any side of the ideological divide.
Because they are revolutionaries, and the notion of a socialist state presupposes a radical difference from the capitalist state, in any of its historic forms.
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
Here is Kropotkin's thought on the subject: http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...s/19_04_28.htm
Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.-Leon Trotsky
A revolution without dancing is not worth having.-Emma Goldman
The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall. -Che Guevara
The wise thing to do is simply to skip the bosh and twaddle and vulgarity and untruth, and get the benefit out of the rest. -Teddy Roosevelt
These countries on the road to socialism.. and dissident movements allowed the restoration of capitalism. The party in these former eastern block countries was replaced in power so any analysis that posits that the seeds for the re-establishment of capitalism were laid by Stalin or the Soviet system is very flawed I think. If anything, their mistake was not being strict enough with dissident movements who seeked to place them out of power.Of course, it was the all-mighty Anarchist movement that destroyed the glorious worker democracies of the Soviet Block, allowing the capitalists to gain a foothold. It wasn't as if the countries were a sham of socialism...of course not...
??
Why would I be arrested? I'm not an anarchist, I'm a communist who agitates for the advancement of socialism. I wouldn't attempt to overthrow the government of a socialist state so there would be no reason to lock me up.
It wouldn't matter where you go with analysis of online media such as here, it would be possible to find former anarchists. But as long as you don't agitate for the overthrow of the new socialist state you would be fine there would be no reason for you to worry.
There's an irony of leftist communities like Revleft. We're all cool and friendly and everything and I like everyone on this board (everyone's heart is in the right place), but let's face it. A post-revolutionary society would have us at each others throats.
It's funny because the socialists will claim defense of the revolution while simply upholding the new status quo.
Just as the Communists liberate the common man from Capitalism Anarchists will liberate the Communists from the state.
In the new Libertarian Socialist society a true hard line statist such as yourself would be arrested and convinced that they should not create a state that oppresses the people. If you keep promoting such atrocious evils you will be locked up indefinitely. You counter-revolutionary reactionary SCUM!
Obviously I am not serious... I would never advocate locking someone up for having a belief
I just think that if a person does not like the state and thereby does not want to participate he should not be forced by the state to work for the state and pay the state. But obviously if you want to be autonomous you are all of a sudden counter revolutionary and should be thrown in prison.
Well, I'd have to see it to believe it. And tbh, unless,against all my beliefs, socialism actually worked then, I would be putting my efforts into agitating.
===========
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New] 