Results 41 to 60 of 77
It was only democratic if you consider the USSR a proletarian dictatorship run threough direct democracy. There is only one true democracy and it is stateless.
My concept of democracy includes democracy for all proletarians, not just for the supporters of a party dictatorship.
If you are going to forget all the sectarians than you will have nothing left to remember pre or post 1917...
There is a huge difference between regarding someone's work as important today and worshiping.
Now that's worship.
That is a deep contradiction in your argument. You say that "it was only democratic if you consider the USSR a proletarian dictatorship". Then you say "There is only one true democracy and it is stateless". If a proletarian dictatorship presupposes the existence of a state controlled by the proletariat how can it be stateless?
And how exactly Leninism deny democracy for all proletarians?
There is actualy no contradiction there. The contradiction you think you see comes from the anarchist definition of state conflicting with the marxist definition of state.
A proletarian dictatorship run through direct democracy is not a state in the anarchist definition. When direct democracy stops existing is when there is a state.
Why didn't cnt fai get rid of the bourgeois parties than? What was their reason?
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
If you know your history you also know the CNT-FAI was not in control of the spanish republic. They simply could not do it. As far as shooting fascists I am sure they did their job well.
Proletarian dictatorship is a Marxist concept and it involves a proletarian state.
I know.
Anarchism has a similar thing, but we would not dare to call it a dictatorship.
Actually Bakunin referred to anarchism as "invisible dictatorship", although he wasn't referencing anything remotely authoritarian in reality or anything similar to the DOTP proposed by Marxists.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
Bakunin is not relevant in modern anarchism. His statement might have been right though.
Seeing as most modern anarchism still has it's roots in Bakunin, I'd say he's still pretty relevant. Without him, anarchist theory would be a lot different than it is today.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
He was important, but not anymore.
Obviously but you didn't answer my question, what was their reason for not overthrowing the bourgeois republic and joining the provisional govt? I thought they wanted to destroy the state?
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
You wanted the CNT-FAI to do a coup? That would go against anarchist ideals of social revolution.
I don't know why they joined the government, probably because in the end they were still a syndicate.
The state can only be destroyed through social revolution, never a coup.
I disagree. The basic concepts that Bakunin popularized during his "anarchist years" are still concepts that anarchists today believe in (ie revolutionary syndicalism, anti-theism, anti-state politics combined with anti-capitalism, opposition to Marxism etc)
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
After Bakunin came a guy called Kropotkin, who is way more relevant to modern anarchism.
Kropotkin was arguably a better writer than Bakunin was, but Bakunin was the first person to really give anarchism a political character (much moreso than Proudhon before him), was important in the eventual fusion of anarchist politics into the worker's movement, and was a central figure in the split in the labor movement between Marxism and anarchism/revolutionary syndicalism. He's important in a way that no one else in the anarchist canon is, IMO
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Lol the idea of a revolution is kind of like a coup done by the working class over the bourgeois state. So yes I Kinda did expect cnt fai to lead the working class to conquer the bourgeois and fascists or at least try to instead of joining a counter revolutionary government.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
Arguably? He was definetely a really bad writer.
That is very true. However reading Kropotkin today is more important than reading Bakunin.
Oh well, shit happens.
I should go to bed now, I am not saying anything useful anymore.
