Which way the revolution: Anarchism or socialism.

by James Sat Aug 16, 2003 16:30

You just don’t provide enough detail on your semi-state for me to respond substantially. Anyway, I don’t believe your suggestion is possible. Either you have a minority in charge ordering the masses (a state, for fuller discussion on a state go to the original text) or you have a mass participation running things directly – in which case you don’t need a state. It’s an either/or situation.
Perhaps it might be worthwhile for you to outline what you understand by “the state” and its advantages. And how it can be reconciled with libertarian practice. If you do you’ll be hailed as one of the great political thinkers of the age!
If I recall my Lenin correctly he spoke of the workers’ state as being a semi-state (in his book ‘State and Revolution’ [written in the summer of 1917]). Dodgy theory, terrible practice.

by Anonymous Thu Aug 07, 2003 20:19

Good response again James. I have not had time yet to gather my thoughts on all that but I will post a response.

In the meantime, regarding whether to have a state or not, I am thinking maybe some sort of compromise between the two ideologies might be the most ideal scenario. Instead of "no state at all" vs "a state in full form" - maybe a semi-state taking the best out of both ideologies might be the best format.

Currently my own beliefs on the matter are "I don't know".

by Andrew Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:23

James someone has posted your talk on infoshop.org/inews. You will find the discussion on it at http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/07/29/6836300

by James - WSM Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:40

It’s up to the state socialists to make their own case, can’t do that for them.I like to think their absence is due to anarchy’s having the stronger arguments.
Statists are, ironically, notoriously ambiguous on the state. Sometimes they adopt the rhetoric of anarchy such as socialism from below. However this puts them into a knot as they also subscribe to socialism from above. Arguing the latter, though tenable, isn’t always attractive. For obvious reasons people will be more attracted by a vision of liberty rather than a hierarchical one which reserves the right to assume dictatorship.

“Though socialism was tried and failed miserably in Russia - I do not think that this necessitates that it will fail again... Plus because of the failure of the past caused by totalitarianism, it is far less likely that Socialism would repeat this grave error again”
Fair point. It is possible that the statists will succeed if there is a next time. I wouldn’t be overly optimistic given their soft-spot for the Bolshevik dictatorship. My reading is that they will be prepared to follow the same path in the future. They haven’t learned from history.


“Socialism was hijacked by totalitarianism, something which most/nearly all socialists today would be totally against.”
Anarchists would disagree that state socialism was hijacked by totalitarianism. We’d see that socialism imposed from above as being inherently dictatorial. Bakunin in particular, in his conflict with Marx, was vocal about the threat of Marxist dictatorship. And he was right.

Our opinion of the Bolsheviks is that they were always intent on achieving state power for themselves. Their own conviction in the absolute truth of their ideology, the highly centralised nature of the party (and by extension the state) smoothed the transition from government to totalitarianism. It is possible that if they hadn’t faced any opposition from the whites or workers then they wouldn’t have resorted to dictatorship, but that’s not saying much. How you deal with those who disagree with you is the litmus test.

“I accept that the results and signs from Spain were good - but despite this I do not accept that anarchism has been properly tried and tested yet - both in terms of longevity and on a full nation scale basis. Because of this the merits of anarchism are still on trial. And how successful anarchism would really be is, at least to some extent, speculation… My most serious question mark over anarchism, as I alluded to earlier in the thread, remains - In reality, will it work? Is it really feasible?

Again, fair enough. But the only way to know is to try. This can’t be achieved by the anarchists alone. It must come from the participation of millions, including you.

I can’t think of any reason why it isn’t possible. I can think of many why it’s not particularly probable in the next few years: the strength of the ruling class, the fairly low level of grassroots oppositional struggle with libertarian goals (including you?). (I’m in the pessimistic faction!)

I said previously that given mass libertarian organising has been achieved once it showed that it was feasible. And so it is. This doesn’t mean that a future libertarian socialist society is going to be an inevitable success. It’s possible that after a few years people get tired of the responsibility and slip back into a hierarchical society.

All we advocate is the freedom to make a decent attempt at living in a libertarian socialist society. The freedom to succeed entails the possibility of failure.


We can’t give you absolute guarantees that the new society will be a success for all time. That’s up to those who live there. I like to think that even if it failed, then we wouldn’t be any worse off than we are now.


Why do you think we need to have a state? Once the mass participation is achieved then there is no reason, even from a statist point of view, to have a minority power. Anarchists argue that the very existence of a state excludes people from participating in organising social life and is a vehicle for minority rule.

The state and mass participation are mutually exclusive. This is essentially why anarchists oppose it.

by Anonymous Mon Jul 28, 2003 21:06

Though I have only had time to skim through your answers, I commend you on good replies indeed to my questions/criticisms of anarchism.

Again, cause of time & lack of knowledge I probably won't be able to put back a decent reply, though I will if I can.

But I would just suffice to say, that I being someone who would have been more convinced by the socialist argument find myself being won over by the anarchist expose of itself.

But I would certainly like to see some proper socialist arguments being raised which have been very limited on this thread.

I would make 3 simple points however, if I may:-

1. Though socialism was tried and failed miserably in Russia - I do not think that this necessitates that it will fail again. Socialism was hijacked by totalitarianism, something which most/nearly all socialists today would be totally against. Plus because of the failure of the past caused by totalitarianism, it is far less likely that Socialism would repeat this grave error again (though of course history can and does repeat itself).

2. I accept that the results and signs from Spain were good - but despite this I do not accept that anarchism has been properly tried and tested yet - both in terms of longevity and on a full nation scale basis. Because of this the merits of anarchism are still on trial. And how successful anarchism would really be is, at least to some extent, speculation.

3. My most serious question mark over anarchism, as I alluded to earlier in the thread, remains - In reality, will it work? Is it really feasible? I can envisage it being fraught with difficulties, without having a state, in at least some format.

Nevertheless, it appears to me to be the most ideal political format. And I do believe in ideals, and believe they are something which we must all strive for.

by anarcho Mon Jul 28, 2003 19:28

"If Proudhon & Bakunin are regarded as two of the primary forefathers of anarchism,
how then do anarchists answer the condeming accusations that have been levied on
these 2 writers? Who are accused in this piece of extreme racism and oppressors of
freedom. Hardly ideal models for the origins of the theory of anarchism?"

It is significant that we have reached this argument. I expect it is because the
Marxists can on long reply to our arguments, so now we get "Bakunin was racist,
therefore [sic!] anarchism is rubbish" type of argument.

Now, it would be easy to quote Marx and Engels being less than PC on many peoples,
Engels in particular. Their comments on, say, Slavs would make interesting reading
(particularly when Engels talks about eliminating whole peoples considered, by him,
to be "counter-revolutionary"). I could quote Engels on the "lazy" Mexicans, or
Marx and Engels comments against Russians which were used by the leadership of the
German social democrats to justify their pro-war actions in WWI.

But there really is no point, as it just hides the key issues of the debate, namely
whether Anarchism (NOT "Bakuninism" or "Proudhonism") offers a better means of getting
to socialism than Marxism. Ultimately, when a Marxist says "Proudhon was sexist!" we
know that they have lost the argument and are reduced to personal attacks on long dead
people.

"And how do they answer Drapers summation of the problems with anarchism"

Well, anarchists have discussed this issue. Some analysis can be found here:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech211

and

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append31.html#app7

Ultimately, Draper's comments simply show how silly Marxism is. After all, the majority
is not always right. Take the example of 1914, when the majority of the leadership of
the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany voted in favour of war credits. I would
like a Marxist to explain why it was better for the anti-war minority to slide with the
pro-war majority than to protest against it. After all, that was a democratic decision
and, according to Draper, it would be "undemocratic" for the minority to reject it. Or
am I missing something?

Now, was it wrong for the anti-war minority to subject themselves to the "democratic"
decision and so violate the basic principles of socialism? If so, then Draper's argument
has no legs to stand on. If they were right, where does that leave Marxism as a
"revolutionary" socialist theory?

I've asked a few Marxists who quote Draper against anarchism to answer this simple question
and none have. I wonder why?

"The basic reason (why anarchism is not concerned with liberty) is the same: Anarchism
is not concerned with the creation of democratic control from below."

Which is quite funny, as it was Bakunin and Proudhon who popularised the idea of a
socialism "from below" (see http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append31.html#app14 for details).
Marxists using anarchist rhetoric to attack anarchism, what next?

Proudhon and Bakunin also talked about mandated and recallable delegates years before
the Paris Commune used it (and was then taken up by Marx). As well as workers' control
and workers' councils. But let us ignore this.

Are anarchists against "democratic control from below"? Of course not, hence Bakunin's
comments on mandated and recallable delegates. The difference between anarchism and
Marxism is that for the latter "democratic control from below" basically means electing
REPRESENTATIVES who govern FOR you. For the former, it means DELEGATES who execute the
decisions YOU make in mass assemblies. Quite simple really.

Of course, in practice, Marxist "democratic control from below" meant giving power to
the handful of people in the Bolshevik central committee. These 19 people regularly
violated "democratic control from below" to remain in power and made it a core idea
of their politics. To quote Trotsky (from 1939!):

"The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods and
objectives. It is just for this reason that a centralised organisation of the
vanguard is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority it has won,
is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the masses themselves . . . if
the dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that
the vanguard of the proletariat is armed with the resources of the state in
order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the backward layers of
the proletariat itself."

How can a Trotskyist talk about "democratic control from below" when Trotsky really did
not think it was a good thing, did not practice it when in power and argued against it
when out of power?

But such are the ironies of history...

for more on the anarchist reply to this kind of argument visit:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append31.html

by anarcho Mon Jul 28, 2003 19:24 anarcho at geocities dot com

A few comments...

"It is noticeable that in his sweeping condemnation of the Bolsheviks'
anti-democracy, they fail to mention - quite incredibly - the civil war and
the wars of intervention."

The reason for this is quite simple. When the Bolsheviks eliminated military
democracy, undermined the factory committees, started to disband soviets
elected with the "wrong" majority, repress the anarchists and other opposition
groups, and so on, THE CIVIL WAR HAD NOT STARTED YET.

Simple really. Now, the question surely arises why our pro-Bolshevik does not
know this fact. Is it a case of ignorance about Bolshevik history? If so, can we
really trust a political tradition whose adherents are so ignorant of their own
history? We really need to LEARN from history, not repeat it. The first
stage of this being, of course, to KNOW something about it!

Ignoring the factual problems with this defence of Bolshevism, let me look at
the logical one.

"These led to a virtual 'kill or be killed'
situation. Given the appalling realities of war and invasion, the Bolsheviks
were locked into a spiral of permanent 'crisis management' and never-ending
emergency measures."

According to Lenin and Trotsky, civil war and invasion were to be expected
in ANY revolution. That is why they say they want a "dictatorship of the
proletariat," to defend against counter-revolution. Now, if Bolshevism cannot
handle what it says is inevitable, then it should be avoided. To use an analogy:

Bolshevik: "Join with us, we have a great umbrella which will keep us dry."

Anarchist: "Last time it was used, we all got soaked."

Bolshevik: "But what our anarchist friend fails to mention is that it was raining
at the time!"

Not very convincing!

"Most anarchists imply - or sometimes even boldly state -
that the desperate measures and suspension of 'normality' in
post-revolutionary Russia somehow represents the essence of Bolshevism or
Leninism. Communists, on the other hand, realise that the 'anti-democratism'
was forced upon the Bolsheviks, not pursued as an aim in and of itself."

Yet the "anti-democratism" was pursued before the civil war started. And, of
course, how "democratic" is it to give all power to the Bolshevik party central
committee? Surely socialism involved more than voting for a new government?
Is it not about mass participation, the kind of participation centralised government
precludes?

"Contrary to anarchist insinuations, the Bolshevik programme was democratic -
in terms of theory and intention."

Yes, look at the election manifesto, not what they did when in power! I wonder
if Blair will say "Look, it's simple really, invading Iraq was not in the Labour
Party manifesto. That means you should not judge us for doing it. Vote for us
again, please!"

"But under the devastating impact of White
terror and imperialist intervention - and thus isolation - democracy
effectively collapsed and in the subsequent chaos the Bolsheviks - yes - had
no real answer to the awesome problems facing Russia."

But the rot had started before "White terror" and "imperialist intervention" started.
And Lenin said that civil war was inevitable, so blaming the inevitable (which
had not even started yet!) for the failure of Bolshevism is NOT convincing.

"But then neither did
anyone else who claimed to defend the revolution - neither the Menshevik
Internationalists, nor the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, nor the tiny
forces of anarchism."

Actually, the Makhnovists (anarchist partisan army) managed to defend the
revolution and encourage soviet democracy, freedom of speech and so on.
In fact, the Bolsheviks BANNED their soviet congresses. That does not really
fit in with them being forced to be anti-democratic, now does it?

"In 1918 the concrete choice facing revolutionaries of all hues was - stay in
power using all necessary means or give up."

I thought it was meant to be the working class which was in power?

"If anarchists want to point the finger of accusation at the real culprits, there they
are - the social democratic tops who worked overtime to ensure the isolation of the
Russian Revolution."

>

"What were these 'immeasurable difficulties'? Russia was in a ruined state.
Between 1914 and 1921 famine, epidemic and war had cut the population by a
staggering 13.5 million. It was equally bleak on the economic front. Even in
1913 national income per capita was about eight to 10 times less than the
United States. After world war, revolution and civil war, industry (apart
from arms production) had virtually disappeared - agricultural production
had fallen by a staggering 50%."

And Germany in 1918-9 was, relatively speaking, in a worse state than Russia
in 1917-8. If socialism was impossible in Russia in 1918 due to economic
problems, why was it possible in Germany? And we should not forget that
anarchists had predicted quite accurately the problems facing a revolution.

Again, if you blame the inevitable for the actions of the Bolsheviks, is this
convincing?

"What is more, after the civil war came to a close, the working class had
been effectively declassed. It was decimated by death in battle and by a
forced return to peasant life, given the economic collapse. There were 3.5
million industrial workers in 1913; by 1922 there were only 1,118,000 left.
Moscow and Petrograd experienced a massive hemorrhage of population to the
countryside - Moscow lost 44.5% and Petrograd 57.5%. Worse, at least in the
opinion of Lenin, the proletariat had declined even more in quality than in
quantity."

This "declassed" working class was still capable of general strikes all throughout
the civil war period, and after. 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 all saw massive strike
waves all across industrial Russia. And they were directed against the Bolsheviks.
Perhaps this working class resistance to the Bolsheviks explains the "decline in
quality" assertion. After all, *real* workers could not be anti-Bolshevik, could
they?

Which shows a flaw in Bolshevism. But definition, if the workers oppose the
vanguard then, obviously, their political consciousness must have fallen...
Which, of course, is the key position for justifying party dictatorship, which
Lenin, Trotsky and other leading Bolsheviks were not shy in drawing...

"Of course, anarchists have no right whatsoever to claim any 'moral'
superiority over Bolshevism. After all, large sections of anarchism 'failed
the test' when it came to World War I - by supporting the imperialist
slaughter in defence of their own nation. Anarchism and syndicalism split
along national chauvinist lines just like official social democracy did. In
that sense, pre-1914 anarchism and syndicalism died on the battlefields of
Tanneberg and the Somme."

Actually, the number of anarchists who supported the war amounted to a
*very* small minority -- unlike in the Marxist movement. The ideas that
"large" sections supported the war is a Marxist myth, obviously generated
to make them feel better over the fact that nearly all Marxist parties
supported it.

"One of the most celebrated of the latter was the Ukrainian peasant-based
army of Nestor Makhno, which was responsible for vicious anti-semitic
massacres (hence carrying on the fine Bakuninite tradition of anti-semitism)
and which also collaborated with the White armies."

Both of these assertions are total and utter LIES. I would suggest reading
the section of the Anarchist FAQ on Makhno to see the truth:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html

That Trots repeat these refuted lies shows they know as little about anarchist
history as they do their own.

"For some reason, Makhno
is still a much romanticised figure in the anarchist pantheon. Anti-semitism
is, of course, no longer respectable - even amongst fools."

You could do no better than read the writings of such JEWISH anarchists as
Voline, Goldman and Berkman to see why Makhno is so respected. Makhno
fought both Red and White dictators for working class self-management and
freedom.

Personally, I think that Makhno is lied about so much by Trotskyists because
he was living proof that Bolshevik authoritarianism was not purely the result of
the civil war, etc. After all, the Makhnovists operated in the same conditions
as the Bolsheviks, yet they did not suppress working class freedom and
democracy. How strange! So rather than look at this example of anarchism in
action and learn from it, they invent lies about Makhno and repeat them decades
after they have been refuted (refuted by, say, the JEWISH anarchist Voline!).

"True, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks the Russian
Revolution made many mistakes. But its impact has been phenomenal."

Phenomenal in the sense of putting a phenomenal amount of people OFF socialism,
perhaps?

And lets be honest, it was under the DICTATORSHIP of Lenin and the Bolsheviks
that this was the case. At least the Bolsheviks were honest about it at the time (and
in the case of Trotsky, into the 1930s!). The same cannot be said now...

And this comment says it all, really. After all, I though socialism was about "working
class power" -- if it was Lenin who made the mistakes, it suggests that the working
class did not held power. Which is the key difference between anarchism and Marxism.
The former aims for workers' power, the latter party power. The sooner we realise they
are not the same, the better!

by James - WSM Mon Jul 28, 2003 18:02

The above quote from Draper asserts that anarchists allow for the freedom to exploit.

This has been dealt with on a few occasions on this thread. Repeating it without new argument is unimpressive. Quoting from a piss-poor work doesn’t make it any better. We’ve said a number of times that we’d have no problem with opposing attacks on other people’s liberty. Such attacks are regarded as oppression not an expression of freedom. If you think it’s an encroachment on Nazi’s liberty to make sure that they don’t wreck a new society, then fine. We’re not in favour of absolute liberty, but an expansion of liberty. And if some wish to use your liberty to oppress others, then self-defence is a legitimate response. (Anonymous this is why we don’t want people employing others: it’s exploitation)

I get the impression that statists who emphasise democracy take the group rather than the individual as the basic unit of society. It follows that the group has the right to impose its will on the individual. (Usually behind the will of a majority lies a controlling minority, but that’s not relevant here). This premise has been at the root of the justification of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the state. Thus states have had few qualms about imposing controls on sexual behaviour or religious belief. It is often considered democracy in action.

Anarchists have a different conception of democracy. Anarchists start from the importance of personal liberty. We don’t think that the group has an automatic to impose its wishes even if the individual is a voluntary member of that group. For example, if I believe in a tri-partite man-god, then as long I don’t attempt to impose this on others then the group has no right to cure me of my silly belief.

Being social animals we recognize that humans live in close contact with others and that this presents the question of how to structure these contacts, particularly issues of common concern with those we don’t have much or any personal contact. Democracy is seen as a useful development facilitating this association.


It’s obvious that we can’t always get our wishes. For example I might want to write an article on the origins of private property for Workers Solidarity (new issue out next week!), but the others think this inappropriate. What to do? If I go along with their opinion am I submitting to authority? Hardly, I am voluntarily associating with them. There’s limited space in paper and we can’t all get our way. There’s give and take. You listen to the views of the others and decide to accept their point of view. Hopefully in a future issue there will be more space. This seems to me to be common sense. As long as I get a fair hearing, a reasonable explanation, and future opportunity to publish I’ll stay on board. If I think they’re acting unfairly, then I’ll leave. It’s hard to express concisely what is so obvious from our everyday lives that it hardly merits comment.
(You could substitute deciding which pub to go to in the above example.)


Authoritarians often throw common sense out the window when talking about libertarianism. Following Engels’ appalling ‘On Authority’ they have depicted any act of association as an infringement on your liberty rather than an expression of it, because the group may go against your wishes on any particular issue.
I’ll be lazy and do a cut and paste response, work too busy socialist comrades!

“Freedom a social relationship
This means that freedom is fundamentally a social relationship. A person is born into society and can become human within society. Isolation quickly drives people insane. This means that, as Bakunin argued, liberty is a "feature not of isolation but of interaction." This means that the links we make with other people determines our liberty. We can only be considered free in relation to how other people treated us.
We see freedom as holistic -- freedom from and freedom to. To combine with other individuals is an expression of individual liberty, not its denial. We are aware that freedom is impossible outside of association. Within an association absolute "autonomy" cannot exist, but such "autonomy" would restrict freedom to such a degree that it would be so self-defeating as to make a mockery of the concept of autonomy and no sane person would seek it.
If we took Engels' argument seriously, then living makes freedom impossible! After all coming to this meeting means you have subordinated yourselves. Playing a game of football would be a denial of liberty.
If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. I cannot make an agreement with others because to do so I must co-operate with someone else and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree to meet with my friends and play football.”
From http://www.anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/talks/anarANDfreedom.html

Rocker was German I think, though he did spend years involved with Jewish workers in London.

by Ray Mon Jul 28, 2003 17:19

AFAIK, any big enough Leninist group has a permanent cadre of activists employed by the organisation. These full-timers overlap with the organisation leadership, and are the most obvious manifestation of the division between leaders and followers characteristic of Leninist groups. This is true of the SP here and in the UK, the SWP (ditto), and so on... Which exceptions did you have in mind?

by Bolshie Mon Jul 28, 2003 17:05

You assume that all socialist groups operate the same internal structure - this is simply not true. Many socialist groups have internal structures that bear no relation to the Leninist model but are still socialist.

by Syndicated anarchist Mon Jul 28, 2003 15:45

I thought utopia was a sex shop in Capel Street,
until I discovered anarchism.

by Ray Mon Jul 28, 2003 15:13

I think we can say this at least.
There has been so successful attempt to create an anarchist society, on a large scale at least. Those attempts that were made were destroyed by outside forces.
In the one case we have of Leninists seizing power, they used that power to massacre everybody who disagreed with them.
One vision of society has not been tried. Another vision has been tried, with appalling results.
Its easy to say "lets forget our differences for now and concentrate on disposing of capitalism", but these differences are central, and effect the way we fight capitalism _today_, not just in the distant future.
Do we create organisations _directly_ controlled by their members, or do we create groups controlled by a central elite? Do we seek to take over existing institutions - unions, for example - or do we seek to transform them, or replace them with democratic alternatives? Do we use the state or not? Do we focus on increasing participation and involvement, giving people more control over their lives, or do we focus on getting the 'right' people to make the 'right' decisions? Does the end justify the means, or do the means determine the end?

by Wizard of Oz Mon Jul 28, 2003 14:49

It's impossible to compare a notional vision of society with a real attempt to actually create an alternative society as was tried in Russia.

We will have to wait and see how anarchist's fare. I look forward to it. In the meantime, both anarchists and socialists have to keep working to put capitalism where it belongs, in the dustbin of history.

by Andrew Mon Jul 28, 2003 14:24

Anyone else think it is odd the way the trots here seem incapable of putting an argument together themselves and have to keep ripping off the work of 'experts'. Mind you at least the above is credited which is more then can be said for the first attempt.

by Andrew Mon Jul 28, 2003 14:22

Well first off as already pointed out anarchists do not run around calling themselves Proudhonists etc. So in relation to the anti-semitic nonsence that some of the early anarchists were prone to we just call that for the crap it is. Unfortuanatly it took the Drefuss affair for the European left in general to wake up to the dangers of anti-semitism.

But it is rather clear that the anarchist movement moved on rather quickly, after all many of the next generation of activists were from Jewish backgrounds, Emma Goldman and Rudolf Rocker being two among many.

Proudhon's anti-women stuff is similar crap, what anaarchist would base anything on this today? Even by Bakunin's time the movement had moved well beyond this into incorporating sexual equality into the core of its program. (Ahead of the marxists). But really even there anarchists continued to learn and continue to learn and develop their ideas there.

That long quote from Draper just shows how little he understands about the debates within anarchism. Not surprizing is he is using Woodcock as his main source, he was a liberal academic rather then an anarchist.

Overall Drapers approach typifies the problem with Marxism. They start off with a God who also has feet of clay (Marx on the Jewish question "the liberation of the jews is the liberation of humanity from the jews" for instance or his support for German imperialism in the East and British imperilialism in India). And when we challenge the whole politics of elevating historical figures to god like proportions they imagine it is a reply to point out the feet of clay of the early anarchists. Which rather misses the point of the critique.

Bottom line, point out some crap that an anarchist came out with and we will call it crap. Point out some crap of Marx or Lenin and the trots will seek to excuse it or explain it away. Get it?

by Anonymous Mon Jul 28, 2003 13:32

For a brief critique of anarchism see a piece by Hal Draper on 'The Myth Of Anarchist "Libertarianism", from "The Two Souls of Socialism" on:-

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/twosouls/twosouls.htm#Chap4

If Proudhon & Bakunin are regarded as two of the primary forefathers of anarchism, how then do anarchists answer the condeming accusations that have been levied on these 2 writers? Who are accused in this piece of extreme racism and oppressors of freedom. Hardly ideal models for the origins of the theory of anarchism?

And how do they answer Drapers summation of the problems with anarchism:-

"The basic reason (why anarchism is not concerned with liberty) is the same: Anarchism is not concerned with the creation of democratic control from below, but only with the destruction of "authority" over the individual, including the authority of the most extremely democratic regulation of society that it is possible to imagine. This has been made clear by authoritative anarchist expositors time and again; for example, by George Woodcock: "even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it... Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics..." Anarchism is on principle fiercely anti-democratic, since an ideally democratic authority is still authority. But since, rejecting democracy, it has no other way of resolving the inevitable disagreements and differences among the inhabitants of Theleme, its unlimited freedom for each uncontrolled individual is indistinguishable from unlimited despotism by such an individual, both in theory and practice.

The great problem of our age is the achievement of democratic control from below over the vast powers of modern social authority. Anarchism, which is freest of all with verbiage about something-from-below, rejects this goal. It is the other side of the coin of bureaucratic despotism, with all its values turned inside-out, not the cure or the alternative."

by Andrew Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:39

Once more I see the anarchist/leninist debate returns to the Russian revolution. Why so you ask? Perhaps because this event, over 80 years ago, was the one time when all Leninists will agree they were in power and so is the one example where the difference between what they say and what they do becomes obvious.

Back around 1986 Fianna Fail won an election on the slogan 'Health cuts hurt the old, the sick and the handicapped'. Once in power they implemented the most severe round of health cuts to date. In 1917 the Bolshevik party seized power post-October under the slogan of 'All power to the soviets'. They then proceeded to shut down soviets that elected the 'wrong' people and transfer all power to the central committe.

Various excuses are trotted out for this. If they reckon you know nothing they will simply say that it is a lie to claim the Bolsheviks shut down soviets and other organs of workers democracy. However as the history of what happened is clear (if interpretations differ) then once you know the history we move onto the excuses for why this happened.

As you may have noticed they boil down to 'destroying the revolution in order to save it'. The excuse used is that the severity of the civil war meant the Bolsheviks were forced to destroy workers democracy in order to 'save it'. There are however a number of problems with this excuse.

1. When was the Civil War?
As you may already know the October revolution was a relatively bloodless affair outside of Moscow where 500 were killed. In Petrograd at the heart of the revolution fewer were apperently killed in the revolution then were later killed in Eisensteins film about the 'storming' of the winter palace. The inital attempt to counter revolution by sections of the military collapsed because their soldiers,for reasons which are obvious, refused to fight.

The period from October to May of 1918 while not trouble free was not one where the survival of the new regime looked to be seriously threatened as it was to be in 1919 and 1920. So the first problem for the 'blame it on the civil war' trots is to explain why the months BEFORE May of 1918 saw soviets being closed down and the start of the suppression of the factory committees.

The end date of the civil war is also a problem for those who want to trot out the civil war as an excuse. According to one author the White General "Wrangel was forced back into the Crimea, and in Nov., 1920, he had to evacuate his forces to Constantinople. The Russian civil war thus came to an end."

Those familar with the history of this argument will realise that it was some 4 months LATER that the Kronstadt revolt took place. And at the same time the 10th Party Congress banned the existance of factions within the Bolshevik party itself - the closing of the very last 'legal' door for those who opposed the regime from the left. That same congress declared "no trade union group should directly intervene in industrial management".

This then is the first problem with the 'blame the civil war' approach. Much of the worst of the suppression of workers democracy either happened BEFORE the Civil War or AFTER the Civil War.

2. The second problem is that this 'blame the civil war' argument is something that was not used at the time, indeed it seems to have been invented by Trotsky in the 1930's to justify the clash between what he was then saying in opposition and what he actually did when he had power.

In contrast Trotsky wrote in 1920: "I consider that if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully."

So in 1920 Trotsky far from blaming the civil war for the re-introduction of one man management (as opposed to the workers electing a factory committee) went so far as it state the opposite. Were it not for the civil war he would have shut down the factory commitees all the sooner.

3. Reality of revolution
The most disturbing aspect of the 'blame the civil war' excuse for us today is that it tells us quite a lot about how leninists might act in a future revolution. For obvious reasons revolutions tend to happen at difficult times. Lenin himself was more then aware of this. He wrote: "... those who believe that socialism will be built at a time of peace and tranquillity are profoundly mistaken: it will everywhere be built at a time of disruption, at a time of famine."

So if difficult times back in 1918-21 justified suppressing workers democracy and putting anarchists and other socialists against the wall what might we expect of difficult times in 2007? If the vitrol some anarchists direct at leninists here often seems over the top perhaps this goes some way to explaining why?

4. Alternatives
One can argue that the only way to win a war is to adopt the methods of your opponents. This is what the Bolsheviks did and it is what they stated that they intended to do. Its the old argument about ends justifying means.

Anarchists believe that the means used will determine the ends reached. You don't create a free society by locking up or executing all those who disagree with you. You don't create an economy based on workers self management by introducing one man management. You don't create a communist economy by having special rations/wages for party members.

The Ukraine in this period provides one counter example of fighting a revolution in an anarchist manner. July 1936 to May 1937 in parts of Spain provide another. In both cases of course the anarchists were defeated.

At the end of the day it is up to each of us to make a judgement call on this debate - a debate as old as the socialist movement itself. Once you get a bit of knowledge the debate ceases to be oneover historical facts but rather one of interpretation and dare I say spin. At its core though it is the questions of end and means and how these connect.

Anarchism lies at one side of this debate, Leninism on the other.

[Incidentally 'vik (bolshies mate)'s article above seems to be almost entirely ripped off from an article published by the CPGB back in 2001 - see http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/399/reality.html for the original. Those interested in the honesty of such debates may be interested to note that these points were ALREADY answered in a letter I wrote in reply to this published at http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/400/letters.html I make no apologies for re-using part of that reply here]

by Nestor Makhno Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:39

An important role was played in the Makhnovist army by revolutionaries of Jewish origin, many of whom had been sentenced to forced labor for participation in the 1905 revolution, or else had been obliged to emigrate to Western Europe or America. Among others, we can mention:

Kogan - vice-president of the central organ of the movement, the Regional Revolutionary Military Council of Gulyai-Polye. Kogan was a worker who, for reasons of principle, had left his factory well before the revolution of 1917, and had gone to do agricultural work in a poor Jewish agricultural colony. Wounded at the battle of Peregonovka, near Uman, against the Denikinists, he was seized by them at the hospital at Uman where he was being treated, and, according to witnesses, the Denikinists killed him with sabres

L. Zin'kovsky (Zadov) - head of the army's counter espionage section, and later commander of a special cavalry regiment. A worker who before the 1917 revolution was condemned to ten years of forced labor for political activities. One of the most active militants of the revolutionary insurrection.

Elena Keller - secretary of the army's cultural and educational section. A worker who took part in the syndicalist movement in America. One of the organizers of the "Nabat" Confederation.

Iosif Emigrant (Gotman) - Member of the army's cultural and educational section. A worker who took an active part in the Ukrainian anarchist movement. One of the organizers of the "Nabat" Confederation, and later a member of its secretariat.

Ya. Alyi (Sukhovol'sky) - worker, and member of the army's cultural and educational section. In the Tsarist period he was condemned to forced labor for political activity. One of the organizers of the ""Nabat" Confederation and a member of its secretariat.

We could add many more names to the long list of Jewish revolutionaries who took part in different areas of the Makhnovist movement, but we will not do this, because it would endanger their security.

At the heart of the revolutionary insurrection, the Jewish working population was among brothers. The Jewish agricultural colonies scattered throughout the districts of Mariupol, Berdyansk, Aleksandrovsk and elsewhere, actively participated in the regional assemblies of peasants, workers and insurgents; they sent delegates there, and also to the regional Revolutionary Military Council.

Following certain anti-Semitic incidents which occurred in the region in February, 1919, Makhno proposed to all the Jewish colonies that they organize their self-defense and he furnished the necessary guns and ammunition to all these colonies. At the same time Makhno organized a series of meetings in the region where he appealed to the masses to struggle against anti-Semitism.

The Jewish working population, in turn, expressed profound solidarity and revolutionary brotherhood toward the revolutionary insurrection. In answer to the call made by the Revolutionary Military Council to furnish voluntary combatants to the Makhnovist insurgent army, the Jewish colonies sent from their midst a large number of volunteers.

In the army of the Makhnovist insurgents there was an exclusively Jewish artillery battery which was covered by an infantry detachment, also made up of Jews. This battery, commanded by the Jewish insurgent Shneider, heroically defended Gulyai-Polye from Denikin's troops in June, 1919, and the entire battery perished there, down to the last man and the last shell.

by Ray Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:32

Anarchists don't mention the civil war because 1) everybody knows about it, and 2) its a bad excuse for anybody to use, but especially for the Bolsheviks.
Vik himself points to a major problem - the soldiers' committees were abolished by Trotsky in early 1918,around the same time that Lenin imposed one-man management with dictatorial powers. This was BEFORE the war started.
Its a common evasion used by Leninists - anything Lenin and Trotsky did wrong is excused by the war, a war which apprently didn't end until the day Stalin seized power, and then anything bad could be blamed on him instead. The fact of the matter is that Bolshevik repression started before the war and continued after the war had ended. Its one of the reasons we keep bringing up Kronstadt - the Kronstadt soviet called for political freedom, AFTER the war had ended, and the Bolsheviks responded by killing them. (The catalyst for the Kronstadt revolt was a series of strikes in Petrograd, which the Bolsheviks put down with martial law. Also after the end of the civil war)

But even without these inconvenient facts which demonstrate that Bolshevik repression was not dependent on the war, the war is a lousy excuse. Because some form of civil strife is inevitable in a revolutionary situation. Because implicit in every cry of "there was a war on" is the question - "what would you do if you were the dictator of Russia at the time? Would you have allowed strikes? Would you have allowed free elections? Would you have allowed other political parties to organise?" And that's a fucked-up assumption, further evidence of the failings of Leninism.

The point is not to seize power. Socialism can't be imposed. You can't drag the working class to the socialist paradise, or force them there at gunpoint. All you can do like that is create a slightly more benign dictatorship. (And at their best, that's all Leninists have ever managed - dictatorships that are more benign than their capitalist counterparts. And even that is pretty rare.) The Leninist project is fucked from the start because it treats democracy, workers control, and equality, as disposable. Sure, they'd be _nice_ but the important thing is to make the correct decisions, and for that you need the correct people in charge, and if the masses don't like it, well, its for their own good. Maybe we'll have to shoot a few backward elements to keep things moving along. They'll thank us in the end.

Vik says the Bolsheviks had democratic intentions. But then he quotes Lenin after the civil war - "Since soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie
has been overthrown in one country..." Soviet power had been established? Soviet elections had been overthrown, opposition parties had been banned, internal factions had been or were about to be banned, but Lenin describes this as the establishment of soviet power? There is only one interpretation possible. 'Soviet power' to Lenin does not mean workers democracy. It does not mean workers control. It means that the state is in the hands of his party, and once that is true everything else is irrelevant.

Yeah, Lenin may weep for the declining number of factory workers in the party. But he didn't see this as evidence that the Bolsheviks didn't have a right to rule. He didn't think, "Hmm, maybe we no longer represent the true vanguard of the working class - perhaps we should have some free elections?". He thought, "Ah well, as long as me and my mates - the 'old guard' - are in charge, everything will be fine." And that was a reasonable expectation, in a way, because the party leadership was a self-perpetuating elite, just as much as the party dictatorship was a self-perpetuating dictatorship. If it hadn't been for that stroke Lenin would have continued as First Comrade and absolute dictator, there's no question.

Finally, on anarchism. Yes, anarchists _do_ have the right to claim moral superiority over Bolshevism, because we never slaughtered workers. We never instituated a dictatorship, we didn't set up gulags, we didn't execute thousands of political prisoners, we didn't shoot strikers, we didn't declare martial law, we had no part in the creation of one of the most bloody regimes ever to grace the planet. And whenever I see a Trot talking about how bad Stalin was, while still bowing to their icons of Lenin and Trotsky, you can be sure that sense of moral superiority is recharged. Your heroes destroyed a revolution, and you celebrate it.

Not only that, you invent lies to blacken the name of those who showed an alternative. From the consistent, and demonstrably unfounded, lies about the Kronstadt revolt (no Leninist ever publishes the demands of the revolt, preparing to repeat the lies), to the charge of anti-semitism against Makhno. Makhno, who Jewish historians described as the most friendly to Jews of all the forces in the area (including the Bolsheiks). Makhno who shot anti-semites. Makhno, whose army contained Jewish units. Makhno, the last survivor of whose army died a few years ago in Paris. She was Jewish. But since no other charge can be made against the Makhnovites, and since its necessary for Bolshevik defenders to claim that they were the only revolutionaries fighting the Whites, and that their dictatorial methods were the only way to resist the Whites, the name of Makhno must be blackened absolutely. Its not enough to call him counter-revolutionary, or a peasant, since they are things that can be debated. No, say he was anti-semitic, because that closes any debate. Its not true, but who cares?

Yes, anarchists have made mistakes, and no doubt will continue to make mistakes. Kropotkin wrote some very influential books, but taking sides in an imperialist war was stupid. Most of his contemporaries said so, and any anarchist today will say the same thing.

The difference between us is this. When we see anarchists who took sides in an imperialist war, fell for the Bolshevik myth, or joined with the state (in Spain), we say that they made a mistake. They thought they had good reason, and they thought they were doing what was best, but they were wrong, and they departed from anarchism.
When you see socialists who impose a dictatorship, you sigh, and argue, and eventually concede that maybe they executed a few too many people, but nonetheless they were heroes - we should put their posters on our walls, refer to their writings to settle arguments, model our organisations in their image, and try to emulate their example. And then you wonder why people object.

(BTW, the syndicalist unions of the day weren't anarchist. They often contained a large anarchist component, which broke off because of the war, but the syndicalist movement of the time was just a union movement, with no particular political allegiance, which is why some elements could become attracted to nationalism. Very different from the explicitly anarcho-syndicalist unions of later years)

by a friend Mon Jul 28, 2003 05:09 http://struggle.net/ALDS/#action

http://struggle.net/ALDS/#action

by vik (bolshies mate) Mon Jul 28, 2003 01:14

According to Ray, Bolshevism is irredeemably tainted - unlike anarchism.
Leninism and Bolshevism inevitably lead to Stalinism. Due to Lenin's world
outlook and methods, the Russian Revolution was doomed to totalitarianism.
Organisations like the Workers Party, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers
Party, Socialist Democracy, Irish Socialist Network, and the Communist Party
of Ireland are "the representatives of the dying tradition of Bolshevism".
Comrade Ray's charge sheet against the Bolsheviks appears well founded and
is standard anarchist denunciation; They "disbanded the
opposition-controlled soviets and repressed the subsequent wave of working
class protests and revolts". Similarly, the Bolsheviks also smashed
democracy in the armed forces as well as in industry. The soldiers'
committees and elected officers were abolished in March 1918 by Trotsky .
Officers were appointed from above by the government. Lenin argued against
workers' self-management of production, supporting (appointed from above)
'one-man management' invested with 'dictatorial powers' in early 1918. By
1920, Trotsky was advocating the 'militarisation of labour' and implemented
his ideas on the railway workers."
Anarchists conclude: Clearly, Bolshevism is hardly democratic.
The examples cited above do indeed sound damning. But in reality, it 's
playing games with the Russian Revolution and the history of Bolshevism in
general. In fact, it takes a typically conservative approach to the truth.
Content with the mere surface appearance of things, anarchists prefer to
highlight in the obvious shortcomings and failures of the October revolution
rather than confront its complexities.
It is noticeable that in his sweeping condemnation of the Bolsheviks'
anti-democracy, they fail to mention - quite incredibly - the civil war and
the wars of intervention. These led to a virtual 'kill or be killed'
situation. Given the appalling realities of war and invasion, the Bolsheviks
were locked into a spiral of permanent 'crisis management' and never-ending
emergency measures. Most anarchists imply - or sometimes even boldly state -
that the desperate measures and suspension of 'normality' in
post-revolutionary Russia somehow represents the essence of Bolshevism or
Leninism. Communists, on the other hand, realise that the 'anti-democratism'
was forced upon the Bolsheviks, not pursued as an aim in and of itself.
Contrary to anarchist insinuations, the Bolshevik programme was democratic -
in terms of theory and intention. But under the devastating impact of White
terror and imperialist intervention - and thus isolation - democracy
effectively collapsed and in the subsequent chaos the Bolsheviks - yes - had
no real answer to the awesome problems facing Russia. But then neither did
anyone else who claimed to defend the revolution - neither the Menshevik
Internationalists, nor the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, nor the tiny
forces of anarchism.
In 1918 the concrete choice facing revolutionaries of all hues was - stay in
power using all necessary means or give up. By hanging on to power the
Bolsheviks retained the hope of spreading the revolution and hence
eventually giving Russia a chance to break out of its isolation. In short,
the role of Russia was to light the spark that would ignite the revolution
in the advanced capitalist states - most notably, Germany.
At that time communists of all persuasion - including JV Stalin of course -
agreed that socialism required the worldwide overthrow of capitalism. No
form of national socialism was sustainable.
However, as we know, the revolutionary wave (1918-23) that swept Germany,
Hungary, Bavaria, Finland, Austria, etc, was brutally crushed - primarily
thanks to the treachery of the social democratic leaders. If anarchists want
to point the finger of accusation at the real culprits, there they are - the
social democratic tops who worked overtime to ensure the isolation of the
Russian Revolution. As Hal Draper comments, the German social democrats who
yesterday had been Kaiser-socialists were "keeping the German socialist
revolution chloroformed" (Hal Draper The dictatorship of the proletariat
from Marx to Lenin New York 1987, p116).
The material conditions confronting backward Russia were daunting. As Rosa
Luxemburg commented, "It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin
and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances
they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary
dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy ... The
danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze
into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these
fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international
proletariat as a model of socialist tactics" (quoted in ibid p116).
Once the revolutionary surge subsided, Lenin knew only too well that the
consequences of defeat would be far-reaching and negative: "Our banking on
the world revolution, if you can call it that, has on the whole been fully
justified." But its slowness "has landed us with immeasurable difficulties".
What were these "immeasurable difficulties"? Russia was in a ruined state.
Between 1914 and 1921 famine, epidemic and war had cut the population by a
staggering 13.5 million. It was equally bleak on the economic front. Even in
1913 national income per capita was about eight to 10 times less than the
United States. After world war, revolution and civil war, industry (apart
from arms production) had virtually disappeared - agricultural production
had fallen by a staggering 50%.
As well as "banking" on world revolution, Lenin recognised that, having
seized power in a backward country, it would be necessary for the
proletariat to develop it culturally and economically - an important, though
entirely subsidiary, contribution to world revolution in its own right.
Lenin wrote: "Since soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie
has been overthrown in one country, the . task is to wage the struggle on a
world scale, on a different plane: the struggle of the proletarian state
surrounded by capitalist states. The situation is an entirely novel and
difficult one . since the rule of the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, the
main task is to organise the development of the country."
However, for classical Marxism - and hence Bolshevism - it had been assumed
that socialism proceeds from the most advanced level of capitalism.
Therefore it was naturally thought that the socialist regime would have the
active support of the overwhelming majority of the population. The reality
of Russia could not be more different. Surrounded by a peasant sea, the
proletariat constituted at most 10% of the population - a figure which
shrunk with post-revolution economic dislocation, internal and external
wars.
What is more, after the civil war came to a close, the working class had
been effectively declassed. It was decimated by death in battle and by a
forced return to peasant life, given the economic collapse. There were 3.5
million industrial workers in 1913; by 1922 there were only 1,118,000 left.
Moscow and Petrograd experienced a massive hemorrhage of population to the
countryside - Moscow lost 44.5% and Petrograd 57.5%. Worse, at least in the
opinion of Lenin, the proletariat had declined even more in quality than in
quantity. That is, the best workers were siphoned off into full-time
positions in the Red Army, the administrative machine and the Communist
Party - ie, became part of the state-party bureaucracy. Numerically, the
Communist Party may have grown by leaps and bounds - from 240,000 in August
1917 to 730,000 by February 1921 - yet an increasingly small percentage
belonged to factory cells - only 18% in 1923. And politically the Party had
shrunk - in terms of cadre and theory.
It was this combination of a literally shrinking proletariat but an expanded
Communist Party which led Lenin to write that "the dictatorship of the
proletariat would not work except through the Communist Party", and to add:
"If we do not close our eyes to reality, we must admit that at the present
time the proletarian policy of the Party is not determined by the character
of its membership, but by the enormous individual prestige enjoyed by a
small group called the old guard of the Party" (quoted in Jack Conrad From
October to August London 1992, p24). It should be obvious that Lenin was not
celebrating this regrettable fact.
Left high and dry by the tardiness of the world revolution, devastated
economically and politically, with the Communist Party substituting for the
decimated proletariat, the society inaugurated by the Russian Revolution did
not match the Marxist textbooks. A not inaccurate description was penned by
the French Eurocommunist author, Jean Ellenstein, who wrote: "In 1923 the
Soviet Union was a country where neither freedom of speech, nor freedom to
hold meetings and belong to associations nor free elections existed, where
power was in the hands of a small group of men (a few thousand at most), and
where the political police remained all-powerful, where neither democratic
traditions nor institutions existed, because of the very conditions under
which the revolution triumphed" (The Stalin phenomenon 1976, p50).
Not a desirable outcome - that's right, anarchist comrades!
Surely one question we should pose to the serious anarchists is - if they
had by some fluke come to lead the revolution in the Russia of 1917, how
would they have fared? Either they would have had to betray their own
principles in order to see the revolution through to victory, or if they had
stayed true to their principles the revolution would have been drowned in an
orgy of bloodletting. Kornilov and Denkin carried out a Nazi-like campaign
of exterminating 'reds and yids' during the civil war. If they had captured
Petrograd and Moscow there would have been a slaughter of genocidal
proportions. To abolish state power under such circumstances was to
surrender.
Of course, anarchists have no right whatsoever to claim any 'moral'
superiority over Bolshevism. After all, large sections of anarchism 'failed
the test' when it came to World War I - by supporting the imperialist
slaughter in defence of their own nation. Anarchism and syndicalism split
along national chauvinist lines just like official social democracy did. In
that sense, pre-1914 anarchism and syndicalism died on the battlefields of
Tanneberg and the Somme.
Take the French Confédération Générale du Travail, one of the strongest and
most respected workers' organisation. Year after year, the French
syndicalist leaders proclaimed that they would respond to a declaration of
war with a revolutionary general strike. But when war was actually declared,
they immediately joined the union sacrée in defence of the French
imperialist state. CGT leader Léon Jouhaux preached "hatred of German
imperialism" - speaking, so he said, for "those who are going off to war".
The anarchist 'prince' and hero, Peter Kropotkin, came out openly in support
for Britain, France and Russia against the Central Powers. The proponent of
the solidarity of the human community at once became indistinguishable from
the most rabid British or French chauvinist. Even a highly sympathetic
biography acknowledges that "all Kropotkin did, like any militarist, was to
talk of bigger and better cannons, to exhort his friends to 'defend
themselves like wild beasts', and to repeat the current exaggerated atrocity
stories of the Germans 'fighting like devils and trampling on all the rules
of humanity'" (G Woodcock and I Avakumovic The anarchist prince 1950). The
old Russian populist and anarchist had become a governmental-anarchist on
the grounds that a military alliance with Britain and France would result in
a "strengthening of the liberalising forces in Russia".
Obviously, anarchists would never turn against the masses. Yet somehow the
leading intellectual lights of the anarchist movement in France - Jean
Grave, Charles Malato, Paul Reclus - did precisely that and came out in
defence of their 'own' capitalist state. The Austrian anarchist scholar, Max
Nettlau, a recognised authority on Bakunin's life and writings, likewise
supported the war, in his case on the side of the Central Powers (the
rabidly anti-Germanist Bakunin would have spun in his grave).
Of course, the genuinely revolutionary anarchists split with their former
comrades. The founding of the Communist International in 1919 not only
polarised the socialist parties, whose best elements sought to become
communists (while the worst would make a career of anti-communism up to and
including the physical liquidation of revolutionaries). It had a similarly
fundamental effect on the anarchists and syndicalists - the revolutionary
elements either rallied to the side of the October revolution (eg, Victor
Serge and Alfred Rosmer). Or found themselves abruptly marginalised as mere
footnotes to history.
To explain their own conversion to Bolshevism, anarchists created in their
heads a Bolshevik conversion from Marxism to anarchism (in many ways a
mirror image of Lenin's supposed "break" from old Bolshevism and conversion
to Trotskyism in April 1917). The anarchist, Gregory Raiva, enthusiastically
wrote in September 1917: "From the standpoint of Marxism, of 'scientific
socialism', the most consistent Marxists are undoubtedly the Menshevik
social democrats . And it is entirely natural that the social democrats,
cleaving to the views of Marx, should regard the present Russian Revolution
as a bourgeois revolution. It is entirely natural that the social democratic
Marxists should be consistently striving for a coalition, striving to
establish ties with the bourgeoisie. For, according to the Marxist
programme, the time for a social revolution has not yet arrived .
"It stands to reason that the Bolsheviks, as revolutionaries, are dearer and
closer to us anarchists. For, in point of fact, their intransigent
revolutionary position is due not to their rigid adherence to the teachings
of Marx, but to the fact that they have shed the scholasticism of their
apostle and adopted a revolutionary - that is, anti-Marxist - point of view.
"We rejoice that it is the Bolsheviks and not the Mensheviks who are
everywhere on the rise. But we regret that the Bolsheviks have not yet
shaken the dust of Marxism from their feet. The Bolsheviks are at the
crossroads: Marxism or anarchism?" (quoted in Paul Avrich (ed) The
anarchists in the Russian Revolution 1973).
Unsurprisingly, faced by the reality of revolution, Russian anarchism
fractured. Some anarchists joined the Communist Party, others fought in the
Red Army or Cheka. On the other hand, there were those who lined up against
the Soviet regime and turned to counterrevolution and terrorism.
One of the most celebrated of the latter was the Ukrainian peasant-based
army of Nestor Makhno, which was responsible for vicious anti-semitic
massacres (hence carrying on the fine Bakuninite tradition of anti-semitism)
and which also collaborated with the White armies. For some reason, Makhno
is still a much romanticised figure in the anarchist pantheon. Anti-semitism
is, of course, no longer respectable - even amongst fools.
True, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks the Russian
Revolution made many mistakes. But its impact has been phenomenal. Because
of it, we still live in an epoch of transition - the transition from
moribund capitalism to communism.

by anarcho Sun Jul 27, 2003 16:50 anarcho at geocities dot com

"As Marx is to socilaism, who are the forefathers of anarchism?"

There are various writers who can be considered
as being key people in the development of anarchism. They would be

Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta.

Others of interest are Stirner, Goldman, Berkman.

More recent thinkers would include Bookchin,
Chomsky and Guerin.

If you visit "An Anarchist FAQ" you will discover
more details about these people and what they
did and thought:

http://www.anarchistfaq.org

One last thing, no anarchist would consider themselves
as a "Bakuninist" or "Proudhonist" or whatever.
These thinkers don't play the same role in anarchist theory
as Marx does in Marxism. They are not considered
as oracles to be followed, more sources of inspiration and insight.

by Anonymous Sat Jul 26, 2003 16:59

As Marx is to socilaism, who are the forefathers of anarchism?

by Anonymous Sat Jul 26, 2003 15:18

I think you make some good points there James ref. your piece on "Economy & Freerider", and you also touch upon some of the problems an anarchist society might encounter.

To take you up on one point, if I may:-

You say "we can’t force people to be socialist". Yet you finish your piece saying:-

"In Spain during the revolution people who didn’t want to join the collectives were free to work on their own, but they weren’t allowed to employ others. Might be a good place to start."

If they are not allowed to employ others, is this not taking away their freedom and indirectly forcing them to be socialist or if they refuse to be socialist, placing restrictions on alternative means which they may wish to engage in?

by (A) Sat Jul 26, 2003 05:59

What this last post really means is that they cant handle a debate with the anarchists cuz they get crushed. Like now,when they have clearly lost and they know it. They are simply out of arguments! Good work comrades!

by *** Fri Jul 25, 2003 20:18

They don't bother using this site anymore. Any socialists posting here get pelted with unfounded accusations, abuse and innuendo. Why would they bother visiting?

by iosaf the ipsiphi Fri Jul 25, 2003 20:18

In some way my thoughts are influenced by the book I chanced upon today, one which most of you have not read, but would be interested in.
"My".
by Yevgueni ivanovitch Zamiatin.
the sylable "My" in Russian means the word "Us" in English.
Zamiatin was born in Russia in 1884 and lived till 1937, he died in Paris.
He began his literary career in 1916.
in the period between 1922 and 1924 most of his work was produced. The period of the Revolutionary source of conflict between socialist and anarchist. Zamiatin left Russia, I believe as an exile in 1931 for prague, then to Paris. The work "My" {which we now know equals "us"} is a complex dystopic comedy and one of those intriguing works of almost ipsiphi like science fiction.
The works of Zamiatin published in french in that period 22-24 did not enter Russian till the 1950s let us think of the optimism felt in such deep secret by the imminent death of Stalin.
They did not enter Spanish till publication in Barcelona 1972 of the edition I passed by today. Let us think of Catalonia of that period preparing itself for the imminent death of Franco.

"My" which "=" "Us" which "=" "nosostros" is based long into the future, the time of "the only State". Names have been replaced by numbers, the street of the 20th century with it's "polychromous blend of clothing and people" has been replaced by light grey overalls. The narrator nominated "D501" is a mathematician and designer of the "Integral" the only State's first rocket plane.
"integral" is a word of ambigious meaning, it equates to both indispensibility and almost "organic biology". The work is divided into 40 chapters introduced as "synthesis". The first reads (*forgive my quotations I'm using the BCN 1st edition).
"Synthesis: a journalistic outline, the most inteligent writer, a poem".

I am not an intellectual of anarchism, it is not for me to argue economic theory with any of the Left, nor am I a historian, it is not for me to cut hairs over dates long past, I am a musician and writer. I read and listen. Zamiatin represented in his works of dystopia that many believe inspired both Orwell and Huxley who we know were privy to the French texts long before their translation to English, a horror of the mechanisation of self and individual faced with technological change which had already (in 1922) demonstrated itself to be running to disaster, independent and exterior to the state apparatus.

Some called Zamiatin the heretic of Socialism.
some invoked his work as proof indeed that Eric Blair / Mr George Orwell was indeed an anarchist or worse a plagiarist.

Anarchists have always walked the street with Socialists, they have fomented and achieved revolution together, be they revolutions that end in the dawn of new states, emblems and flags or the revolutions that lead to new identities, ways of thinking, ways of living.

When first I as writer and musician wrote for IMC ireland as the ipsiphi iosaf narrator I invoked the memory of Orwell and the square which today I left photos of in another article. We have long past 1984. Socialists will continue, but they must always know that next to them are the Anarchists. & that is why socialists must afford space to the anarchists of today in their discourse and publications. Time and time again from the russian revolution to the spanish civil war which I believe also included a war of national determination for Catalan principally and the Basque people's less so. To the cultural revolution of Mao, to the explosion of global conscienceness of the final years of the 20th century with the new frontiers of Zamiatin's beloved mathematics offering us the internet and globalised hyper capitalism and the synthesis of same which was the beginning of our present global movements in the final decade.
Anarchist have always marched with Socialists but been suspected and resented by them. Why? Because in many ways we are the ·conscience· of Bolshevik revolution. It is not insignificant that our symbols are rooted in the murders of workers and protesters. Moreover many times because we were suspected of being petty buorgiose placing to much emphasis on the rights of the individual the "ego" the "I" than the "my" of "us" and the state.
It is worth commenting that in Zamiatin's work the promised utopia never is reached. Nor in orwell yet in Huxley yes only to be most dystopic and a-natural humanity ever envisioned. The a-natural humanity we have now entered upon, since hyper-capitalism and the extent of Zamiatin's and indeed "my" {that of iosaf/o as if} mathematics has allowed speculation upon the very codification of our genetic code.

the important things have always been and always will be quite simple to understand and convey. And that is the work of the artist, and it is also worth commenting that of those Anarchists whose thoughts and works and deeds have passed yo us all, the intellectuals and historians also numbered artists. & what is beautiful is that we all knock on doors and tend to the grassroots as best we can.


And that ends the comminuqué from chauncey the guerilla gardener today.

Autonomy Begins With Self!
Reclaim the Streets!
Reclaim the Genome!
Reclaim yourselves.
BASTA.

by Yossarian Fri Jul 25, 2003 19:57

A good book on the subject is Moving Forward (Towards a Particpatory Economy) by Michael Albert. There are other loads of other books on the subject. The thrust of Albert's arguement can be viewed at this link:
http://www.dualpower.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB_14&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=108&50
or go to
http://www.dualpower.net/
and hit the link for Alternative Economics and open the participatory economics (parecon) summary posted by Yossarian (not me).

The basic principle is that people state what they want, find out what's available and review their needs. The key point is the participation of everybody in the decisions. People are rewarded for their work in proportion to the effort required (not knowledge), thus a coal miner (if still required) would be compensated more than an accountant for their work. Another key point is that people would have to be prepared to have "balanced job complexes" so that everyone does some manual labour and some intellectual work and are encouraged to participate in assemblies and discussions from an early age so that more people will have confidence in group discussions.

There are a few questionable ideas in the book but overall it's a good blueprint for an alternative economy with a useful Q & A section and an attemt at practical examples of how to achieve the various aspects.

by Anonymous Fri Jul 25, 2003 19:35

Interesting indeed why socialists are strangely (or not) so quiet on this debate.

One reason I would think is that this site is far more used by anarchists than socialists. That ain't scientific mind you, I think it is just the general trend.

But as "agent of chaos" says, they are active on other threads so their fewer populus on this site as a whole does not go to answering their quiteness.

Though coming more from a socialist perspective myself, I am beginning to wonder that they are not confident enough to take on the well able & knowledgeable anarhists who are supporting their position on this thread??

Socialists, do you care to argue your position? Once again, particularly in relation, to the absolute necessity of a state??

by Agent of Chaos Fri Jul 25, 2003 18:43

On other threads. They obviously have their own reasons for boycotting this thread.

by Answer Fri Jul 25, 2003 18:26

The answer is.... at work.

Remember that thing that people do. I know you anarchist are either a. very rich and dont have to work, or b. spaced out on drugs and living in a commune, so you dont know what work is.

Socialists on the other hand are members of the working class (remember them- it's the people you anarchists are always talking about but have no real experience of) and have to sell their labour to earn a living

by Terry Fri Jul 25, 2003 18:04

Someone above asked what about resource allocation and intellectual property (IP)

I will answer the issue of IP first. IP basically covers patents and copyrights. Well I think we only need to look at the incredible success of free-software and the whole copyleft arena to see that in fact it won't be a problem. On a related question, I have heard people say, well who will write music/songs, novels and so forth. My answer is that music and writing were long in existence before copyright was and that plenty of people play and compose music as well as write, at home, purely because they enjoy it. It is true that perhaps some of the better writers of music and literature can and do take advantage of cashing in, but I find it hard to believe they wouldn't want to write anyhow. And I think my point is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are many software programmers/developers etc that have written great and very useful software, without getting a penny for it. They simply enjoy doing it and showing off their talents.

And so to patents. Thank goodness Newton, Einstein and many many others didn't patent any of their work. Science is sort of anarchistic, although in recent years as it has been increasingly touched by money, this aspect has been falling away. But in the past, a scientist could work on something for say 5, 10 or 20 years, and he/she would then simply give it all away free by publishing it. True they did need some sort of payment while doing their work, but today, the vast majority of scientists do NOT get the benefits of any patents. The benefit usually goes to the corporation or government/university that is paying them. At the core, scientists enjoy the pursuit of knowledge and I don't doubt that they will stop if we abandoned patents.

And so on to abandoning patents and copyright. We now have the technology to make every word ever printed, every film, every piece of audio online for free access by everyone. If we had this, it would vastly boost our capabilities. Imagine being able to click your way down through all those references for everything. I am confident it would be a huge boom to science, education and culture.

And finally to allocation of resources. Well indeed, material as opposed to information resources are tricker and in effect what has been proposed are various councils, communes and committees to decide. The central issue everyone is grabbling with is the parasitic behaviour of individuals to take more resources for themselves. In capitalism, rules, and ultimately force and violence determine which of the main parasites, get the spoils, whereas for anarchists, they are trying to do away with the force by the minority and replace it with reasoning by the majority. However I think there will be situations where some kind of force will have to be used.

The problem is if in a local situation, the majority are working together to collude and act parasitically in the larger community. This is equivalent to isolated groups of Nazis or Capitalists working together to concentrate resources where they are in the majority locally and then linking up to coalasce their groups to attack the main body of society. In biological terms this is sort of like before something becomes a plague, where there are local patches of disease, but if it is allowed to get out of hand, it could affect the whole area and destroy it. While this is an important issue for anarchism to deal with, we must remember the current capitalist system is the equivalent of that plague being endemic to everywhere. So it's not a case of 'Ha!' it can't answer, so it doesn't work, instead it's a genuine problem that affects all types of systems.

by James - WSM Fri Jul 25, 2003 17:20

Discussing anarchist economics is a big topic, advance apologies for the inadequacy of this answer! Haven’t got Andrew’s computer stamina. Need more training!

Ray’s link to the faq is worth following.

I think we need to emphasise that anarchist society depends on the *mass involvement* of people. They need to act in a libertarian socialist manner; with a spirit of mutual aid. The removal of the selfish mentality should facilitate the workings of a socialist society. For example, people won’t have to object to every development as the price of their only asset, their house, will be irrelevant.

If mass participation in a solidaric manner doesn’t happen it won’t work. But if it does work it solves a lot of problems: who gets the best healthcare, housing, mind-numbing jobs.

I think a libertarian socialist society and economy would be simpler than the current one. We wouldn’t need classes of human resources personnel, advertisers, stockbrokers, insurance agents and loads else. People on the ground would be making most of the decisions relating to their jobs and they’re usually the ones who know best.

But it does depend on it not being taken for a ride. It is of course possible that individuals will do so, but we can’t force people to be socialist. It would be possible to control abuse provided it doesn’t go crazy. But freedom does mean that it has the potential to go wrong.

How are choices to be made with anarchism? Democratically. Those who are affected should have a meaningful opportunity to participate. Choices should be made in a free manner, with a spirit of mutual aid. Hopefully the knowledge that the interests of others is important to one’s own long-term well-being will have sunk in by then.
So the building of, say, a metro should be the concern of all residents in Dublin. We’d also need to ascertain the views in particular of transport and construction workers.

Freeriders
You want to use the bridge but don’t want to make a contribution. Well then you shouldn’t be allowed use the bridge by those who built it, who maintain it, by the community. Free-riders shouldn’t be permitted, mostly they try and use the labour of others for their own benefit. The present ruling class is an example. I’m not in favour of encouraging their re-emergence.

I don’t include here the aged or those who are handicapped etc and unable to contribute. Generally I think that you make an effort is more important than the contribution itself.

In Spain during the revolution people who didn’t want to join the collectives were free to work on their own, but they weren’t allowed to employ others. Might be a good place to start.

by Anonymous Fri Jul 25, 2003 16:51

A lot more than talking has been done in the last 4 years, since Seattle '99 (and previous to then), if you have observed or have been involved in.

But in planning anything, there is always a necessity for discussion, as well. This thread was started by an organised anarchism or socialism debate - This to me is a big step forward, and the fact that this, at least yet anyhow, "amazingly"!, has not degenerated into the usual retarded slagging match, to me is another step forward.

But I take the point I assume your trying to make, that it is action, that will really make things change.

by Ray Fri Jul 25, 2003 16:48

If you look at all the other things on this site, or the work done by the WSM and the SP in recent years, its clear that nobody thinks you get a revolution by talking about it.
At the same time, the past is there to be learned from. There's no point in just charging down the same old blind alleys, especially since some of those alleys led to the creation of dictatorships that went on for decades.
"You're all talk", like "you're just sectarian", is a phrase often used by people who want you to blindly follow their lead rather than think about what you're doing.

by The Insider Fri Jul 25, 2003 16:28

Well, that seems to be the consensus here. Revolution will be brought about by discussing the ins and outs of events from eighty years ago which have already been exhaustively discussed for as long as anyone can remember.

by iosaf Fri Jul 25, 2003 16:11

ordering my thoughts.
http://cf.heritage.org/index/indexoffreedom.cfm
sorry need to put it somewhere.

by Anonymous Fri Jul 25, 2003 15:08

It seems to me here that we have half a debate, with the socialist argument sadly missing - particularly in relation to the necessity for a state, where the key difference lies between the two ideologies.

Where are all the socialists??

Despite James's good examples above of, what he asserts to be, successful examples of a lot of people organising in a libertarian manner - I remain unconvinced that it can be done on a nation wide scale and over a long period of time. Where every individual within a nation can have "direct" involvement in "all" the decision making and actions which affect them.

Nevertheless I do not deny the possiblity of this being possible.

So anyone care to suggest then why it is absolutely necessary to have a state??

by iosaf Fri Jul 25, 2003 15:08

:-)

by iosaf Fri Jul 25, 2003 15:07

long have i readyour words, and I respect your explanations of Anarchism. You have to remember that I after being out of IReland where I was not particularly ideologically pure as an anarchist, I ahve now spent a long time and living amongst anarchists and take it for granted that these arguments can be taken as said.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the causes of colonial expansion, study of India or HongKong alone draws all those links together. But one thing, the freedom of capital has only returned to the levels of the 1870s when it peaked since 1998. That stunning fact comes from the Economist magazine survey of 2001. Most people think that capital has continued on an upper curve of "freedom" when it hasn't at all. Most of the 20th century capital was less "free" than for most of the 19th. In the 21st capital seeks to become "total" planetery yet without any substance value no gold standard no value. Money menat something in the 19th now it means nothing. Property likewise now "means" less than at any stage before. I'll come back to this I can't order my thoughts so quickly at the keyboard.

but thanks,continue with the debate!

by Ray Fri Jul 25, 2003 15:01

The best thing to do is take a look at the anarchist FAQ. Section I, on what an anarchist society would look like, addresses questions about anarchist economy
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secIcon.html
(I know, being told to read something else isn't a great answer, but it would take ages for me to write an original answer here)
(Was iosaf asking about resource allocation? Is iosaf the new Chauncy Gardener, whose gnomic comments everyone interprets in new and different ways?)

by Chekov Fri Jul 25, 2003 14:56

The nub of the argument here is: whether people who wish to advance the cause of human freedom can use the state. This argument is still exactly as relevant today as it was in the 1870's, and it is exactly as much a point of division among the left. Nor is it something that you can pick and choose different bits from: either you have a single centralised authority over a given area, with a monopoly on violence, or you don't. You can wish these arguments away into the past, but then you won't avoid falling into the same old holes. The evidence used is mainly from Russia and Spain, because it is the best evidence available and the most obviously relevant to the particular argument. We could use evidence drawn from any aspect of human organisation, but the link to our political positions would be less obvious and the argument would come across as even more obscure.

Iosaf: the nation-state and capitalism are siamese twins, they have always gone together. States serve as fronts for capitalism, and always have. Capital itself has no nation, it shops around to find a warm and comfortable state under whose wing it can nestle. States compete amongst themselves to act as capitalism's guardians, thus achieving power. I have never come across any argument that has gone any way towards convincing me that this era of 'globalisation' and multi-national capital represents any significant break from the past. Generally these positions are put forward as glib statements without any evidence whatsoever - as if the fact that we have computers now and the internet meant that the fundamental rules of economics must be different. In those few cases where people actually try to use evidence to show that this era of globalisation represents a paradigm shift (as in books like empire), IMHO they merely mis-interpret the past and accept the glib generalisations of the history books about the nature of capitalism in the age of empire. For example, most people assume that the scramble for Africa was driven by states competing with each other to possess as much of the world as possible for 'their' capitalists and to have as large an empire as possible. In fact the concentrations of capital in the colonies were as multi-national as they are today and the competing states were always happy to welcome their competitors capital. The second largest company in French west africa was British, for example.

So, rather than telling us how disappointed you are with our analysis, why not tell us in what ways you think the current era of globalisation should affect the fundamental analysis of the state?

Finally to answer the SY member:

"After a revolution there will still be class conflict between the workers and bourgeois.

Surely it's logical that the working class will use THEIR state to oppress the remnants of bourgeois."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. After a revolution there will be no bourgeois. Remember your Marx? What defines the bourgeois? Do you think they will still be in control of the means of production AFTER a revolution? If so, it's not much of a revolution.

After a revolution, rather than having a class conflict, what you invariably have is a load of different minorities wishing to subjugate the majority to their rule. Many of these minorities merely serve as fronts for the ex-bourgeois who naturally want their power back, but other minorities, like the leninists, wish to subjugate the majority to a new elite.

The state is, among other things, a tried and tested mechanism for a minority to impose their rule on the majority. Without the state, there is no means of doing so (although you could probably come up with one from scratch). Thus, it is the immediate task of revolutionaries to destroy it, dismantle it, annihilate it, sow salt in its ruins, that it can't be used by any wanna be elite to subjugate us anew.

by seedot Fri Jul 25, 2003 14:49

Interesting debate but i agree that iosafs questions have real value here. I am interested in how resource allocation would happen in an anarchist society - how do we build a bridge, or a chip fabrication plant? Currently, IP and other forms of property yield rewards to capitalists to do this. Under socialism it will be included in the 5 year plan devised by the enlightened leaders who know what we all want. How would it happen under anarchism? How will we deal with the free rider problem (I want to use the bridge but don't want to pay - let everyone else donate resources). Whether you have a money based economy or not, there will be choices to be made about resources and large scale projects that need to be undertaken - how is this envisaged under anarchism? I've looked at some of the parecon writings but can't see the answer to these (honest) questions. I think the answers could also be of value in challenging the growing intellectual property regimes which are presented as the only way that science and research can function.

by Andrew Fri Jul 25, 2003 14:06

Gaillimhed have you ever considered just how like Bush or Blair you sound when you tell us that the past is irrelevant and our ideas are out dated. Like them you feel it is enough to make these bold statements, you don't stoop to offering any sort of argument for why you believe this.

The struggle for freedom is not, as you seem to think, something invented in the 19thC by learned guys with beards. It is as old as human civilisation. Hey if you want to call us 'out dated' why not go back to the first recorded labour dispute, which took place amongst the tomb builders in the Valley of the Kings.

by Gaillimhed Fri Jul 25, 2003 13:57

Why you're all so learnedly discussing the revolutionary ins and outs of soviet russia and 1930's Spain, you seem to forget that we live in the 21st century where things are just a little different. we could argue how much different, but lets agree; different enough. I think that was what iosaf was trying to get at. If not i aplogise to iosaf.
The rest of you (not all) are talking shite basically. rehashing the political debates of the nineteenth century that were already obsolete in the twentieth...becaurse thats all you know, trapped in the past and not learning anything from it. The actual realities that your labels, definitions and concepts relate to have been so drastically changed in the intervening century that your politics are almost meaningless at this stage.#
dont get me wrong either, I am with you in principal, but not policy.
goodbye.

by Ray Fri Jul 25, 2003 13:40

The Irish state is in the pocket of corporations, yes. This is nothing new. The ruling class is the ruling class, whether they wear a business suit or a party rosette.
Getting rid of the state will achieve nothing if you don't also get rid of capitalism, because capitalism will just recreate the state. (Similarly, if you get rid of capitalism but not the state then the state will recreate capitalism)
If you got rid of the state and capitalism in Ireland alone you'd be invaded by capitalist states.
Given all of this, I'm not sure what Iosaf's questions are.

by McMuppet Fri Jul 25, 2003 13:33

The Irish State plainly is not the controlling influence in Ireland, It is a facade with nothing 'Irish' behind it.

by € Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:36

with a neat Chomsky essay on Socialism and the Sov Union.

by iosaf Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:34

Which way the revolution: Anarchism or socialism

not what is the state.

None of you (in work time too we note)
have addressed the nature of the state in the 21st century, when it has transformed into a arm of the multi-national-corporation.
You have written thousands of words on the State of Russia.
not a single on the emergent phenomona of the Superstate. be it USA NAFTA €U etc.,
not a single word on property neither.

You discuss class conflict using outdated definitions. I am now dissappointed with Irish Socialist and Anarchist alike.
If tomorrow you take away the Irish state, you will still have a new global class.
several new global classes.
All of you belong to the cyber class.
Had you given thought to that?

This discussion is academic.
and boring.

by James - WSM Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:33

To deny that it is ever possible to organise a lot of people in a libertarian manner is to make a very strong claim. If it were done only once before then this is enough to counter your argument. In fact it has been done repeatedly.

I should have mentioned in the previous post some specific examples of mass libertarian organising. The Spanish union the CGT is run on anarchist-syndicalist lines and has 40,000-50,000 members. The CNT had over a million members before they lost the civil war in Spain.
The self-managed collectives in Spain involved millions of people doing the basics of production and living. In a military situation, undoubtedly the most difficult ones to keep libertarian, principles the anarchists have fought using militias, for example the ones that fought the fascists in Spain involved tens of thousands of men and women.
This only a taste of what is possible.

What is the Marxist position of mass involvement in running society? Do ye think it’s possible? If so then why do you need a special entity with centralised power (a state)? If not then why not call a spade a spade and say so. It is a coherent position.

There is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in the anti-libertarian position. If you don’t make the effort to achieve a libertarian society then it definitely isn’t going to happen. So if you can’t picture yourselves playing a part then we’re going to be waiting a lot longer than I’d like.

by Ray Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:23

Its funny, while Trots always say that they believe in 'socialism from below', scratch them deep enough and they'll start defending the USSR, just like Bolshie above. Bolshie goes on to deny Marxist theory (et tu, Bolshie?), by arguing that an anarchist society will never be possible. When Marx talked about the state withering away he was obviously raving, as we will always need a state to enforce the rules of correct living!
If it makes you feel any better Bolshie, I don't think that society will fragment into a patchwork of radically different communities, because I don't think many people will have a burning desire to live in Trotland, Randville, or Hitlerberg. What I'm saying is that people will want to live in different ways, and thats okay as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of others. If that means the occassional town wants to build statues of Lenin and embalm their leaders, that's up to them. I don't think many places will be that crazy.

As for the boy Bolshevik, there is no contradiction in the anarchist conception of the state. As an instrument of minority rule, it reinforces class society. As a product of class society, it imposes minority rule. The two functions are irrevocably intertwined.
As I said above, what you fail to realise is that the class as a whole cannot control the state. The state is run from the top down, by a small minority, and always will be. 'Workers states', despite the name, can never be controlled by _all_ workers, but only by a minority who claim to rule _on behalf_ of the workers. And this minority, this new ruling class, will, as you say, use the state "to maintain control and to oppress all other classes". Control of the means of production is key, as you say, but control of the means of production will be in the hands of the new ruling class, not the working class as a whole.
The lessons of Russia are very clear. As soon as the Bolsheviks took power, long before the start of the civil war, they started taking control away from the workers and centralising it in the hands of the state. Every position of power in the state was filled from above, by appointment. Legal fiction may have claimed that the workers owned the means of production, but it was completely clear that CONTROL was in the hands of the state, that the state was in the hands of the Bolsheviks, and that the Bolsheviks were in the hands of their central committee. This was as true in 1921 as in 1981.

by anarcho Fri Jul 25, 2003 08:04 anarcho at geocities dot com

Malatesta had this to say about the Bolsheviks
and their attitutude to freedom. It's worth
quoting:

Bolsheviks "are incapable of conceiving freedom
and of respecting for all human beings the dignity they expect, or should expect, from others. If one speaks of freedom they immediately
accuse one of wanting to respect, or at least tolerate, the freedom to oppress and exploit one's fellow beings."

Looks like nothing has changed!

As for "Boy Bolshevik"...

"I hear a load of different things about the State from Anarchists. Some say it is the product of a class society, some define state as being a small number of the people, etc."

There is no contradiction in those definitions.
The state is centralised and gives power to a
few people *because* of its function as a
defender of class society.

"This is a crucial question. Marxists view the State as the product of the class system (ie bourgeois ownership). The State is an instrument of the ruling class to maintain control and to oppress all other classes."

Quite. It *is* an instrument of ruling class
control. That is its function, to maintain
minority rule. It is not designed for majority
participation and power.

And you can get rid of "bourgeois ownership"
and still have an unequal and unjust society.
Look at Lenin's Russia, which was state
capitalist. The state bureaucrats expolited
and oppressed the workers.

"Therefore, it is necessary to have a workers state where the workers establish a state to opress the bourgeoisie and maintain the control of themselves as a ruling class."

No "therefore" involved there. Bakunin saw the
need to defend a revolution and for working class
self-organisation in workers' councils. The
mass participation this involved cannot be
equated to a state. As Lenin's Russia showed.

"Some Anarchists see the state as the problem and not the symthom of the problem. Anarchists should see that the thing we should be concerned with is who owns and controls the means of production."

The ideas that "who owns and controls the means
of production" being the key was, ironically,
refuted by Felix Morrow and Trotsky in the 1930s.
Having control over production means little if
the state is still around. The Spanish revolution
should be enough evidence for that!

Anarchists argue that we need to get rid of
capitalism *and* the state. As Lenin's Russia
showed, who "owns and controls" the means of
productin *is* important. Either its the workers
or its the state. Under Lenin, it was the state.
He replaced capitalism with state capitalism and
created the basis for the rise of Stalinism.

"Anarchists have a fetish with the State!"

Far from it. We just think who has power after a
revolution as being important. Is it the working
class as a whole (i.e. anarchism) or is it the
central committee of the party (i.e. Bolshevism).

The sad fact is that Bolsheviks generally confuse
the two, so ensuring the defeat of a revolution.

for more on the anarchist critique of Marxism
visit:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secHcon.html

visit here for a reply to some of the more
common Marxist myths about anarchism:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html

or

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append3.html

by The Boy Bolshevik Fri Jul 25, 2003 00:07

I hear a load of different things about the State from Anarchists. Some say it is the product of a class society, some define state as being a small number of the people, etc.

This is a crucial question. Marxists view the State as the product of the class system (ie bourgeois ownership). The State is an instrument of the ruling class to maintain control and to oppress all other classes.

Therefore, it is necessary to have a workers state where the workers establish a state to opress the bourgeoisie and maintain the control of themselves as a ruling class.

Some Anarchists see the state as the problem and not the symthom of the problem. Anarchists should see that the thing we should be concerned with is who owns and controls the means of production.

Anarchists have a fetish with the State!

by Bolshie Thu Jul 24, 2003 20:36

Some valid points made Ray, however, the USSR basically collapsed because it could not economically beat Capitalism. Their attempts to redistribute the wealth(no matter how misguided) couldn't compete with a market led alternative. They were isolated, their money had zero exchange value and their people were bombarded with propaganda that life in the "free world" was like a Hollywood blockbuster. The Soviet establishment used everything in its power including imprisonment to try to stem "western propaganda" and it all collapsed.

Then you say something like well it would be alright to defend the revolution. How? the armoury is in a town that has declared itself Nogunshereville and burned it fuckin down

You think that a society could operate where you headed to Coolock and found that a cult of Nazis were gathered, past through to Howth and met a free market area where you were required to have money to buy food, and went on to Swords only to be welcomed by the red guard asking could you quote Trotsky's last words.

Sounds like something out of a Max Max movie! I still don't want a

by Anonymous Thu Jul 24, 2003 19:52

Yes, sorry Andrew, I was aware that you are not interested in free elections for better leaders etc. etc. I just wanted to ask you the above question to see what your exact response would be. Thank you for your answer.

To me, anarchism, is indeed a very ideal system. The only problem is it really realistic?

Is it feasible for every individual within a society to have direct involvement in the decision making process for actions which affect them? You would be talking about hundreds/thousands of different actions & decisions, in a society which could involve tens/ hundreds of millions of people.

If this is truly feasible & workable, then I cannot see how anyone would prefer Socialism or anything other than anarchism.

The question, is it feasible?

by iosaf the ipsiphi Thu Jul 24, 2003 19:37

the nature of what we now consider to be property.

Your genes, your intellect, your work, your existance is now deemed to have notional vaule as property.

I have yet to encounter any Marxist/Leninist tract that offers us a satisfactory solution to the nature of "property".
All the intellectuals and trolls above have passed through the "why did the republicans lose the Spanish civil war" to "why did Lenin precede Stalin and the Gualags" to "why are there militia in the Minnisota hills", yet no-one has mentioned that under Marxist thought and practise at present, genetic patents and intellectual copyright will continue. They shall go from being capital speculated upon by the ruling class, to capital speculated upon by the post revolutionary class the "pre-utopian stateless dystopic mega state of Bolshevikism".

Only Anarchism with it's inherent rejection of the material dialectic concept of property and the derived right of the state to control the means of production of said property offers an escape for one of the most serious problems that hyper-capitalism has given us.

I speak often of hoping that someday there is a hybrid across the range of anarchism / socialism /ecology /republicanism /liberation theology and reformist capitalism [though that may anger many it seems the most likely and human solution to our problems], I know from experience that large organisation requires "delegation" James (WSM) suggests that anarchists (and outisde of Ireland there are many varieties in Barcelona there are at least ten different large groupings) may influence other groups to take on "our" open system of decision making, of non-hierarchial and non-authoritarian action.
Indeed many of them do, but they feel loathe to admit that those ideas are central anarchistic tenets.
That is all very well, but at end, what interests me and many others a lot more, and to put a point on it the ecologists who are after all the most "macro-global" of the present day political movements is how we approach the issue of patents.

Would a socialist state continue to produce medicines and health products for export to the benefit of it's own proleteriat?

Would a socialist state continue to develop trans-genetic products for the benefit of it's workers?

These questions were addressed at the XXVI party congress of the People's Republic of China. And to great extent, for it is the issue of patent, material, and property that shall shape the future of our species in the 21st century.

Would a socialist state have the right to put premium on "oxygen" production to the benefit of it's own proletariat but to the detriment of other countries peoples?
These are the ___real___ questions.

NOT whether or not Lenin was a bastard, NOT whether or not the anarchists in Catalonia or Spain should have worn uniforms in 1936.

I reckon this is the sixth time I've suggested this issue online to ye. & no-one ever goes near it.

{{Meanwhile, all the important Autonomous centres of "Spain" are being seriously threatened, that ancient tradition of anarchism is being put against the wall by the macro-left capitalist reformists- it's been an exceedingly bad week.}}

by Paddy Thu Jul 24, 2003 18:13

So does that mean that the trots are stagist after all?

by Ray Thu Jul 24, 2003 18:03

Marxist theory, and its Leninist descendant, says that after a period of socialism the state will whither away, and we'll be left with an anarchist society. Which means that half the arguments that Leninists raise against anarchism are also arguments against Leninism! Somebody start up the bonfires, we've got some heretics to dispose of...

by James - WSM Thu Jul 24, 2003 17:51

SY member:
Note that Chekov didn’t accept that anarchists have a leadership. There was a "for the sake of argument" bit in his comment.

There is truth about the WSM finding it easier to operate in a libertarian manner because of our small size. However libertarian organising isn’t just for anarchists or small groups; we advocate libertarian forms for every campaign and larger groups that we are involved in.

I think it is more difficult to keep a larger group organised on libertarian lines, but not impossible. A federal system using delegates can be used, but it will only remain libertarian if the base keeps active in making the decisions and using the structures and delegates to transmit this information to the others.

If you think it is impossible to ever organise large groups in a libertarian fashion (which I understand is your position) then where does this leave your distant goal of anarchy (state withering away etc). Will humans of the future be so fundamentally different that they will be capable of such feats whereas we need the guidance of leaders to bring us to that promised land?


RE Nazis:
I agree with Ray’s comments.
If a group of Nazis want to organise themselves in total isolation from everyone then let them off. I am doubtful that they will keep themselves isolated so we should we be careful to move against them if they threaten the rest of society. But it would be up to people to do this. Anarchists would do it themselves of course, but not force others. Hopefully many others wouldn’t tolerate active Nazism, which is manifestly a threat to liberty. See my above comments on self-defence.

Anarchism depends on the active participation of the vast majority of the population, if you get too many cases of Nazis etc, then you won’t have that substantial participation and what you’re getting at (though not expressing!) is right: you won’t have an anarchist society.

I suppose the question is whether you think such mass participation is possible. If you think it is, then it seems worthwhile attempting to achieve it. If you don’t, and there are lots of reasons not to, then fair enough, I can see why you want a centralised authority. Though the record of states is as bloody as anything else on earth I should think.

Proud Leninist: “Surely it's logical that the working class will use THEIR state to oppress the remnants of bourgeois.
ANSWER THAT!”
See my comments on self-defence above. A quick scan of the Struggle site produced these links relating to anarchist militias.

http://struggle.ws/ws/2000/makhno59.html
http://struggle.ws/spain/scRevSpain/c2_aug36.html
http://struggle.ws/spaindx.html#Revolution (general link)

by Ray Thu Jul 24, 2003 17:42

Militias (and other anti-social types) - the basic principle anarchists use is that the only limit on individual freedom should be the equal freedom of all others.*
If you want to live in a survivalist commune where everybody wears camouflage, salutes a flag, prays on the bible, and marries their sister, well that's up to you**.
If you want to live in Commiecommune, where everyone calls each other comrade, recites the speeches of Lenin back and forth at each other, and ends each day with a stirring rendition of the Internationale as the red flag is taken down and packed into the Tomb of the First Comrade, that's your loss.
If you want to live in capitalistcommune, reinvent money, sell your services to each other, set up your own stock market, and erect a giant statue of Mary Harney, I hope you have fun.

It becomes NOT OKAY when you start to insist that other people should live like that, when you try to enforce your opinions at gunpoint, or when you take actions (building a nuclear power plant, dumping chemicals in a river) that effect other people. So militias that don't bother anyone else are fine. Militias (red, brown or green) that interfere with others are a different matter.

The other important principle to remember (and this answers your question about guns) is that decisions should be made by those effected by them. Something that follows from this is that there is no need to find a single 'right' answer, that everyone has to live by. If you live in a town where people want to carry guns, that's up to your town. As long as, when you travel to nearby 'NoGunsHereville', you respect their rules.

The only universal insisted on by anarchist society is that everyone has an equal right to make the decisions that effect them. Everyone has an equal say and an equal vote in their town*** or soviet or workplace.

* this explanation is my own, naturally. others may disagree on the details

** an important proviso being that everyone is free to leave at any time, and that your kids don't suffer from actions they're too young to endorse

*** unless they freely decide to move to a town where the 'advanced members' of the town get to decide things for them (and freely decide to stay there)

by Bolshie Thu Jul 24, 2003 17:23

Ok maybe the milita analogy is a bit crude, but, are they not an example of people living the way they wish? Would an anarchist society have a problem with these nazi's? If so, then you are impinging on their FREEDOM. If not, well... I don't look forward to an anarchist society. What about the right to bear arms? Would anarchists allow the freedom for a lad or lassie to stockpile a small armoury? Yes? Your anarchist society would rapidly become a nightmare. No? Who would decide?

It's easy to judge what was done in the name of socialism in the past but more difficult if we had a concrete example of an anarchist society to examine or compare. We don't. Therefore anarchism is (for now) an asperation (nothing wrong with this at all) that we have no "actually existing anarchist society" to study, either past or present.

BTW I am not supporting a centralised leadership handing down dictat to the workers. I believe in socialism from below. I just think it's simplistic to say Lenin did this or that and what resulted was wrong. Way too simplistic. What made Lenin do what he did? What were the conditions in which influenced what he and the Party did? If those conditions had not existed would he and the have taken an alternative strategy/tactic/course of action?

by Ray Thu Jul 24, 2003 17:20

Anarchists don't just see the state as a product of class conflict. We recognise that it necessarily recreates a division between ruling class and everyone else.
States are ruled from the top-down. The people at the top are a minority, and they have power, which means the majority don't.
The working class cannot control the state, because the working class is made up of millions of people. The state can only be controlled by a few. Leninists deliberately blur the distinction between their party and the working class, and equate 'rule by the working class' with 'rule by the Leninist party'*. And so the state will be used against whoever the _party_ decides is the enemy, not whoever the _class_ decides.

*of course, the party is also too big to control the state. The state is actually controlled by the top level of the party, who will use the state, not just against bourgeois elements, and not just against 'backward elements' (read 'the ones who didn't vote for us') of the working class, but also against oppositional factions of their own party.

It happens again and again in history. The Russian Revolution is merely the best example. But even though Leninists are always looking back to Russia, and even though its the perfect example of the state being controlled by a small minority of people and used against _everyone_ else, they refuse to see what's staring them in the face. Because that would open up an 'appalling vista', where they'd have to question everything.

by Andrew Thu Jul 24, 2003 17:10

The state pretty much by definition is something ran by a tiny minority on behalf of everyone else. Now just because this tiny minority fancy that they are operating in the objective interests of the working class does not make it so.

It's up to the working class to decide and implement whatever measures are required to crush counter revolution. As soon as some party seizes state power to do this 'on behalf' of the workers then radical workers will find they are also in the states sights. This happened dozens of times in the last century - its no longer a matter of conjunction.

by Ray Thu Jul 24, 2003 17:04

You're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you talk about everyone in WSM being on 'the national exec'. On the other, you say that the national exec in the SP doesn't have any power. Which is it?
What powers does the SP National Exec have?
Is there _anything_ it can do without a vote of the membership, or does it only have the power to recommend things to the membership? Precise answers please.

(even the power to recommend, if other members don't have it, can distinguish a leadership, but we'll leave that for now)

by Agent of Chaos Thu Jul 24, 2003 17:03

"And on the re-callablity of the leadership. SP members can re-call the leadership at anytime- not just once a year at the Conference."

Ha! Ha! Just try it! Disagree with the leadership and....

Ever hear of John Throne, Finn Geany, John Reimann...

by Proud Leninist Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:57

The Anarchists (at least the WSM do) accept that the State is a product of class conflict.

After a revolution there will still be class conflict between the workers and bourgeois.

Surely it's logical that the working class will use THEIR state to oppress the remnants of bourgeois.

ANSWER THAT!

by SY member (personal capacity) Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:53

Checkov says that anarchist leaders (I take the point you dont think there are leaders) have to persuade the membership all the time.

This is the case in any Socialist organisation. Are you guys really naive enough to think that the Socialist leaders rule by dictat without any consideration of the membership! Do you really think that Leaders in Socialist organisations dont have to persuade the membership?!

And on the re-callablity of the leadership. SP members can re-call the leadership at anytime- not just once a year at the Conference.

The WSM are a very small organisation and can be effective as everyone is on the National Exec. But if you were to grow into an organisation of hundreds or thousands of members we would have big big problems with a lack of democracy.

by James - WSM Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:35

No, the freedom to exploit and oppress is not a freedom that anarchists defend: obviously so or we wouldn’t bother struggling against them.

We defend the individual’s freedom to do what she pleases as long as that does not attack the freedom of another. We don’t regard such behaviour as an expression of freedom, but rather as plain oppression. People have a right of self-defence when their own freedom is threatened.

The question that authoritarians need to answer is who decides what is an illegitimate encroachment on freedom. Is it to be a minority, namely the leadership, or each individual who then join together on a voluntary basis to defend and make use of that freedom?

An introduction to anarchist views on freedom is at
http://www.anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/talks/anarANDfreedom.html


Bolshie: "If some crisis in capitalism were to arise in Ireland that enabled a marxist or anachist group with the masses of the working class to overthrow the capitalist system, do you think the army, the police, the business class, the newspapers would all rally to the flag? Would anarchists oppose >moves to suppress elements that work to smash the socialist/anarchist revolution?"

No of course not. Defending the gains of a revolution is entirely legitimate. It fundamentally an act of self-defence. It is a defence of an increase in freedom. But that defence must be organised in a libertarian fashion. The anarchists didn’t shrink from this during the Spanish Civil war for example, setting up militias to fight the fascists. There’s simply no need for a centralised authority (a state) to do this.

by Andrew Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:25

I'm sure he was an anarchist and the order dissolving the CA was only issued the following day (after the fact). The bolsheviks did quite a lot of issuing orders for stuff that had already happened, in particular the land and factory seizures that had been underway since July.

by Watcher Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:20

Wasnt the "officer" of the guard in question a Left SR? And wasnt the CA formally dissolved by order of the Bolsheviks?

by Ray Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:11

Comparing anarchists to right-wing militias in the US, and saying they want 'the freedom to steal' hardly advances the debate, does it?
What kinds of freedom do we want?
The freedom to express political opinions - even pro-capitalist opinions, or opinions that others think are 'objectively counter-revolutionary'. This includes the right to distribute literature, and print newspapers. Even newspapers that say things were better under the Tsar, even newspapers that say Lenin (or Kropotkin, or Stalin) is a bastard, even newspapers that call for free elections, and call for people to vote for Kerensky.
The freedom to join political parties. This includes parties like (in Russia) the Socialist Revolutionaries, anarchist organisations, and yes, even pro-Tsarist capitalist restoration parties. Membership in any of these groups should not in itself be an excuse to send someone to the gulag.
The freedom to vote for whoever you like, and see that vote respected. If you're a member of a soviet, you should be allowed vote for whoever you like in soviet elections, and the winning candidate shouldn't have to wait for approval from the Central Committee. If you vote in constituent assembly elections, you should be able to stand yourself if you want, vote for whoever you like, and see the constituent assembly you voted for take power. No matter who has a majority.
These are just basic rights, that even members of a capitalist democracy can usually expect.

In a socialist society, you should be able to have a direct vote in the running of your workplace. Not have someone appointed to run your workplace for you. Not see your old manager returned to his position in the name of efficiency. But the freedom to form a factory committee that decides itself, in consultation with other committees, how the factory will be run.
You should have the same rights outside work. The town council, the village meeting, the city corporation - whatever the local body is - should be run directly by the inhabitants themselves (or by their mandated and recallable delegates for large bodies). All free to speak at meetings. All free to vote on (and propose) motions. No special rights for members of any parties.

The fact is that Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't even live up to the standards of capitalist society. Their dictatorship had nothing to do with socialist society. They claimed otherwise, of course, but Sinn Fein also claim that they're socialist. Its funny that people who will argue that SF can't be socialist because they took part in the NIA will also argue that the Bolsheviks were socialist after they instituted the militarisation of labour, the institution of dictatorship, and mass murder as a means of political persuasion.

by Aileen Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:08

n 1922 Emma Goldman complained Soviet Russia, had become the modern socialist Lourdes, to which the blind and the lame, the deaf and the dumb were flocking for miraculous cures(1). The Russian Revolution was the first occasion where decades of revolutionary ideas could be applied to real life. What was theory was now practice. The struggle between the two concepts of revolution - the statist-centralist and the libertarian federalist - moved from the realm of the abstract to the concrete.

The question thrown up by the October revolution is fundamental. Once capitalism has been defeated, how is communism to be achieved? While there are certainly faults to be found with aspects of the anarchist movement, at least it cannot be criticised for getting the basics wrong. Anarchists have consistently argued that freedom and democracy are not optional extras. Rather they form part of the conditions necessary for the growth of communism.

read on at http://struggle.ws/rbr/freerev.html

by Andrew Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:03

Well I like your last definition for whats that worth. But your still missing the point. Whatever definition of freedom you might choose its never something that is rationed out by a master (good, bad or indifferent). That is slavery.

Don't get the US reference at all, the militias are for the most part right wing are they not. i'm not aware of any anarchist ones. Or was that just a red herring?

'Anonymous' you I'm afraid are also missing the point. I'm not interested if free elections for better leaders. I want the working class to directly run society. In 1918 this did not mean the constituent assembly (incidentally this was dissolved by an anarchist with the casual remark 'the guard is tired' .. time to go home). In 1918 it meant free elections to the soviets and support for the factory committees rather then one man management.

by Bolshie Thu Jul 24, 2003 15:51

I suppose we need a clear defination of FREEDOM.

The freedom to exploit?

The freedom to steal?

The freedom to live the way you wish?

Anarchists can (not all do) argue that Anarchy equals the freedom to do what you like. When I consider anarchism I think of the milita movement in the US.

I don't think I miss your points. I just dont agree. Thats why I am not an anarchist.

by Watcher Thu Jul 24, 2003 15:46

The Constituent Assembley in which the Bolsheviks were a minority was dispersed at bayonet point.

by Anonymous Thu Jul 24, 2003 15:33

Andrew,

If Lenin & the Bolshevik party had been subject to open, democratic elections in 1918, do you think that this would have solved the problem than ensued?

by Andrew Thu Jul 24, 2003 14:56

Bolshie when you talk of Lenin and co "rationing of democracy" you are missing something.

1. Our critique of leninism is not simply on the basis of 'the party made the wrong decision on day z'. More importantly it is based on 'why should the party have been able to IMPOSE the decision its leadership made on day z on the rest of the population'. And 'why should it have been able to shut down all discussion in opposition to that decision'?

'Democracy' or freedom is not something that can be rationed. It is something you either have or have not. Freedom that is handed down in carefully measure portions by the master is not freedom but its opposite, slavery.

2. The assumption that this was the only way forward in 1918 is simply false. Russia was in the midst of a (then) historically unequaled experiment in workers self organisation that had started around May of 1917. Lenins ending of that period from May of 1918 on had less to do with the civil war then it had with putting every aspect of production and consumtion under the control of the Bolshevik party in general and the central committee in particular.

Key to this is understanding that the elements that he was suppressing were not simply the old ruling class, the army and the police. Quite often he was using sections of each of these to suppress non-Bolshevik sections of the workers movement and in at least one case oppositional currents within the Bolshevik party itself.

More on all this at http://anarchism.ws/left.html

by Chekov Thu Jul 24, 2003 14:18

To the SY member:

Firstly, I don't know Phil the Spart, but it is a tragedy that such handsomeness is wasted on a Spart ;-)

On the leadership thing, I probably didn't express myself as well as I would like during the debate. What I meant to say was this. In my opinion the leninist charge of anarchism being less democratic than leninism, on account of the 'informal' nature of the leaders, seems to me to be totally without foundation.

Even if you accept that there are 'leaders' within anarchist organisations (which I don't by the way), these leaders have no special powers to impose decisions, so they have to persuade the organisation every single time that they wish the organisation to act. That is to say that every single decision is entirely accountable to the membership, since it is the membership that takes the decision. The 'leader' merely has the opportunity to try to persuade the rest, indeed the non-leaders have the same opportunity. On the other hand, in Leninist organisations, the leader is elected and granted decision making power for a considerable length of time. So the leader is essentially only called to account at the election time. In addition, as we all know well, the leader has a range of means at his disposal to increase his chances of clinging to power (leadership slates agreed in advance, power to set agendas at conferences, power to expel opponents, control over internal communications, power to change rule books, power to take decisions at the last moment).

The difference is simple. In Leninist organisations the leader is accountable, to some extent, at elections. In anarchist organisations, the 'leader' is accountable every single time a decision is made.

Finally, to say a word about anarchist 'leaders'. There are indeed people in anarchist organisations who tend to be the source of many of the decisions in the organisation. This is because, in general, they have proved themselves to be good at this in the eyes of the rest of the organisation and are thus trusted. However, in my experience, anarchists certainly do not follow these people like sheep and when it is felt that their proposals don't cut the mustard, they are voted down. For example, in my time in the WSM there have only been a small number of contentious votes. On each of those occasions, as far as I can remember, the vote went against the people who many outsiders would consider to be 'leaders' of the organisation.

by Agent of Chaos Thu Jul 24, 2003 14:05

Indeed, he organised an effective CHEKA, effective Gulags and effective firing squads to murder tens of thousands of Anarchists, Left SRs and dissident Bolsheviks.

He did an excellent job in banning Bolshevik Party factions and all opposition political organisations. His masterstroke of efficency was the banning of independent Trade Unions and strikes.

by bolshie Thu Jul 24, 2003 13:57

Andrew says:
Repeating one liners on these topics is not only a waste of time, it is a distraction from understanding that these 'bad decisions' came not from mommentary weakness but from the core of leninist politics.

Thats a wee bit harsh on Lenin. His decisions were sometimes good sometimes bad (unlike SP/SWP I believe he was human and therefore prone to making mistakes). Its easy to argue against everyones commitment to the will of the people, but Lenin and other revolutionaries faced insurmontable problems that dictated "the rationing of democracy". Its hard to know what else they could have done.

If some crisis in capitalism were to arise in Ireland that enabled a marxist or anachist group with the masses of the working class to overthrow the capitalist system, do you think the army, the police, the business class, the newspapers would all rally to the flag? Would anarchists oppose moves to suppress elements that work to smash the socialist/anarchist revolution?

If Lenin had organised the Shannon protest I'm sure the protest would have been planned and prepared for so that the end result was more effective as, whatever you think of his politics, an excellent organiser.

by Degenerate Thu Jul 24, 2003 13:33

Q. "Why did Emmet fail?"

A. Because he questioned the SPI line once too often.

by iosaf Thu Jul 24, 2003 13:21

Now at the crucial point of the war, the five anarchist ministers voted with the support of those they had been elected to represent to oppose the militarisation of the militias.

This is the event that has caused thousands of school students since, "the leaving cert specials" who grew up with war games, and pìctures of great generals to presume that a non-militarised militia fighting with the Republican army would haveno option but to lose in engagement with the Nationalist forces supported by the Falange [Franco in short].
Well it really is not and was not that simple.

Why did Emmet fail?
was it because his "soldiers" were not wearing a uniform?
No they failed because they were facing incredible odds and a military machine with logistic superiority. And so too with Franco.
Sorry, but the war was lost because of the anarchists was a piece of propaganda put out by the stalinists. So if you believe it now, in 2003 you are a Stalinist.
I am all for increased mutual respect between marxists and anarchists but entertaining Stalinists, go take a running jump.-
You really haven't learnt anything, and perhpas you should have brought your books back to the mobile library.

by James - WSM Thu Jul 24, 2003 13:14

Re human nature: human nature is contradictory, which is why I said different things about it. My own position is as stated in the original speech: there are good and bad tendencies in all of us. It makes sense to try and make the good ones dominate, part of that effort means creating structures in society which fosters them and hinders the nasty elements (murder, rape to take uncontroversial examples)

If we thought human nature was so unambiguously wonderful we’d have a hard time explaining the holocaust.

I think my position is quite reasonable. Do you disagree with it?

So what’s yer own position on the capability of human nature. Do you think that the population as a whole are capable of running society or is a government needed? Some of the SP speakers were doubtful that workers would be capable of running their industry by themselves without the intervention of the government. Why?

Re leadership. WSM acknowledge that some ideas are better ideas than others and we regard them as the leading ideas.

We’re not shy about giving our opinion on what constitutes a decent idea, but is merely that: our opinion, not an absolute truth we feel obligated to *impose* on others. We don’t acknowledge the right of a minority, ourselves included, to decide what constitutes the best ideas and impose them on others.

There is a difference between persuading people and compelling them. We oppose the concept of authority which enables some people to impose their will on others.


We don’t accept the need for a distinct class of leaders, so it’s not a question of holding them to account. The basis of anarchy is that there will be substantial grassroots involvement in the taking and implantation of decisions. This makes the need for leaders who take decisions on your behalf redundant.

We do see the need for some sort of federal structure, presumably involving delegates with binding mandates and subject to recall. Again it is up to the group to make sure that power doesn’t seep to these delegates.

I said in my summing up that Leninists were arguing for representative democracy while we were for direct democracy. A representative system is where the we chose the leaders to make decisions for us for a set period of time. It’s basically what we’ve got at the moment.

But if people are capable of making a decision on the worth of a particular leader then presumably then it’s on the basis of something substantial, such as the quality of decisions she made (as opposed to her accent). But if you’re capable of this then you’re capable of making the original decision yourselves. So you don’t need a leader to make it for you.

All you are doing is opening the possibility of abuse of position simply because this individual has the time, resources, and (interim at least) authority to make policy. Any political leader worth his salt uses these to strengthen his base and position.

There is an implication that people won’t be able to stand up to the rhetorical arts of a few in an anarchist society and that a clique will run it behind the scenes. Again this depends somewhat on what you think people are capable of.

Good article on anarchist and Leninist versions of democracy, particularly the Leninist critique of anarchism being undemocratic @ http://www.anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/democracy.html


Whizzim kids clearly have an easy day at the office today!

by iosaf Thu Jul 24, 2003 13:07

I do, I live in Catalonia. the heart of the Civil War.
& you really ought try and learn some history of Spain, Catalonia and the Civil War.

Like really really do. look at these pages:
http://www.freecatalonia.com
It's a good site to explain to you where Catalonia is, and what happened here, and it is not "overly" nationalists, it genuinely expresses the identity and self-awareness of the people here, and I recommend people look at it, there's a nice animated introduction.

then maybe you will be ready to start reading those politically slanted versions of what occured here and in Spain.

It seems very obvious to me, that you have absolutely no idea, where the war came from, how the hopes and dreams of the 2º Republic turned to a fascist coup supported by Hitler and Mussolini, and thus you have very little idea how WW2 began.
so go spend five minutes or more at this link
http://www.freecatalonia.com

Then come back, provide some proof you have seen the site like say "in 1714 x occured...." or on "March 16th 1936 x occured...." then I or one of those in Ireland who have studied or learnt about this war and this conflict will entertain your trolling. Trolling is often about boredom. Go visit the link. spend five minutes.
http://www.freecatalonia.com

No-one _here_ be it in Barcelona, Catalonia or Spain ever ever says "the anarchists lost the war". Here they are still dealing with the slow release of Franco's archives. Here there are still survivors of the work camps, much less romantic than Orwell's books, Here the leaders of the older political groupings on the left are united by their memories of torture, imprisonment and oppression. And here there is co-operation between the various strands of "left", and "nationalism", [not enough] but it is getting better. & here finally might I remind you all, the head of state was the official appointee of the Dictator. Franco chose the King.
So have a break, learn something about one of your European neighbours.
check out the site:

by conor - wsm personal capacity Thu Jul 24, 2003 13:02

Listen, anarchists!
by remember spain Wednesday, Jul 23 2003, 6:51pm


Anarchists,learn from history! Anarchists never benefits from cooperating with marxists


Thats an interesting one - those anarchists who "coporated" in governing Spain with "comrades" from the socialist and
communist partys certainly made and paid for an enormous error
But their were thousands of anarchists fighting AT the barricades WITH the Marxists
of the POUM in May 1937 fighting stalinists and government cops
and its arguable that they were gaining the upper hand before the "misleaders" tiold them to stop

so its not ALWAYS AS SIMPLE as it seems - I've NO Proble in working with any leftists and even less fighting
with Marxists - my main difficulties would be with that current within Marxism which became
dominant advocating state/party lead solutions

mean time gobeshiteen returns with more devestating analysis - as usual COMPLETELY unbacked up and in correct

whaile lifestyles and living standards in the West may be improving the relative gap between rich and
poor in these countries is massively accelerating. World wide this gap is incresing even faster


all the details here http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,994128,00.html

by Andrew Thu Jul 24, 2003 13:02

SY member most of your post seems to consist of 'I think my team won'. You will find this is a common reaction towards the side you are on but one that is often not shared by those on the other 'team' or those simply watching from the sidelines.

I'd suggest that if you thing particular arguments were 'blown apart' you simply details the arguemnts that did this. This might actually convince someone. Or it might produce a counter argument.

Your one serious point is this old chestnut about 'leaders' - straight out of SP doctrine. The funny thing is that this particular point was 'answered' not at the weekend but a good 130 years previously, see http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/wia.html

In simple summary there are two meanings to leadership or authrority

1. Recognition that somebody else has skills or knowledge that you don't have therefore you are going to pay special attention to what they say. A doctor is a good everyday example of this.

2. Giving such people the power to IMPOSE decisions on you. EG because Lenin thinks a Soviet has elected the wrong delegates he orders that soviet dissolved.

Anarchists recognise leadership as in point 1. in the same way we recognise gravity. However we refuse to give such people (self proclaimed or otherwise) power to IMPOSE decisions on us as in point 2.

On Shannon et al. None of us are goldfish so we can still remember the events of a few months back. Repeating one liners on these topics is not only a waste of time, it is a distraction from understanding that these 'bad decisions' came not from mommentary weakness but from the core of leninist politics.

The constant repetition of such one liners simply re-enforces those who would seek to suppress such history in the meaning of 'unity'. It adds to the idea that debate is 'bad' - in short it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

by Paddy Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:52

Non-authoritarian Socialism!!!!

by Cynic Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:50

Does anyone believe that Brian doesnt have enough time to type up his speech notes?

by Anonymous Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:48

.

by Petrichenko Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:43

On this we agree but then again so would most of those who remember spain tries to vilify.

by Agent of Chaos Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:31

Is that no members of the SP broke ranks at Shannon. No member of the SP later criticised their stance. No member of the SP has differed from the SP leadership position on the Black Bloc. No member of the SP has criticised the article on Evian which doesnt even mention the cop attack on the bridge.

My point is that the SP/SY are a monolithic leadership worshiping cult. They are not to be trusted.

by Petrichenko Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:22

What exactly are you saying?
You sound as hackneyed as those that you are accusing. There were many non-anarchists who crossed the fence at Shannon in October and many non-Leninists who felt that the actions of the SWP/SP were akin to the Stalinists who tried police the May days in Paris in 1968.
Funny really when the SWP are constantly trying to recreate those days.

by SY member (personal capacity) Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:08

I think that it was good on the WSM to come down for the debate. I did enjoy it- but the anarchists did contradict themselves a few times.

They said different things about human nature- they said humans were naturally good, but it's also natural that humans will do bad things!

Their position on elections was blown apart in the debate and their position on 'leadership'

Checkov (who looks very like Phil the Spart) said that anarchist leaders are based on persuasion. The WSM acknowledge the existence of leaders but do nothing to hold them to account. If the Anarchist movement ever grow bigger there would be BIG problems with the lack of democracy.

If an anarchist revolution took place tomorrow we'd face rule by an eliteist clique.

by Agent of Chaos Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:57

But remember Shannon is not, this happened a few short months ago and is evidence of how the SP will betray struggles. Remember Evian is something that also comes to mind, not just the attack on the Black Bloc by the SP. As far as the SP are concerned the Police attack on peaceful demonstrators on the bridge never took place. Michael O'Briens article in the June edition of the Voice mentions the restraint of the State forces, gets some digs in at the Black Bloc but doesnt refer to Cops attacking the demonstrators on the bridge.

by Andrew Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:44

Look 'remember spain' if you have an argument to make then go ahead and make it. Your posts above are little more then rabid sloganising - you not even trying to convince anarchists - never mind non-anarchists. Thats why others have called them examples of trolling.

by Seáinín Thu Jul 24, 2003 03:16

Have you people even got a passing acquantice with reality?

I know most of you are students and just having a few adventures before resuming your careers (I know, I've been there) but I fear a small number of deluded souls are actively preparing for a 'revolution' of some kind.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you lads. Looking at the way the last century panned out,
with steadily rising incomes for all members of society and the humiliating implosion of Marxist states I think youse are on a permanent losing streak.

Get real chumps, it's not going to happen.

by remember spain Thu Jul 24, 2003 01:46

No,we can NOT wait to settle our diffrence cuz then it weill be too late. Learn your history,anarchists!

I wont even comment the wanker who said it was the fault of the anarchists that the civilwar was lost.

And no,im not a troll. I am a person who is very concerned that anarchists havent studied history and will make the same misstakes again,as they have done in the past. Enough of that! We need to get our shit together. Neither we ,nor the workingclass of the world can afford that we make another of these misstakes again.

by Killian Forde Thu Jul 24, 2003 00:52

Excellent piece enjoyed reading it. With regards to Gaillimhed you are sounding like you are just about to introduce a 'third way' idea. Is there one bubbling away or will you just snipe from the sidelines. Any new ideas on society building?

by unaffiliate Thu Jul 24, 2003 00:51

i have never considered my self a pidgeon,and have never been even tempted to join any group..... even though i am an an-arch-ist even anarchist groups were and are not attractive to me...because of the horsedung pettiness these type of debates usually start...mind you i have no time for the pushy methods of some parties who get far too many derogatory inches in this dynamic publication...."you're just a filthy autonomist.." as one drunken "democrat" once said to me...i told him i'd work with anyone and i will...
the cancellation of the europeWEF has i believe given all of "us" (whatever we are??)the chance to put all this crap behind us..for good and i hope for all..next time we need to act it may be more synergistic

"our" mutual "enemies" (for want of other terms)will work with anybody,anytime coz they're after one simple thing-profit-car companies caused themselves no end of trouble fighting their competitors-developing their own processes,brakes,cables,gears,etc.. they copped on in the last few years and now share their r+d costs, all the same parts:different bodies,different marketing---same profit or perhaps more

we have a problem in that we can't agree on the eventual aim of our cooperation ,such as it is....for the sake of an easier life we should agree to disagree when appropriate to our own beliefs:the basis of liberty and respect....all our futures.

by s Wed Jul 23, 2003 21:09

Socialist Youth and the WSM are to congratulated for holding this debate, a real breath of fresh air. Well done all.

by IMC troll monitoring unit Wed Jul 23, 2003 20:29

Just don't rise to it.

If anything useful is going to come out of this thread or for that matter out of indymedia then the trolls will have to be ignored. Already this thread has seen two (anonymous) pieces of personal abuse directed at Brian Cahill, some (anonymous) madness about "red-fascists" and some (anonymous) idiot arguing that fascism in Spain was the fault of anarchists.

These kind of wankers are doing their best to destroy Indymedia as a useful resource. We shouldn't let them. The editors can get rid of the personal abuse and the attempts to drag squabbles into unrelated threads but they aren't going to start deleting people's opinions, even if they are obviously trolling. That puts a responsibility onto the shoulders of all of us who use the site to refuse to rise to the provocations.

by Manuel Wed Jul 23, 2003 20:16

I agree we should learn the lessons from Spain. Anarchists (in league with the leadership of POUM and the Stalinists) were responsible directly and indirectly for the butchering of the working class which resulted in fascist rule in Spain and a major setback for the working class internationally

by remember spain Wed Jul 23, 2003 19:51

Anarchists,learn from history! Anarchists never benefits from cooperating with marxists. In the end we allways get get fucked over. So you might as well bend over right now,if you actually are considering cooperating with them against our "common enemy".We do not share any common grounds whatsoever,remember that. What we got to figure out instead is how,when the revolution comes, we can fight the stalinists and win this time!

Learn from the civilwar in spain! NEVER AGAIN!DOWN WITH THE RED-FASCISTS!NO PASARÀN!

by Anonymous Wed Jul 23, 2003 19:03

Hopefully there will be plenty more of these public debates in the future.

You never know, why not some public debates with exponents of capitalist ideology. The only way we will get to understand one another is through dialogue.

I myself, at present am undecided on the socialism v anarchism debate. I think I would draw along the lines that Iosaf proposed earlier:-

"I believe •our eventual solution• will be a hybrid".

As I essentially support both ideologies and the people who work for both - some sort of combination of both is what I would probably support.

Also, I would not totally negate capitalism. In so many areas such as in health, science & technology it has helped to achieve so many things. The efficiency that is produced from free market competitive forces, I belive, should not just completely be ignored.

Somehow, a hybrid between all 3 ideologies "may" be the ultimate system.

In any case, I believe all 3 systems are subject to the iniquities of man - which capitalism is experiencing and which socialism has experienced in the the past, and is being reminded about here in no uncertain terms.

In order for any system to work, including a hybrid system, it will probably only work as well as those who are engaged in the system.

But in any case, I believe the current, pure capitalist system is disastrous which needs a fast remedy.

by Petrichenko Wed Jul 23, 2003 18:20

Thankfully history is bit more complex than your simplistic analysis.

Plenty of Marxists ended up in the gulags or hunted down by the chekists. There are plenty who believe it may have been better not to consume Marx but to live it - which certainly didn't happen in Russia (nor too much in the present). The rot had set in well before 'Stalins Thermidor'.

"Anarchism has its faults but I think its different and important because it operates OUTSIDE the left/right split, which is based in the structures of the state."

What does this mean? It seemed to me that plenty of anarchists I know have a class analysis which factors in a left/right split.

There are lessons throughout history of Marxists and Anarchists working together. Our respective traditions have made mistakes in the past. We need to learn from the past and keep talking to each other provided we can do it in a non-doctrinarial manner. Unfortunately dogma seems as prevalent in anarchist circles as it is in Marxist ones.

by iosaf Wed Jul 23, 2003 18:10

would you PDF copy it? or some other way, then we could work on a handwriting sample as well as the ideology [:-) i just couldn't resist]

The point I tried to make earlier and this ought deal with hecklers as well, is that each of the threads in Europe at the moment needs quickly to be present common ground as just that. "common ground".
That doesn't mean issuing press statements back to back or publicising the rarified debates, it means making some almost "rainbow" like gesture.
The groups I refer to are in Europe:
Red-Black-Green and/or the regionalist socialist republicans.
For together we face three distinct forms of Capitalist political philosophy. Which are engaged in rarified thinktank speculation on all our futures.
We [anarko-libertarians] discuss in peace camps, in autonomous centres, at direct action events, on the street, in infoshops, in squats, and in pamphlets and papers and the internet our ideas for a future. Yet the capitalists discuss in the White House, at la Monclao, at the Elysee at Downing Street and in the air.
We [anarko-libertarians] join with our fraternal comrades on the street, now in debate, as an identity of the "micro-left" emerges.
The regionalist socialist republicans development has been different in Europe. By virtue (an ironic
use of that linking phrase) of their connections to armed terrorism it is certain that no party in Europe of the socialist republican tradition will ever occupy the "macro-left" position they so crave.
Meanwhile, the real "macro-left" is represented those who still believe reform within the capitalist system might work. They are led by Blair, Zapatero etc., in Europe. [in answer to hecklers] The greatest problem faced by the "macro-left" is that it's understanding of history is flawed. The "macro-left" has never really understood the implications of what I believe ought properly be termed "hyper-capitalism".
In ireland, amongst a people who have never demonstrated a particularly strong allegiance to state, or statehood, or the machinery of state, for we must never forget that no state exists without it's extra-state apparatus of on order:
Military, Beurocracy, Educational institutions.
And I have never thought the Irish went for any of that in the way their fellow on the European mainland have. The Irish appear to me to be instictively "anti-State", it is an inherited cultural conceit, almost a definition of being Irish.
So if it now appears the "macro-republicans" chase votes from FF, is that an overestimation on their part of the effect of the IRA's ceasefire.
Do they feel so "chastened" by time?

But observe, both anarko-libertarian and revolutionary socialist, what really is happening.
The "macro-left" now accepts the "macro-republicans" of Ireland in it's discourse. The "micro-republicans" unite within them those who are far too beyond the pale for the FF voter be it now, or during the hunger strikes.
So where to for the "micro-left"?
¿should we because of lack of popular support now disband?
¿should we call off our slow and atritious campaign?
No. The new clever conceitful construction of the "macro-republicans" shall leave us enough room.

All of that is just me @ my keyboard and it is very hot, on average it has been 10º above normal this summer and the old people are just dying on the street. I saw one go earlier. To think before global warming the Barcelonan had the longest average life in Europe (and the most anarko-liberatarians) which rather suggests the point that anarko-libertarianism is good for "society's health". But to solve global warming, the Macro-GReens will have to do some serious talking to the Macro-Capitalists in Washington and the Macro-Socialist in Brazil.

***customary disclaimer of curses, jibe, insults, and of course a smiley. %-)

by Curious Wed Jul 23, 2003 18:07

You always have time to rant at length on Indymedia in defense of the CWIs Stalinist style internal regime. Why cant you find time to transcribe your sermon? Is the paper too spittle stained to decipher?

by Kev Wed Jul 23, 2003 18:05

Ashamed as I am to say it, there was a little kickaround (football!) afterwards in which three anarchists managed to beat about 7 SYers by a score of something like 12 - 3. And all this without electing a captain ;-P Watching from the wings as I was, I took down the names of all the SYers involved and they will be gulaged after the revolution for this shameful display of revolutionary football!

Seriously though, I enjoyed the debate and the contributions from the floor. It was nice to have a debate without various anonymous hacks trying to hijack it. Ideally someone should have recorded it. Maybe one of the anarchists did?

by Gaillimhed Wed Jul 23, 2003 18:01

Hey Terry, wipe the foam from your chin and ill restate my point...
*You* DONT learn from the past,
running around trying to implement the political ideals of a past age can achieve nothing much positive. We are locked into boxes of thought framed in the 19th century and its time to break out and try something new.
Arent you sick of reading the same spiralling arguments which start on a specific topic and degenerate into whether you would have supported Lenin or trotsky, whether youre a socialist or an anarchist.....blah blah blah , at that stage the point is always lost and the enemy has always won.

I am *imploring* you to learn from the past

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Wed Jul 23, 2003 17:35

It was a very interesting discussion.

I agree with Chekov that it was good to have these kind of arguments between different political currents on the left. The whole event had a friendly and fraternal atmosphere which was conducive to useful debate.

I don't think that any of the anarchists left the discussion thinking "well, I now realise that trying to avoid the need for a post revolutionary state is utopian" or that any of the marxists left thinking "well, now I realise that a post revolutionary state would be a disaster", but it still enabled us to clarify points of agreement and disagreement.

The turnout for the debate was also very good, particularly considering that one of the other sessions on at the same time was a discussion between Patricia McKenna of the Green Party and Helena Byrne from Socialist Youth. Obviously Patricia McKenna is more of a big name draw than James, Helena or I.

I would post up the text of my speech here too but unfortunately I only have it in handwritten form. If I get time to type it up, I will post it but I can't promise that I'm going to have the time.

by Curious Wed Jul 23, 2003 17:14

Cahill was foaming at the mouth afterwards. He bit several comrades while being restrained.

by Terry Wed Jul 23, 2003 16:36

So Gaillimhed -Are you proposing we just ignore history and not learn from past mistakes? How interesting?
I suppose your think ignorance is a virtue.

Your powers of reasoning are amazing. You just throw out the line: "Nazism had its roots firmly in Socialism."
-There that's it. With that one sentence there is no more debate about Socialism. Maybe you just don't like
arguments of any kind and prefer simple statements like that one. I am really informed about Nazism and
Socialism after that. I must always remember to shout down anyone who mentions those words again. By the
way is Capitalism a sacred word that we can speak no evil about?

I for one welcome any constructive debate and analysis such as posted in the original posting by Chekov.
Your own contribution so far amounts to heckling at best.

by Gaillimhed Wed Jul 23, 2003 16:24

Nazism had its roots firmly in Socialism. Your precious revulution gave us Stalin and decades of repression. Why? What does it teach you about today?
You people seem to read alot of history and understand none of it, least of all that it has failed its creators.
Need something new kids, arguing over 19th century political ideology isnt going to get us anywhere, as it has failed the previous generations it will fail you. Grow up and think for yourselves. Create anew...same fight for a new age, maybe then well have a chance.

by iosaf Wed Jul 23, 2003 16:18

I'm enjoying the recent debates here, and think most can cut the jokes and bored user contribution bits out. It does feel like common ground is becoming clear, and mutual respect is developing. I would have thought cancellat of the W€F would have that effect.

I believe ·our eventual solution· will be a hybrid. Which is why I have always simplistically encouraged the "red block" "black block" "green block" analogies. I respect the SP and the work they have done in Ireland. And I respect the anarchists too, and finally it seems that their agenda is being given thought. I think the "macro-apathetics" of the Irish voting class, could be better informed of the similarities and differences between the various factions of both micro and macro left. & would encourage anyone to do so. To think that only a year ago every week on IMC ireland there was a "10 reasons to hate X party".
we are moving.

by Anonymous Wed Jul 23, 2003 15:41

As you say Chekov, hoping for a civilized debate here is probably "wishful thinking" indeed, but sure we live in hope.

Good posting to put up. Whichever is the better ideology to take over from capitalism, or maybe a mixture of both? - I hope both groupings will work together both in Ireland & worldwide, to actually see the overthrow of capitalism. To this end I am glad to see this amicable debate happen in the summer get together.

Whilst extracting all the good things from capitalsim, it's current pure & dominating form, must be defeated.

by F Wed Jul 23, 2003 15:40

I was at the debate and i found it very good. It was carried out in a comradely and very constructive manner unlike many 'debates' that have taken place on this forum. Maybe Brian (SP) could post the text of his contribution, I think it was very good.

I've included a link to a pic of the debate

by path in residence Wed Jul 23, 2003 15:08

Just ask the people in the gulags. The Marxists had their chance and they fucked it up.

Marxism may work 'in theory', but in practice all it has ever led to is repression and misery. Anyone who believes that 'next time' will be any better than any of the other historical instances of socialist revolutions going sour is deluding themselves.

The State is all encompassing - whether its communist or capitalist. Anarchism has its faults but I think its different and important because it operates OUTSIDE the left/right split, which is based in the structures of the state.