Liberty and Solidarity
Oct 29 2009 22:13
#122
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
Anarchism, even in its class struggle form, exists only as a moralist's critique of Bolshevism. It has nothing to say for itself.
Thats a blatant lie.
I refuse to believe you could be that ignorant, you've been posing here for a long time so you must know that what you are saying is untrue.
Actually i've seen this lie before, is it the SP line on anarchism or something?
Oct 29 2009 22:25
#123
radicalgraffiti wrote:
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
Anarchism, even in its class struggle form, exists only as a moralist's critique of Bolshevism. It has nothing to say for itself.Thats a blatant lie.
I refuse to believe you could be that ignorant, you've been posing here for a long time so you must know that what you are saying is untrue.
Actually i've seen this lie before, is it the SP line on anarchism or something?
yeah, I have to say I'm pretty annoyed about this guy posting crap here - anarchism has no strategy, the CNT were anti-organizational, Bolshevism is good, and so on - can't this prick be asked to either give some kind of evidence to support his claims, or otherwise be banned?
Oct 29 2009 23:16
#124
Quote:
yeah, I have to say I'm pretty annoyed about this guy posting crap here - anarchism has no strategy, the CNT were anti-organizational, Bolshevism is good, and so on - can't this prick be asked to either give some kind of evidence to support his claims, or otherwise be banned?
Rather than do this, why not repudiate what he is saying with a constructive programme.
Surely the only way to answer such criticism is to answer it?
Quote:
In all the time I've spent around Anarchists I've never once got a straight answer to that one nor for that matter to almost any serious question about strategy in a revolutionary period. There is no anarchist programme worth discussing, because Anarchists are supremely uninterested in examining or developing their own ideas.
Well my straight answer is this: an anarchist revolution would have survived as long as the civil war that followed did not begin to encroach on the ability of the country to feed itself, and conscription did not need to be enacted. After that I think broadly the revolution would by that point have lost its spark and repression would probably ensue. Lenin used the phrase 'a workers state with bureaucratic deformations' to describe the Russian state. I think that's an important concept, even the chief Bolshevik ruler knew what they had been doing to some extent, and what it had meant for the state of their revolution. My viewpoint differs very radically from that of Lenin on how to prosecute a revolution, and what preconditions determine its possibility, but I think the Trotskyst concept of the USSR requiring a political revolution would apply equally to any anarchist regime that had enacted similar methods (eg chiefly Trotsky: "We won the war, but we killed the country." Taking the seed grain etc.). It would also not be immune to the effects of becoming repressive as a method of handling scarcity during an existential war.
In terms of a constructive programme, I'm writing something on this at the moment, about charting the course of the class struggle and moving forward in our mass organisations, with a view to advancing our power and capacity as a class to take further action, on a road to revolution across a geo-region. Just a short thing, but it's certainly true that much, much more work needs to be done to evaluate our current position as a class, and begin to understand the way and path ahead to advance this position according to a strategy for ultimately taking power.
Oct 29 2009 23:20
#125
Hi john,
He made an argument, treeofjudas and nastyned both answered it. I suspect it is the SP line on anarchism, but that's hardly reason to ban him.He's a Trot, of course he thinks Bolshevism is good! And it's not as if daft one line arguments are the sole preserve of ony a few posters.
It's also useful to have someone from a Trot perspective to actually test our ideas. I don't agree with what he says but I find some of his posts to be insightful and useful and so on. Likewise other people on here outside the anarchist spectrum
Regards,
Martin
Oct 30 2009 00:14
#126
nastyned wrote:
Anarchism predates Bolshevism so that doesn't make any sense.
I should perhaps have noted that I am speaking of present day anarchism and many, but not all, forms of historical anarchism.
john wrote:
yeah, I have to say I'm pretty annoyed about this guy posting crap here - anarchism has no strategy, the CNT were anti-organizational, Bolshevism is good,
1) I have never said that the CNT was anti-organisational. My criticism of it is to do with the paralysing and debilitating effect it's line on the state had. Leading to the first error of leaving the capitalist state intact and then the second error of actually joining with that state.
2) I have said very little about Bolshevism in this discussion. In fact I have tried to encourage Anarchists to put forward their own understanding of the options open to revolutionaries in Russia rather than restricting themselves to criticisms of the Bolsheviks.
3) If you think that Anarchism has a viable strategy for a revolutionary situation, feel free to prove my wrong by putting it forward.
Oct 30 2009 01:47
#127
Quote:
1) I have never said that the CNT was anti-organisational. My criticism of it is to do with the paralysing and debilitating effect it's line on the state had. Leading to the first error of leaving the capitalist state intact and then the second error of actually joining with that state.
Yes yes, but you know full well that everyone posting here would argue that the CNT collaborating with the republican government was politically wrong and a betrayal of anarchist principles, and that it was extremely foolish to let anarchist militias be commanded by stalinist imbeciles whose grasp of military strategy was two sandwiches short of a picnic.
Quote:
3) If you think that Anarchism has a viable strategy for a revolutionary situation, feel free to prove my wrong by putting it forward.
This is just boring, effectively what you're argueing amounts to ''well trotskysim failed to whip those proles into line or defeat the intrinsic contradictions of a ''workers'' party holding state power, so how would you do those two things'' which compeltely misses the point as you well know.
There are lots of things the various collectives within the CNT could have done better in the war and within the economy and many criticisms were made of this witin the CNT and IWA at the time and since, but no sane person can really claim to have a perfect revolutionary programme that would have won in spain in 1936.
Oct 30 2009 02:20
#128
cantdocartwheels wrote:
[
Yes yes, but you know full well that everyone posting here would argue that the CNT collaborating with the republican government was politically wrong and a betrayal of anarchist principles,
Yes, certainly. But the betrayal wasn't the result of a few people just deciding to sell out one morning. It was a result of an impasse reached: The CNT had no way to deal with the capitalist state.
cantdocartwheels wrote:
This is just boring, effectively what you're argueing amounts to ''well trotskysim failed to whip those proles into line or defeat the intrinsic contradictions of a ''workers'' party holding state power, so how would you do those two things''
No. I'm very deliberately not doing that. You are quite free to put forward any strategy you like, based on any forces or forms of organisation you like. If you like you can answer on behalf of "revolutionary minded workers" instead of an organisation or state. I've never yet got a halfway coherent answer to this from anyone in the anarchist movement.
cantdocartwheels wrote:
which compeltely misses the point as you well know.
There are lots of things the various collectives within the CNT could have done better in the war and within the economy and many criticisms were made of this witin the CNT and IWA at the time and since, but no sane person can really claim to have a perfect revolutionary programme that would have won in spain in 1936.
Is it your view that no strategy could have succeeded in 1936 or 1917?
Oct 30 2009 07:20
#129
I note that IrrationallyAngry has said nothing about what his 'revolutionary strategy' is that would have succeeded in 1917 or 1936 (unless he does think the Bolsheviks 'succeeded', in which case he may as well say so). So pots, kettles, black.
Oct 30 2009 08:44
#130
martinh wrote:
It's also useful to have someone from a Trot perspective to actually test our ideas.
my point was rather that his posts on this point weren't useful - anyone could post on here, on any of the threads, saying anarchism is stupid because it's naive about the possibility of revolution and the problems of organization - it wouldn't add anything, and (if taken seriously) would probably steer every discussion in the same direction.
Oct 30 2009 10:25
#131
Dundee wrote:
This is why there is no sense in discussing anything seriously here. Even halfway analytical people like you posi jump into 'yah boo!' mode and discussion becomes a roundabout way of shouting about how big everyone's cock is.
Anyway, about what you say on the Russian Revolution, it would be more relevant if the original quoted statement didn't refer implicitly to the very things you're now claiming would not have been an issue for anarchists (i.e. shooting them, "like partridges" or otherwise): i.e. you referred to 'making examples of', and 'dealing with' people: by giving them a good tickling, perhaps? And there's alot of ambiguity of, and scope within, the meaning of "scarcity driven society". But there's another thread for that now, so let's leave it off this one.
Also, I don't think it's ad hominem for Steven. to quote a series of things you've said, and say, 'look, these aren't pragmatic or practical statements'. That's completeley fair. As to what L&S is up to, "building power" in different areas, and how that compares to other anarchists, I don't know: I don't know enough about what any of the organisations are up to, to judge. Of course, you're free to give examples if you wish. I know something of what you do in Glasgow (which I think is good), but as far as I know, that's something that you got up to pre-L&S, so doesn't obviously depend on it as an organisation.
Oct 30 2009 10:48
#132
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
Is it your view that no strategy could have succeeded in 1936 or 1917?
That's my view. I think it's important to look at the possibilities that have existed for communist revolution in history but it's a mistake to take the absence of something as a starting point. In any case there wasn't an absence of Trotskyist strategy in 1936, it was merely put forward by a tiny group (which is not to say that they should be ignored).
But to say that "if the CNT had been Trots things would have been different" is not to say the CNT would have directed a more thorough social revolution in Catalonia but to say that they would have been a tiny propaganda group.
Oct 30 2009 10:52
#133
Quote:
you referred to 'making examples of', and 'dealing with' people: by giving them a good tickling, perhaps?
No. I've been quite straight up. If an anarchist regime were to have survived the civil war that followed the Russian revolution (capitalism would have treated such a regime in the same way as the Bolsheviks and the imperialist task forces mustered to destroy the Russian Bolshevik state would have met an anarchist regime also) it would have had to become repressive. Part of that is about not tolerating dissent and (yes) shooting people and using fear as a weapon of governance.
I'm sure this comment will set off another cacophony of loud noised indignation, but there is no sense in denying, with starvation and conscription no regime (however democratic its urges) will be universally popular, and in the context of millions of people dying and a truly massive attempt by imperialism to crush the socialist experiment the idea that dissent could have been allowed to flourish and lead to strikes in critical munitions factories and like would have forced the hand of any government, popular and anarchist, or elitist and top down.
Quote:
Also, I don't think it's ad hominem for Steven. to quote a series of things you've said, and say, 'look, these aren't pragmatic or practical statements'. That's completeley fair.
No it isn't. It's just taking issue with me. Something that is worthless. Me and Steven are not going to agree. So his tactic is to take things I've said in the past without context and repeat them back to try and make me look silly. All very amusing no doubt, but political debate it isn't. It's schoolboy stuff and worth less cos it's an adult doing it.
Quote:
as far as I know, that's something that you got up to pre-L&S, so doesn't obviously depend on it as an organisation.
L&S has made this work more structured, more linked in, and provided vision and direction that wasn't there previously. I can say that for my own activity.
Oct 30 2009 11:48
#134
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
yeah, I have to say I'm pretty annoyed about this guy posting crap here - anarchism has no strategy, the CNT were anti-organizational, Bolshevism is good, and so on - can't this prick be asked to either give some kind of evidence to support his claims, or otherwise be banned?Rather than do this, why not repudiate what he is saying with a constructive programme.
Surely the only way to answer such criticism is to answer it?
no, a mere assertion doesn't deserve an answer. that way, anyone can say anything and then claim that their "point" is valid simply because it was stated. i'm not clear on IA's goal here at all. he's posed a counter-factual, and then demanded a proof or refutation of a situation that never even existed. some people have even been generous enough to attempt an answer, but if the answer is that anarchists would have gotten nowhere, that in itself doesn't justify what the bolsheviks did. no-one here (an i'm not an anarchist, so far as i know) is making claims for the success of anarchism under the conditions of the 10s and 20s.
Oct 30 2009 12:09
#135
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
In all the time I've spent around Anarchists I've never once got a straight answer to.....any serious question about strategy in a revolutionary period.
while this may be true, you say it like it's a bad thing. surely there's a million things more important, especially in times like this, than nailing down your own little group's strategy in a revolutionary period and being able to succesfully defend it in internet versions of engels on pinheads
Oct 30 2009 12:38
#136
Could we please keep the incredibly tired re-treading of "Every anarchist vs Bolshevik thread ever" to the 1917 thread, and use this to try and discuss stuff that might actually be relevant to anarchists here and now?
Dundee_United wrote:
Why the fuck are we even discussing the Russian revolution here?Well let's talk about the practical motivations of anarchists, and what they do to build working class power in the here and now. Apparently there are some people on here who think that L&S is neither very practical nor very pragmatic when it comes to this rather more important here and now question. Given that there is now four pages of thread to gasp in sheer horror and double takes about the terrible terribleness of that group, perhaps we can have something more substantial than that bloke Dundee_United (who is one of their members) is really mental and has some mental views.
I would be a bit more sympathetic to your exasperation here if you didn't keep dodging questions. Here goes again:
Farce wrote:
I have little interest in yet another sodding 1917 argument, but...Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
(and arguably not that pragmatic)Well argue it then. Where do we lack pragmatism?
Have you read the "Pragmatism as Ideology" article mentioned there? I think that does a good job of showing the unpractical nature of much self-proclaimed anarchist "pragmatism". For a concrete example, how about this:
treeofjudas wrote:
Dundee_United wrote:
Do you think you could actually get further in your goals WITHOUT getting those who are opinion-leaders/makers within their social groups, communities, or workplaces?I would have thought that your goal, as a revolutionary of some sort, would be to ultimately undermine the the informal power that these "opinion-leaders/makers" have, rather than to reinforce it by pander.
If "pragmatism" leads us to lend support to existing hierarchies, rather than combating them, and our goal is to abolish them, then it is counterproductive and not actually practical. At all.
Quote:
Quote:
They aren't avowedly anarchist (most of the time); and don't make propaganda or require - as far as I'm aware - theoretical agreement.You know, and have been advised, better than that posi.
Do you make propaganda (as L&S, not LCAP or IWW or whatever)? If so, what? If you require theoretical agreement, then why is another member on here saying that that article directly contradicts L&S's positions? Surely you can't deny that you don't present yourselves as being avowedly anarchist - I thought that was the whole point of the L&S project?
Steven. wrote:
Dundee United wrote:
Where do we lack pragmatism?I pointed out a list of ridiculously unpragmatic tactics and strategies on the "pragmatism" blog post linked to above. So Dundee, if you want a list try there.
I could summarise a few here though quickly: your tiny group of people trying to manage the working class, your similarly tiny group trying to establish apprenticeships for all people aged 14 above, your trying to establish a bank to fund "workers businesses", your trying to organise space workers, your claim of getting 15,000 members in Glasgow IWW by next year, your claim for communists to need nuclear weapons to fight imperialist aliens, your claim that communists should try to strategise on how to take over the port of Rotterdam... do you really want me to carry on?
Now, I don't know which of these are your own personal positions and which are official L&S ones, but L&S trying to manage the working class is definitely the position stated in that piece. Are the apprenticeships and workers' bank L&S positions, or are they just personal ones of yours that you don't feel able to defend? Either way, I agree with Steven that, for instance, your demand for apprenticeships is not a winnable, pragmatic approach. Do you dispute this?
Oct 30 2009 13:11
#137
RIGHT EVERYONE:
there is a thread for Russia here: http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/if-there-was-anarchist-revolution-russia-29102009#comment-347149
let's keep this on L&S/Dundee_United's pragmatism.
Oct 30 2009 15:23
#139
I'd like to know how far the IWW have got in recruiting 15,000 members in Glasgow? For security reasons I am sure you don't want o give us the exact figure. Just keep it to the nearest thousand.
Devrim
Oct 30 2009 18:37
#140
I'd like to hear how Dundee Utd reckons Venezuelan anarchists should offer "military support" to Chavez when his military will be busy locking them up.
It's the real world equivalent of an Escher drawing.
Oct 30 2009 18:45
#141
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I'd like to hear how Dundee Utd reckons Venezuelan anarchists should offer "military support" to Chavez when his military will be busy locking them up.It's the real world equivalent of an Escher drawing.
Nov 1 2009 22:51
#142
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
you referred to 'making examples of', and 'dealing with' people: by giving them a good tickling, perhaps?No. I've been quite straight up. If an anarchist regime were to have survived the civil war that followed the Russian revolution (capitalism would have treated such a regime in the same way as the Bolsheviks and the imperialist task forces mustered to destroy the Russian Bolshevik state would have met an anarchist regime also) it would have had to become repressive. Part of that is about not tolerating dissent and (yes) shooting people and using fear as a weapon of governance.
Seriously, fucking hell
Nov 2 2009 14:17
#143
Dundee_United wrote:
would have forced the hand of any government, popular and anarchist, ...
But isn't that precisely the point - no 'anarchist government' could repress its subjects because once it becomes a government it ceases to be anarchist, and vice versa.
you seem to think it's naiive utopianism to believe that society could be organized without a government?
Nov 2 2009 16:50
#144
Agree with Caiman del Barrio that it would help to know what Dundee Utd thinks about Chavez etc.
I don't want to get into the whole argument about the Bolsheviks etc. On the CNT, 1936 and all that, what is missing from the discussion is the question of whether this was a revolution or an imperialist war. If it was a revolution then the CNT;s defence and collaboration with the defence of the capitalist state, rather than seeking to overthrow it was a betrayal of the proletariat. If it was an imperialist war, following the crushing of the initially uprising by the CNT hand in hand with the capitalist state, then the CNT's defence of it was a betrayal of the class. The only 'policy' the workers could follow in 1936 was the defence of its own autonomy through attacking the state in all its forms and refusing to get drag into the civil/imperialist war between different national and international fractions of the bourgeoisie.
The only anarchist, as far as I know, to understand this was Bernarie. The Friends of Durruti came close to this understanding but still thought that there was a revolution.
Nov 2 2009 16:52
#145
Just to make things clear for the ICC it was an imperialist war, not a revolution.
Nov 2 2009 16:58
#146
It's Berneri not Bernarie
Nov 2 2009 17:50
#147
ernie wrote:
the crushing of the initially uprising by the CNT hand in hand with the capitalist state
there are many pertinent criticisms of the CNT in '36/'37, but this is just plain wrong. by May '37 the CNT was ordering workers off the barricades, but in July '36 the uprising by and large was CNT-FAI members organising through mandated CNT-FAI committees, certainly in Catalonia.
Nov 2 2009 18:09
#148
Dundee, you do not seem to understand the term "ad hominem". I was not making personal insults about you, but responding to your question "where are we not pragmatic?" by listing a series of policies and statements which are completely unpragmatic, pie in the sky fantasy. You state that I've used them out of context - but exactly how are they any less impractical "in context"?
To that I would add your statement that anarchists should provide "military" support for Chavez - as others have asked, what do you mean by this? Do you or liberty and solidarity plan to provide them with military support? If so, how?
Nov 2 2009 19:26
#149
Steven. wrote:
To that I would add your statement that anarchists should provide "military" support for Chavez - as others have asked, what do you mean by this? Do you or liberty and solidarity plan to provide them with military support? If so, how?
Do you think he is using it like the Trotskyists do where 'military support' is not actually 'military support', as any normal person would understand it, but support of the military.
Otherwise, I find it hard to believe that they think a modern capitalist state needs the military support of a few dozen people in the UK.
Devrim
Nov 2 2009 19:35
#150
Devrim wrote:
Steven. wrote:
To that I would add your statement that anarchists should provide "military" support for Chavez - as others have asked, what do you mean by this? Do you or liberty and solidarity plan to provide them with military support? If so, how?Do you think he is using it like the Trotskyists do where 'military support' is not actually 'military support', as any normal person would understand it, but support of the military.
Otherwise, I find it hard to believe that they think a modern capitalist state needs the military support of a few dozen people in the UK.
Devrim
i took it to mean "any anarchists in venezuela would be politically sound in taking up arms in support of the chavez regime, if it should come to that."
Anarchism predates Bolshevism so that doesn't make any sense.