Anarchist buzz words, and Trotskyism

I think this is the crux of the problem that Devrim is trying to elucidate. To be blunt, who gives a fuck about tradition? If you're going to convince people to move away from, say, Trotskyism, it's a lot more sensible to do so on immediate terms that apply to current events, viz., how the actions of current Trotskyists are hurting the working class, than it is to start debating the material-historical nuances of the October Revolution, and where your ideological forefathers stood with respect to it, as opposed to theirs, which sounds to an outsider like the kind of "my daddy could beat up his daddy any day" argument you can hear in any preschool.

The past is good for providing context, and many lessons can be learned from it, but we live in the here and now, and right now, we're talking about people who support Hezbollah, FFS! That's a lot more relevant than their exact political geneology.

I wasn't prioritizing which was which; i was saying that you cannot seperate the two.

My point about theoretical heritage was only one among many reasons why trotskyism will lead to failure for the working class. Just the other day I called out 'johnnyflash' for supporting nuclear armament (which many trots support), this is hardly something which I got from Emile Pouget, but Trotskyists base their current politics on their shitty theoretical heritage, and libertarian communists have a very solid theoretical heritage which they should be able to draw from for the present.

Agree with Oliver. To abandon our theoretical heritage is to get lost in the fleeting present and thus to lose sight of the future.

Hey,

It strikes me that "authoritarianism" and "hierarchy" are not in themselves meaningful politically or theoretically.

On anti-authoritarianism: A revolution is a very authoritarian thing. We'll be shooting people. We will actively and by force suppress all capitalist relations: value, money, capital, exchange, wage labor, etc. The real problem is that anti-authoritarianism in principle is a kind of rigid individualism because it is stuck on a formality of direction and subordination. It does not want anything imposed, but revolution is an act of imposition. The question has to be asked: imposed by whom, for what ends? What is legitimate authority and what is illegitimate authority? It can only be determined by your relation to the problem of revolution and communism.

On hierarchy: much the same IMO. What in hierarchy is per se bad? A vertical structure of command is no worse per se than a horizontal one. What relations does this structure express? Is the problem with capital that it is 'hierarchical'? What would that mean? The problem is the capital-labor relation itself, not that it is hierarchical. It generates hierarchies that serve its end of exploitation of labor, but the relation itself, at the level of the exchange-relation, is not even really hierarchical or authoritarian. It is quite democratic.

Therefore, I would add that the fetish of democracy, exampled in several people's posts, is also a question of formalism. What do you mean by democracy? Is it a principled question? Is communism 'pure' or 'realized' democracy? There are certainly anarchists and Marxists who think so (Werner Bonefeld and Sergio Tischler's Human Dignity largely takes that line.) I do not. Is democracy an essence of its own? Or is it a procedure?

I know what differentiates my views from the Trotskyists, both in the present and theoretically (after all, the past is only important insofar as it delimits a current political-theoretical position and practice.) I know what differentiates my views from some different kinds of anarchists (there is no lump 'anarchism', and I would have different disagreements with Proudhonists against Bakuninists against anarcho-syndicalists and so on.)

But authoritarianism, hierarchy and democracy are essentially about the distribution of power, not about the relations of power themselves. It is the other side of a politics of economic redistribution (criticisms of poverty, inequality, wealth distribution, etc.) Power does not determine the essence of capital because the state is a mode of existence of capital.

As such, it seems to me that lots of anarchists, irrespective of their tradition, and lots of Trots end up arguing over who is the 'real' democrat, hence the accusation of authoritarianism and hierachism hurled at the Trots by the anarchists and the accusation of being anti-organization and economist thrown at the anarchists by the Trots. It is not there is not a difference, but they in effect do not disagree over the foundation.

Now, this need not be true of anarchists, but I have not seen an argument here so far with enough substance to set itself apart from this. Instead, there are arguments about whether or not the trots are a cult, parliamentarians (some anarchists, as is clear from the discussions of local activism and the workers' community association (IWA? I'm blanking), are also not against participation in local elections), pro-trade union (which many anarchists are), etc.

The lack of a reference to what communist revolution means, to its essence and to what forms of appearance follow from that, leads to a kind of theoretical ecclecticism and an inability to move forward.

I for my part do not care if anarchists can differentiate themselves from Trotskyists. I am interested in communists (anarcho-, left-, council-, etc., whatever their respective disagreements) being able to differentiate themselves from bourgeois radicalism (Proudhonism, Leninism, radical unionism, social democracy and so on) because this is theoretically and politically necessary to rejuvinating communist politics in the world.

Certainly from there we will have our own disagreements (I do not agree with the notion of the party put forward by some anarchists or Leninsts or some Left communists, nor on the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat), but if we do not even agree that what is essential to communism is the abolition of exchange relations, money, value, wage labor, capital, etc., then it is not even possible to further theoretically.

Chris

So everything on the left that you disagree with is 'bourgeois radicalism' while people like you are somehow more in the vein of 'true' 'working-class' 'militancy'?

As to your conception of revolution, which is not uncommon, how can you seriously expect to repress 'capitalist acts' between consenting adults (and these aren't purely 'capitalist' institutions anyway) without a hugely authoritarian, necessarily hierarchical state apparatus in place? Or does it not matter since this hierarchy flies a red flag?

Seems to me, if we want to get rid of 'exchange relations, money, value, wage labor, capital, etc' then it would be best to push for and participate in self-directed working-class activity that would make these institutions unnecessary.

I'd add nationalizations, which are quite different from socializations, clearly.
All in all, I think Trotskyists tend to strengthen the state, instead of destroying it - and I mean the bourgeois state.

Probably in Italy there are only the worst Trotskyists currents, I don't know, but I cannot see any difference between them and Stalinists, if not as a matter of substituting Stalin with Trotsky. They've not conducted any serious critique of what USSR was.

Redtwister gets to the kernal of a number of arguments on several threads here including, amongst others, the 'Reformism/Lifestyle' and 'Economic Calculation' ones. After all this site is titled 'Libertarian Communism' but there are many posters who are clearly 'arnarchist' or 'libertarian' but definitely not 'communist' in the orginal and revolutionary sense of that word. Nothing wrong with that of course as it has stimulated some lively debates, but understanding the real poitical differences is important.

I don't quite understand the annoyance expressed in 'Antieveryghings' comment. Given Redtwisters bracketed note in particular, in the last paragraph of their post, I am sure they would agree with ' self directed working class activity'?

I don't think Redtwister was saying that organisational issues around 'hieirachy' and 'authoritarianism' were unimportant or irrelevant, just subordinate to the more fundamental issues - or have I misinterpreted them?

well see this is what baffles me because clearly organisational issues are fundamental issues. Afterall capital, value and commodities are all expressions of social relations. Capital did not fall from the sky, it developed out of real historical social relations, from land enclosures, racial and social hierarchies, primitive accumulation. Whilst modern capitalism seeks to portray itself as egalitarian and frictionless the truth is that it is reliant on brutalisation and hierarchy, whether in the classroom, the army barracks, the factory or the office. Behind every slick pomo iPod is a the jackboot of the Chinese state.

Redtwister, this sums up what needs to be the essential aims of our discussions very well

"I am interested in communists (anarcho-, left-, council-, etc., whatever their respective disagreements) being able to differentiate themselves from bourgeois radicalism (Proudhonism, Leninism, radical unionism, social democracy and so on) because this is theoretically and politically necessary to rejuvinating communist politics in the world."

Though part of this discussion needs to also include what we mean by Leninism and Social democracy. There has been quite a lot of discussion about these two questions. Most left communists who participate on these forums would agree with 'leninism' being part of bourgeois radicalism if by that you mean Stalinism, as regards Social Democracy there is more of a discussion amongst Left Communists as to whether Social Democracy before 1914 was an expression of the proletariat or not.

These are to very hot topics -as the threads have shown- but if we discuss them within the framework of the discussion of how to differentiate proletarian politics and organisations from bourgeois ones it should enable, what at times is a very heated, discussion-to unfold in a fruitful way.

Mic, your are right the defense of nationalisation does need to be added to the broad definition of what is Leftism.

who's "we", now? you?

that's better

it's rare, but i agree with devrim here - yet still only 50%. it isn't at all clear to me that industrial unions can form the infrastructure of the future economy/mass organizations of the class post-capital (contra the IWW and SLP), but why assemblies are put forward as such is equally unclear to me.