Can Leninism and Anarchism Co-exist?

Can Leninism and Anarchism Co-exist?

No - The leninist would kill the anarchist. Well, then in response the anarchist then would have to kill the leninist.

Why should we not have a worker's state

There is no such thing as a workers state. There is the state and only that, and the state is in opposition to the workers.

Why should we not have a state in existence side by side an autonomous anarchist zone

It might end up like that, but then it will be because neither side wants to fight a war. Kind a like how USA and North Korea is officially at war right now, but neither side wants to fight.

sans-culotte

I just can't comprehend why anarco-communism and Leninism can't co-exist as we are all fighting for the same goal. Differences in methodology shouldn't result in fatal consequences.

Because Leninism dont want differences in methodology. They wanna be the vanguard right?

the moment the russian farmers told the communists that they wont get their food for the cities it was GG for communism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

sans-culotte

any Leninist must agree the Soviet experience failed because of the rigid bureaucracy

My prejudice of Leninist tells me that their point of view is that it is exactly because of the bureaucracy that the USSR was for them considered a success.

and the only thing that can keep the worker's state in check is living, breathing communism that anarchists will practice in real time.

USSR proved over and over that where real socialism existed it had to be crushed. Well yeah, USSR was a state and so it was in opposition to the workers. And so USSR crushed socialism in Ukraine, in Kronstadt and in Spain.

In my view, all of our lives are at stake in this struggle. Climate change cannot be addressed under capitalism. The fate of the world and humanity lie in our hands. I refuse to leave this world to future generations with a divided, splintered and impotent Left. I refuse to let Trumpian neo-fascism sweep the nation without doing anything about it. Workers of the world, unite!

They said socialism will come in the most advanced countries (MAC). But i dont know what the arguments are for that? I think socialism will come in countries who are like in the middle. In the MAC there are too many workers who will be in favour of capitalism and the state will be too strong and will suppress the revolutionary working class. Thats why i think the workers have the best chance of a revolution in the middle countries. And yeah Rojave is right there.

The revolution failed because you can't have socialism in one country.

The world revolution failed in Berlin and Milan and Bucharest and Winnipeg and Seattle and Glasgow and Shanghai - not in Petrograd or Moscow.

It went as far as it could in Russia. But it could never have achieved a socialist society in one isolated state, even a very large one like the Russian Empire. If it were to be saved from degeneration, it was vital that the revolution continued to spread.

If we want to look to the failures of the world revolutionary wave (of 1917-27) then how about examining Luxemburg, Gorter, Pannekoek, Niuewenhaus, Bordiga, Malatesta, Pankhurst, McLean, Connolly, Rocker, Reed, Heywood, De Leon, Debs and Goldman, who failed to be part of building strong revolutionary movements in Germany, Netherlands, Italy, the UK and the US?

I think blaming Lenin and Trotsky (or even the entire Bolshevik Party) is falling into 'great men of history' and failing to see the point. The important question isn't 'why did it go wrong in Russia?' but 'why did nowhere else come close to what the Russian working class did?'

Lots of propaganda

Get the trade unions back on track or form new ones that are revolutionary

Try establish small communities that are run as close to socialism as possible. They can then function as propaganda by the deed for other workers.

Enlighten the workers about representative democracy that it is a scam where the workers are 100% guaranteed to become the losers no matter which side win. (this will be in contrast to direct democracy of course)

Well that was just what i could think of right now

I think vanguards bring on pretty deranged forces into the political sphere. By the nature of revolutionary politics, a communist government would elicit extreme measures, and so also extreme counter-measures. Of course with the Bolsheviks this was due in part to the nature of Russia's tsarist legacy and their fucked up political culture, plus the failed international revolution as slothjabber mentioned above. And anyways communist coup d'etats are so passé, no on would support them. SO PASSE.

While anything could happen in the 21st century, some of it could be very bad. That is why I personally only support people power and the popular overthrow of all governments, and their replacement by communal institutions, not another governments!!!!

Many understand that Marxism and Leninism are incompatible, and when it comes to anarchism, some say Marx shares the most affinity
https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm

While many will accuse that the supposed "libertarian" work of Lenin ' State and Revolution' of being a piece of opportunistic propaganda, written before the Bolsheviks took power and control and shed all its "sovietism".

Why not read Paul Mattick's Anti-Bolshevik Communism
Most of the articles that make up the book can be read here
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/index.htm

If you feel more philosophical, Anton Pannekoek analyses the materialism foundation of Lenin here and finds it wanting.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm

If you care to by-pass the theory, plenty of examples of Lenin's practical politics being enacted when in power on this website if you care to do a search and spend time reading them all.

Leninism does not share the same goals and is not effective or a shortcut. Read this
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1343-july-2016/spa-dashed-rocks-compromise

Hi Sans-culotte, knowing what leninism is about and knowing a bit of history would be a good place to start. Never mind yer anarchism, leninism itself has never been compatible with other marxist tendencies from the start. Understanding the leninist desire to dominate or crush any other class struggle, social or political movement should tell you all you need to know.

pigs will fly before "anarchists and a transitional state work hand in hand"

The problem with a workers state is there isn't any examples of them beginning to "wither away", in fact they tend to become more and more authoritarian and absolute over time. Granted there's always been lots of reasons for that, war and counter revolutions, but it also seems that the human condition easily gets corrupted with the power a state provides. Although saying that, the Zapatistas managed to establish their autonomy in the face of these problems (as have other people). Additionally a state acts as a mediator instead of community autonomy. The structure itself is what's problematic, even if it's a "workers paradise state", the question is why would communities need a state to act as a mediator? Is there a time where a state would be more appropriate than community autonomy? I don't think so.

Also i imagine there wouldn't ever be a good time to wither the state away.

if revolutionaries take control of the state there new position restricts how they can act and pressures them to act in certain ways. these are the reasons that leftists in power consistently act to suppress actual revolutionary tendencies and support capital, its not that they are bad people (but they may be) or that they have a incorrect political analysis (although they do)

For the state to function it needs to restrict peoples ability to operate independently of the state, even where it uses things like coop's and neighbourhood assemblies these are linked to the state or more commonly a specific faction in the state, they are used to provided support to this faction and they make there members dependent on the state, rather than building there own independent power. Genuinely independent neighbourhood assemble and workers controlled industry leaves no reason for people to support the state, so these forms of organisation are competing for the same niche in society, and like different species in the same ecological niche they cant both prosper.

slothjabber

The revolution failed because you can't have socialism in one country.

The world revolution failed in Berlin and Milan and Bucharest and Winnipeg and Seattle and Glasgow and Shanghai - not in Petrograd or Moscow.
'

the revolution was failing as soon as workers elected representatives instead of implementing direct democracy, once that happened no outside revolution could have saved it.

So the revolution is only possible in one factory?

Once you have a mass assembly, that needs to talk to another mass assembly, the revolution is failing.

I think that's rubbish, obviously.

Sans-culotte #1
‘That is not to say that I don't believe a vanguard party is necessary for a revolutionary working class to seize power. ’

I’m assuming that you therefore believe a vanguard party is necessary (double negatives were never my strong point).

I will not repeat what has already been written above about the contradiction in terms of ‘a worker’s state’.

Leninism and the State, fit together like a hand into a glove. If a party of revolutionaries understands itself to be the most progressive elements of the working class ‘the vanguard’, and needs the apparatus of a State to function as such, then all the enemies of the party must be swept aside with an iron broom, as not to do so would be to abdicate its position of responsibility for the triumph of the proletariat. This is only necessary in the transition period (or State). The weeding out of the counter revolutionaries in all their devious manifestations may take several generations (or even longer). Such is the heavy burden of Leninists, when acting out their historic mission.

Personally, I prefer the stories of Robert Louis Stevenson or Hans Christian Anderson.

slothjabber

So the revolution is only possible in one factory?

Once you have a mass assembly, that needs to talk to another mass assembly, the revolution is failing.

I think that's rubbish, obviously.

i know you know that anarchists advocate federalism

Is it me or is there some fairly, shall we say, left field stuff posted here? :-)

What do you get if you cross a Leninist with an anarchist?

I don't know because it's not possible.

cactus9

What do you get if you cross a Leninist with an anarchist?

Alfred Rosmer.

What do you get if you cross a Leninist with an anarchist?

A lot of the present day 'anarchists'.

radicalgraffiti

slothjabber

So the revolution is only possible in one factory?

Once you have a mass assembly, that needs to talk to another mass assembly, the revolution is failing.

I think that's rubbish, obviously.

i know you know that anarchists advocate federalism

What that federalism consists of puzzles me though. I'm pretty certain I knew what it was when I was an Anarchist but now I'm not sure I understood it the same way anybody else did. Because I thought it meant, if a higher council (composed of delegates from the lower councils) made a decision, the lower councils should stick to it. But as soon as I started calling myself a Marxist, I found out that what I thought was what we all agreed with was called democratic centralism and was a really bad thing.

i missed out mandated recallable delegates in my last post

slothjabber

radicalgraffiti

slothjabber

So the revolution is only possible in one factory?

Once you have a mass assembly, that needs to talk to another mass assembly, the revolution is failing.

I think that's rubbish, obviously.

i know you know that anarchists advocate federalism

What that federalism consists of puzzles me though. I'm pretty certain I knew what it was when I was an Anarchist but now I'm not sure I understood it the same way anybody else did. Because I thought it meant, if a higher council (composed of delegates from the lower councils) made a decision, the lower councils should stick to it. But as soon as I started calling myself a Marxist, I found out that what I thought was what we all agreed with was called democratic centralism and was a really bad thing.

so here you go again messing around with the definitions of words so you dont have to engage with the actual disagreements

democratic centralism is a term originating with Lenin, to describe how he wanted the party to be run, therefore i think it is reasonable to take the actual practice of the bolseviks and lenninst groups as how it works in practice.
now in a leninst party typically what happens is a central committee decides policy and some specific actions. The members of the organisation have no say in deciding what gets decided and they cant recall the committee members either. The committee is typically elected, but usually only as a slate so it may not be possible to remove specific members of the committee if a slate is not available. so committee members are often in power for years, they have different interests from the general membership.

THIS is what anarchists object to about democratic centralism, but you just go and pretend this is the same as mandating delegates with specific positions so they can coordinate with the delegates of other groups and allow the organisation to decide shared positions and actions.

what is the purpose of the conflation?

Doesn't democratic centralism also invariably result in minority oppositions to central committees being expelled or hounded out sometimes loosely under the guise of 'party discipline'?

sans-culotte

I am inspired by ...the anarchists in Spanish Civil War.

Were you also inspired by the leninists killing those same anarchists?

To be fair Jeff, the POUM were leninists (and fraternal to the anarchists in spite of political differences) who were also killed by other leninists of the Stalin persuasion.

radicalgraffiti

the revolution was failing as soon as workers elected representatives instead of implementing direct democracy, once that happened no outside revolution could have saved it.

In this sentence, are you saying it was representatives (contra, delegates) that were the problem, or are you saying it was scale (away from mass assemblies) that was the problem?

Do you think, that whichever of the criteria you regard as being necessary for a successful revolution having been met, Russia could have progressed to a socialist society alone? In other words, do you support 'socialism in one country'?

slothjabber

radicalgraffiti

the revolution was failing as soon as workers elected representatives instead of implementing direct democracy, once that happened no outside revolution could have saved it.

In this sentence, are you saying it was representatives (contra, delegates) that were the problem, or are you saying it was scale (away from mass assemblies) that was the problem?

Do you think, that whichever of the criteria you regard as being necessary for a successful revolution having been met, Russia could have progressed to a socialist society alone? In other words, do you support 'socialism in one country'?

I think there is a reasonable debate to be had about the differences in organizational form and the divergences between what we say we mean and what we actually do. I think a reasonable person can argue anarchists sometimes fetishize form over function. I even think some of these questions need to be asked within the entire libertarian milieu especially in light of the current problems in the IWA (as in, taking away the personality conflicts, was there anything that could have been done differently to solve the inherent conflicts between smaller and larger sections?)

But your question here is unhelpful and comes across a bit like point scoring. I mean, do you honestly think radicalgraffiti really supports socialism in one country?

Co-existence between anarchists and Leninist doesn't usually happen but the case of the FOD and the POUM, as noted by serge, is perhaps the glaring exception, if largely only because of force of circumstances, perhaps not the least of which is the fact that that the anarchists in Spain were vastly more powerful then were the Leninist's and so therefore the POUM seems to have reached the obvious conclusion that the support of the anarcho-syndicalists was indispensable to a successful proletarian seizure of power in Spain. Hypothetically, had the power differential been reversed and had the POUM been the head of a powerful movement instead of the anarchists then perhaps the attitude of the POUM would have been much less agreeable towards the anarchists, but of course we'll never know.

Also, unfortunately, it was the Stalinist variety of Leninism in the popular front and not the anti-Stalinist Leninist's of the POUM that managed to gain the cooperation of certain influential 'anarchist ministers' in the suppression of the revolutionary proletariat in Spain.

jesuithitsquad

... I mean, do you honestly think radicalgraffiti really supports socialism in one country?

I'm absolutely certain that radicalgraffiti doesn't think he supports socialism in one country.

Equally, I'm certain that the idea that there is a 'proper' way for the revolution to have happened in Russia is a form of socialism in one country.

Rosa said "In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia". Believing that it was a matter of policy by this or that set of actors (Lenin did this, the working class didn't do that) means that under the correct circumstances socialism in one country is possible. You may disagree with Stalin about what those circumstances are, but that's just detail.

I stand to be corrected but was not the POUM repudiated by the orthodox Trotskyists and that they were part of the Two and half International - the one that the ILP were part of, hence the reason Orwell ended up joining it rather than the International Brigade. But it is all a bit confusing

Wasn't one of the POUM units called the Lenin Division.

Further reading and more clarification here
https://libcom.org/history/international-volunteers-poum-militias

ajjohnstone

I stand to be corrected but was not the POUM repudiated by the orthodox Trotskyists and that they were part of the Two and half International - the one that the ILP were part of, hence the reason Orwell ended up joining it rather than the International Brigade. But it is all a bit confusing

Wasn't one of the POUM units called the Lenin Division.

Further reading and more clarification here
https://libcom.org/history/international-volunteers-poum-militias

Yes Trotsky broke with POUM, and the orthodox Trotskyites backed a tiny group called the Bolshevik-Leninists in Spain. The POUM had merged with some smaller Marxist groups (hence the Unification part of the name) including a group that was close to Bukharin and they had links to the ILP. So they were a bit all over the place by 1936. The Lenin division was the one Orwell fought in I believe. The POUM barracks in Barcelona was also named after Lenin.

I think POUM were that rare group that wouldn't discount actual experiences when it contradicted theoretical orthodoxy, because most of their praise of the CNT is about there strength and disregard for legality.

A Lot of people here are forgetting to mention that that ‘Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine’/Makhno was happening under Lenin’s reign. I remember reading that Lenin considered giving Makhno some permanent territory; of course that did not happen, and the reds helped drive out the black army.

WTF?!?! You do realise that, on the direct orders of Lenin and Trotsky, the makhnovschina was crushed after it had fought off and defeated various white armies.

radicalgraffiti

if revolutionaries take control of the state there new position restricts how they can act and pressures them to act in certain ways. these are the reasons that leftists in power consistently act to suppress actual revolutionary tendencies and support capital, its not that they are bad people (but they may be) or that they have a incorrect political analysis (although they do)

The 1919 takeover of the German State by the social democrats and the murder of Luxemburg and Liebknecht was the direct result of overwhelming historical forces in conjunction with an incorrect political analysis, an analysis which was itself the product of the lack of a rational moral basis which would have provided the clarity of critique of society required at that world-historic moment.

If a revolutionary movement has no ethical standard for what a better, co-operative world would physically mean, one that makes the oppression of life under capitalism comprehensible and provides direction, how could it possibly avoid re-creating this same irrational, sado-masochistic society if and when social forces once again created such a moment? In order to claim that the state is lacking in freedom and justice, you require some kind of rational standard of what ought to be the case. The lack of such an ethical basis for making a rational society is in part what led the German majority social democrats into 'pragmatically' supporting liberals and finally conservatives in their attempt to keep the Nazis out, and resulted in their utter destruction when the conservatives appointed Hitler as chancellor.

radicalgraffiti

For the state to function it needs to restrict peoples ability to operate independently of the state, even where it uses things like coop's and neighbourhood assemblies these are linked to the state or more commonly a specific faction in the state, they are used to provided support to this faction and they make there members dependent on the state, rather than building there own independent power. Genuinely independent neighbourhood assemble and workers controlled industry leaves no reason for people to support the state,

Again, in order to claim that the state destroys freedom requires of you some rational, ethical standard of what ought to be, by which to define a rational (because ethical) re-organisation of the economic life of society. Why such a simple fact should occasion any confusion or surprise is just baffling.

radicalgraffiti

so these forms of organisation are competing for the same niche in society, and like different species in the same ecological niche they cant both prosper.

Climax ecosystems are vast, complementary co-operative affairs so the analogy doesn't work: state and capitalism and full communism don't fit together like the different parts of the carbon cycle or something, they're completely different societal arrangements.

I think POUM were that rare group that wouldn't discount actual experiences when it contradicted theoretical orthodoxy, because most of their praise of the CNT is about there strength and disregard for legality.

What's not so rare is that the POUM supported the popular front government in Spain, albeit with criticism, and tried to execute revolutionary policies within the framework of the popular front government.

And if the popular front doomed the Spanish revolution, and it most certainly did, the POUM's refusal to break with the popular front and oppose the PF as a bourgeois government doomed the POUM.

A Lot of people here are forgetting to mention that that ‘Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine’/Makhno was happening under Lenin’s reign. I remember reading that Lenin considered giving Makhno some permanent territory; of course that did not happen, and the reds helped drive out the black army.

The Makhnovists did in fact negotiate a treaty (often referred to as the Starobelsk Agreement) with the Soviet government of Ukraine allowing them to set up an autonomous territory around Gulyai-Polye for an anarchist social experiment. The treaty also required the Bolsheviks to release all anarchist political prisoners and allow freedom of speech and the press for anarchists on Soviet territory. The anarchists were not permitted to advocate the violent overthrow of Soviet power (apparently non-violent advocacy was OK).

The Starobelsk Agreement, although more honoured in the breach, is worth studying because of its vision of an anarchist society and how that was realized during the few weeks the Agreement was in effect.

Do you have a copy?

The Starobelsk Agreement can be found here.

Although signed by several high-level Bolsheviks, and ratified by the government of Soviet Ukraine, the Makhnovists were later told that an autonomous region had to be approved by the Moscow authorities. The Soviet Ukraine was the first example of a Soviet "puppet" state.

Not all the Makhnovists accepted the Agreement. In fact, of the 21,000-strong Insurgent Army, 8,000 opted out. Here's the parting shot by four of their commanders (Kamenev, Bondarenko, Parkhomenko, Fomin):

"We don't want peace with the Bolsheviks, who are capable of deception. We don't want to spill our own blood on the Wrangel front just so the Bolsheviks will benefit from our sacrifices. We don't consider them revolutionaries and we fight them because they are statists, authoritarians, and legalists. We wish you good luck in defeating Wrangel, but we implore you – don't stick your fingers in the Bolsheviks' maw – they'll be bitten off."

Karetelnik

A Lot of people here are forgetting to mention that that ‘Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine’/Makhno was happening under Lenin’s reign. I remember reading that Lenin considered giving Makhno some permanent territory; of course that did not happen, and the reds helped drive out the black army.

The Makhnovists did in fact negotiate a treaty (often referred to as the Starobelsk Agreement) with the Soviet government of Ukraine allowing them to set up an autonomous territory around Gulyai-Polye for an anarchist social experiment. The treaty also required the Bolsheviks to release all anarchist political prisoners and allow freedom of speech and the press for anarchists on Soviet territory. The anarchists were not permitted to advocate the violent overthrow of Soviet power (apparently non-violent advocacy was OK).

The Starobelsk Agreement, although more honoured in the breach, is worth studying because of its vision of an anarchist society and how that was realized during the few weeks the Agreement was in effect.

Great post mate.

This caught my eye during my reading of the agreement.

3. Free participation in elections to the Soviets; and the right of Makhnovists and anarchists to be elected thereto. Free participation in the organization of the forthcoming Fifth Pan-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, which will take place next December.

The reference to soviets is very interesting. From my understanding Lenin only let the soviets exist for weeks. Perhaps the oppression of the Makhnovists is part of the bigger move of demolishing grassroots governance.

If the Makhnovists has shown us anything; it is how Leninism (and its mutations) is empirically incompatible with Anarchism.

factvalue

radicalgraffiti

if revolutionaries take control of the state there new position restricts how they can act and pressures them to act in certain ways. these are the reasons that leftists in power consistently act to suppress actual revolutionary tendencies and support capital, its not that they are bad people (but they may be) or that they have a incorrect political analysis (although they do)

The 1919 takeover of the German State by the social democrats and the murder of Luxemburg and Liebknecht was the direct result of overwhelming historical forces in conjunction with an incorrect political analysis, an analysis which was itself the product of the lack of a rational moral basis which would have provided the clarity of critique of society required at that world-historic moment.

so you think if the social democrat leaders had been better people then it would have turned out ok?

(cue response about how use of the word ok implies ethical judgement)

factvalue

If a revolutionary movement has no ethical standard for what a better, co-operative world would physically mean, one that makes the oppression of life under capitalism comprehensible and provides direction, how could it possibly avoid re-creating this same irrational, sado-masochistic society if and when social forces once again created such a moment? In order to claim that the state is lacking in freedom and justice, you require some kind of rational standard of what ought to be the case. The lack of such an ethical basis for making a rational society is in part what led the German majority social democrats into 'pragmatically' supporting liberals and finally conservatives in their attempt to keep the Nazis out, and resulted in their utter destruction when the conservatives appointed Hitler as chancellor.

you appear to be responding to something i didn't write in order to prompt your claim that actually everything is ethics

factvalue

radicalgraffiti

For the state to function it needs to restrict peoples ability to operate independently of the state, even where it uses things like coop's and neighbourhood assemblies these are linked to the state or more commonly a specific faction in the state, they are used to provided support to this faction and they make there members dependent on the state, rather than building there own independent power. Genuinely independent neighbourhood assemble and workers controlled industry leaves no reason for people to support the state,

Again, in order to claim that the state destroys freedom requires of you some rational, ethical standard of what ought to be, by which to define a rational (because ethical) re-organisation of the economic life of society. Why such a simple fact should occasion any confusion or surprise is just baffling.

no it just requires observation of how states function. whether that is good or bad whatever is a completely different matter

factvalue

radicalgraffiti

so these forms of organisation are competing for the same niche in society, and like different species in the same ecological niche they cant both prosper.

Climax ecosystems are vast, complementary co-operative affairs so the analogy doesn't work: state and capitalism and full communism don't fit together like the different parts of the carbon cycle or something, they're completely different societal arrangements.

and society isn't?

i'm not talking about stuff like the carbon cycle, i'm talking about ecological niches https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/ecological_niche.htm
again you show a spectacular ability to miss the point

Telling fact value he has spectacularly missed the point is a big fat case of stones and glass houses...

Khawaga

Telling fact value he has spectacularly missed the point is a big fat case of stones and glass houses...

your in no position to talk

Man, all this harsh language is making me jealous.

It's "you're ".

To try and get back to the OP-- the OP conflates Leninism with proletarian revolution, and there is no historical basis for identifying one with the other. "Leninism" didn't even exist as a "thing"-- a fetish, actually, prior to the retreat of proletarian revolution, and the full bore struggle by the Soviet apparatus against the prospects for international revolution.

So, Trotskyists to the contrary notwithstanding, there is every basis for identifying "Leninism"-- the fetish that substitutes object for relation-- with revolution.

Now, is anarchism compatible with proletarian revolution? Is it compatible with opposition to popular front governments? Is it compatible with breaking up the armed bodies of the bourgeoisie? Is it compatible with workers' organizations of power-- military, economic, social?

Depends on the anarchism under discussion doesn't it? Like it depends on the Marxists under discussion; on the historical circumstance that present themselves; and about what it takes to defeat the bourgeoisie.

But "Leninism" as a "thing in itself" being compatible with anything is an issue going nowhere.

RG

1.

'so you think if the social democrat leaders had been better people then it would have turned out ok? (cue response about how use of the word ok implies ethical judgement)'

All of these replies of yours are a continuation of the level of dialogue you reached almost immediately over on the ‘Anarchist Ethics’ thread and have then sustained, fingers in ears no matter what, throughout the rest of that discussion. I have to say comrade, your insecurity, belligerence, blunt ignorance and mental inflexibility on these ethical issues has been remarkable even for this illustrious venue. You've persistently refused to allow any interesting discussion to emerge, either ignoring or debasing every account I have given of my position on the way, and in this case you've winnowed down what I've written to a stump of the right kind of material for creating a distorted reflection of your own brittle rejections and misconceptions. But hey, that's your style: No matter what matter, when FV him say 'up', RG he say 'down!!'. Whatever private reasons there are for it (AF?), it doesn't lend itself to scintillating dialogue.

Don't get me wrong, just because I believe what you've been doing is obviously not accidental, that doesn't mean I'm claiming that you're unaware of it, not at all. Alls I'm saying is that it would be really difficult to demonstrate that what you're perpetrating doesn't produce a powerful whiff of the low mentality cynicism of a demagogue, seeking support from onlookers by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than using rational argument. But in carrying on like this and betraying such contempt for libcom users as gullible fools, what have you achieved so far apart from making yourself look a little ..odd? Come on now, you're better than that comrade.

I accept that you're trying to suggest that I'm proposing an etiology of social change which substitutes ethical values for social relations. Fine but I've never claimed that social institutions and attitudes are the pure physical manifestation of ethical values alone. History and the rational interpretation of the movements of society create ethics. Your insistence that ethics is some sort of irrelevant afterthought needs unpacking, so here goes: Let's say we were both the same age but I had four kids and you had none and we did the same jobs. How would the return we got for our work differ in a communist society, compared with the one we’re in? If you agree that I would get a greater return because in communism distribution would be based on need rather than work, then surely you must also agree that this is not merely an economic arrangement but also an ethical one?

Achieving it will require, among other things, an ethical transformation of the working class based on the social relations of working people to each other and to capital. Unlike Kropotkin, Marx tended to neglect ethics, and psychopaths like Noske and Stalin were able to justify their murderous insanity on the pretext of building the material preconditions for socialism, and insisting meanwhile that indulging in fripperies like ethics was just going to have to wait. You're in interesting company if that's your position.

2.

'you appear to be responding to something i didn't write in order to prompt your claim that actually everything is ethics'

Appearance is not always reality. For example when you assert that

'if revolutionaries take control of the state there new position restricts how they can act and pressures them to act in certain ways'

it appears that you are explicitly claiming that the state is lacking in freedom, which means that you're applying some kind of rational standard of what ought to be the case. But according to you the reality is that you are not making this ethical claim, so that's a relief then eh? Phew!

3.

'no it just requires observation of how states function. whether that is good or bad whatever is a completely different matter'

What sort of observations do you have in mind? Would it be like observing the trajectories of water particles in drifting clouds or something, are humans no longer intentional and why wasn't I informed dammit‽

In fact it's exactly the same matter, but not if you hold the belief (as held by Stalin for example) that ethics (the evaluation of experience elaborated through rational discourse) plays no part in guiding human behaviour toward a fully self-conscious communist society.

Or, alternatively: structures are important but their interaction with people is what makes them so.

4. 'and society isn't?

i'm not talking about stuff like the carbon cycle, i'm talking about ecological niches https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/ecological_niche.htm

again you show a spectacular ability to miss the point'

See the response in my previous post.