The communist left and internationalist anarchism

254 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 7 2010 22:08
Volin wrote:
rata wrote:
What is crazy about your statement is that you are linking future of humanity with relations of the workers movement ("proletarian camp") towards a miniature group as ICC is. This is not just idealistic, it's crazy.

I think mikail clarified he wasn't talking about the future of humanity resting on the shoulders of the ICC but on the "necessity of communist revolution" and, I would assume, the currency of basic ideas - that we share, btw - such as class consciousness and struggle, internationalism etc.

We may well still be talking about a different revolution but I'd also say, comrade, that this comes across as being needlessly sectarian.

---

Shame the original article has been completely ignored in this thread.

Voline (the real one) wrote:

"At Kharkov, the pursuit of the Anarchists assumed proportions unheard of before. Snares and ambushes were organised to catch all the Anarchists in the city. A trap of this kind was set up in the Free Brotherhood Bookshop. Anyone who came to buy a book was seized and sent to the Cheka; they even imprisoned people who stopped to read the newspaper Nabat which appeared legally before the break and was posted on the wall of the bookshop." This was in December 1920, while the Bolsheviks were still. 'revolutionary', in the eyes of the ICC.

As if to demonstrate the continuity of Bolshevik and ICC tactics, Voline (the real one) described this incident from November 1920:

"The same evening, I gave a lecture on Anarchism at the Agricultural Institute at Kharkov... Returning home, I worked a little on an article for our newspaper, and went to bed about 2.30. I was hardly asleep when I was awakened by an ominous hubbub; shots, the clanking of weapons, the noise of boots on the stairs, knocking on doors, shouts and curses. I understood. I had only time to get dressed. Someone knocked furiously at the door of my room. "Open or we'll break down the door." As soon as the bolt was drawn, I was brutally seized, carried off and thrown into a cellar in which there were already several dozen of us."

(Both quotations are from Voline's The Unknown Revolution)

Volin (or someone taking his name in vain) said:

"We may well still be talking about a different revolution but I'd also say, comrade, that this comes across as being needlessly sectarian."

Funny how the term 'sectarian' is a term of abuse bandied about mostly by those already in sects (don't worry, 'Volin', I don't think you're in a sect) and applied to those who don't happen to be 'organised', or 'members' (dangling appendages?). The accusation of being sectarian is, I suspect a form of projection (don't worry, devoration1, you'll get your turn) thrown about by those who recognise their own status as sectarians and cannot recognise any other status. But, 'Volin', I should change your user name - how about Victor Serge?

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 7 2010 22:56
Quote:
devoration1 wrote:
The quote you are referencing is the one quoted above by Samotnaf.

I thought it might be worthwhile to recognize and reject accusations some posters (including you) have made. Am I 'projecting' something that you yourself said?

I recognize what happened. It gets repeated anytime anything having to do with any topic distantly related to the ICC comes up ad nauseum on here- it's very hard to ignore it and still read threads on Libcom. How it was just like Kronstadt and so on. You and others who share your dislike of the ICC simply latch onto this story and regurgitate it. I don't condone the behavior described in Mciver's account of what happened, and while not being a member I do agree with a lot of the ICC's politics, and the loathing expressed by you and a half-dozen or so other posters is a juvenile distraction.

I'm also aware that you asked me 'what hell are you talking about?' but unfortunately I haven't mastered the art of quoting people quoting people quoting people on different pages without losing the whole of this text (an infantile disorder, or am I just too long in the tooth...?)

As it happens, that was not the quote from Samotnaf I was referring to (and I'm not going to go and search for it in case I lose this... you'll just have to take it on trust(!)).

You are projecting your own shared organisational insecurities - even as a non-member, merely sympathiser of the ICC, the group you solidarise with (which, incidentally, is not synonymous with the revolutionary proletariat). It is you who has implied that the sole content of people's distrust of, contempt for, and hostility to, the ICC, is reduceible to a question of rival organisations and recruitment - notwithstanding Samotnaf's suggestion of recruitment as a motive for the wooing of 'internationalist anarchists', which is still a valid suggestion, even if by far not the sole reason for the distrust of the ICC. You strike me as a keen, recent 'convert', so perhaps you should just make your own mistakes... Good luck to you. We never stop learning, and continue to make mistakes... but there are sharks out there. Be careful.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Aug 8 2010 00:10
Quote:
Today, the members of the "ICC" present themselves to the whole world as the victims of our "policy of criticising Bolshevik opportunism towards libertarians" (and persist in demanding their integration/rehabilitation into our milieu). To put an end to all this din, we have made the decision to publicly require of the members of the ICC to attend a Jury of Honour of the proletarian political milieu, which could have all the elements enabling it to come to a conclusion about the cogency of our charges.
Quote:
"the workers' movement always considered Juries of Honour as being a weapon of defence of comminst militants and organisations communist." http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/jury_of_honour_01

"... calling a Court of Honour is part of the tradition of the workers’ move­ment. ... any militant, when he considers that he has been unjustly accused of faults that he has not committed, has the duty and responsibility to defend his honour as a communist militant, by appealing to a revo­lutionary tribunal.

Any militant who refuses to engage in such a public political confrontation can only con­firm the validity of the accusations raised against him."
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/jury_of_honour_02

The ICC would surely want to be judged by the standards it seeks to apply to others - if not, according to their own comradely logic this would 'only con­firm the validity of the accusations raised against them'.

So what dates can you make to defend yourself in the dock, Alf? Or do we have to go round and kick your door in to get you there?

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 8 2010 02:06

The I'm a victim is the ICC's own sectarian projection. It's not surprising that members of a sect cry 'sectarianism' when they face criticisms of their ideology and practice. Thus Wellclose Square's criticisms (and from others, who aren't in any group) are 'sectarian'. This is a new interpretation of the word sectarian. It simply means 'insulting' the ICC.

Political criticisms can't be accepted by most ICC members. Contrary political opinions must be neutralised with complaints of unfair treatment, personal 'loathing' and 'needless sectarianism'. With that, no need to confront opposing views and interpretations of past ICC actions. That was the mindset underwriting 'parasitism' -- a universal conspiracy by the world bourgeoisie to attack the ICC. That has been toned down -- 'dislike' and 'loathing', coming out of the blue from unfair 'sectarians' with axes to grind. The ICC never provoked any of this, it was always the 'others' who plotted and unmasked themselves as clan adepts, parasites and probable state provocateurs.

This paranoiac mentality is the old legacy, and thrives among eager new devotees. They aren't interested in history, the ICC's or the systemic crimes of Bolshevism, just in how to avoid the end-days by entering a cult.

The Voline quotes by Wellclose Square are historical evidence, not proof of irrational 'dislike'. But to Devoration1, the nauseous mention of Kronstadt and the persecution of Russian anarchists in 1918-20 expresses a 'loathing' for the ICC, 'a juvenile distraction'. From what? A ridiculous claim; doesn't this thread deal with the differences between left communists (thus originally Bolsheviks) and anarchists? How can those issues be a distraction?

A peculiar solidarity of cuckoos has been displayed, with complaints against haughtiness towards non-English speakers, or the bullying of little darlings. Unreal, this is a cultish distraction.

My criticisms have been defined as 'denigrations', 'flaming' and something like intolerable heresies towards dear departed ones. But recollections are not lies or inventions. As if kowtowing for the ICC should be a universal practice. Even banning has been insinuated, testing the waters. The criticisms have also been diagnosed as symptoms of insanity, but who knows, the subject matter does contaminate.

There was no counter-factual narrative to the 1981 events, just like when Ingram and the CBG raised the issues off and online. That's why things were posed repeatedly, and in vain. This convinces that the paranoia will always survive in the bunker. Nevertheless, what is defined as 'dislike' and 'loathing', even if projections, does conceal an irreconcilable divergence that brutally surfaced in 1981. And its genealogy, albeit heavily mediated, does go back to 1917.

There can be no debate or a meeting of minds with rackets. This is not 'sectarianism' but a fact of life.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 8 2010 05:13

Wellclose square;

I think to there is no dispute here about the counter revolutionary actions of the Chekas.

But does it mean that all the bolshevik party was to blame for the Cheka actions?

Does not it sound like saying that all the germans was to blame for the genocide?

As I tried to point out many times;

- The vecheka was such an organisation that the party as a whole had no control over. Even the sovnarkom had no control over the cheka. It was autonomous inside the state and even inside itself.

Various local branchs of it acted on their own behalf even without responding to, let's say NKVD - the comissariat of internal affairs or the central vecheka.

In that case, party rank and file had hardly had control over the vecheka or provincial cheka.

In that sense the international left communist movement which was partially expelled from comintern before the second congress can not be guilty of its actions.

The bolshevik party members who also shared the similar fates with the anarchists eventually also can not be blamed for its actions. Yes I agree that left communists probably had mistakes and many bolsheviks had huge mistakes and some of them had also participated the counter revolution and betrayed.

But still, emergence of an organisation during a revolution which is killing the children of the revolution should be analysed more seperately and more cautiously. And if this analysis is going to help us to understand the root of counter revolution and draw lessons from it, then we should avoid simplistic generalizations that equate state violence with the whole party. In that sense maybe rather than showing evidences for violence that nobody argued against the existing of, we may start to understand its roots, its development and its organisational characther.

Should not we?

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Aug 8 2010 06:08
Wellclose Square wrote:

I'm also aware that you asked me 'what hell are you talking about?' but unfortunately I haven't mastered the art of quoting people quoting people quoting people on different pages without losing the whole of this text (an infantile disorder, or am I just too long in the tooth...?)

As it happens, that was not the quote from Samotnaf I was referring to (and I'm not going to go and search for it in case I lose this... you'll just have to take it on trust(!)).

Here's a screenshot- the Samotnaf quote is in the post you made, following the statement, "And Samotnaf is right when he says:"

EDIT: Too small. Link: http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx195/devoration1/quote1.jpg

Page 2, Post #38

Unless you're trying to say that you made a technical error in including that particular statement, and meant to quote another one, which doesn't seem likely given that's the post he made in this thread on page 1.

Quote:
You are projecting your own shared organisational insecurities - even as a non-member, merely sympathiser of the ICC, the group you solidarise with (which, incidentally, is not synonymous with the revolutionary proletariat). It is you who has implied that the sole content of people's distrust of, contempt for, and hostility to, the ICC, is reduceible to a question of rival organisations and recruitment - notwithstanding Samotnaf's suggestion of recruitment as a motive for the wooing of 'internationalist anarchists', which is still a valid suggestion

I'm fully aware a number of people have hostility towards and distrust of the ICC for several reasons. One of them is, as you agree, the 'question of rival organizations and recruitment'- something that has been mentioned in this thread by at least 3 people (you, Samotnaf and Mciver)- which is why I then brought it up.

For a brief moment, you engaged in a coherent and well grounded criticism- in reply to Volin above (with a quote from Voline and an authentic political question regarding the question of the Bolsheviks in 1920 etc); so you are capable of discussion with groups and people you don't like and/or don't agree with.

If you have politically grounded reasons for disagreement, which you've demonstrated that you do, why not express them?

Quote:
But to Devoration1, the nauseous mention of Kronstadt and the persecution of Russian anarchists in 1918-20 expresses a 'loathing' for the ICC, 'a juvenile distraction'. From what? A ridiculous claim; doesn't this thread deal with the differences between left communists (thus originally Bolsheviks) and anarchists? How can those issues be a distraction?

You misunderstand, badly, the first point: I find the nauseous and repeatitive comparison between what happened in 1981 to you with Kronstadt. The history of Kronstadt is a valid lesson and point of discussion for everyone in revolutionary politics and beyond- you comparing what happened to you in 1981 to what happened to the thousands of workers at Kronstadt is nauseating.

I defy you or anyone else to start on Page 1 of this thread and say it "deals with the differences between left communists and anarchists". This thing was a trainwreck from the beginning, derailed. The little actual political discussion in this thread could fit in the proverbial Dixie Cup.

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Aug 8 2010 04:23
rata wrote:
No, mikail, what is the problem for me is when a tiny left-wing bolshevik group thinks that clarifying relations with it is essential for solidarity among revolutionaries and for revolution that is vital necessity for the future.

I think you misunderstood mikail here. I don't think this was what he was trying to say.

Also, do you really think that the main problem with the ICC is their stand on the state in transition period?

Cassady
Offline
Joined: 28-02-09
Aug 8 2010 08:45

Fuck me! I just wanted a simple answer from the ICC. Did you falsely accuse a comrade - Chenier - of being a police spy? This doesn't require reference to the Bakunin/Marx split or a great historical debate.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Aug 8 2010 09:49

We will answer your question, Cassady, and many of the other accusations thrown at us on this thread, elsewhere, and in our own time, because it is clearly impossible to deal seriously with these issues right here. And it is not relevant to a debate about the communist left and internationalist anarchism.

Cassady
Offline
Joined: 28-02-09
Aug 8 2010 10:01

I'm 62 Alf, you better hurry, time's a'wasting.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 8 2010 10:34
devoration1 wrote:
Wellclose Square wrote:

I'm also aware that you asked me 'what hell are you talking about?' but unfortunately I haven't mastered the art of quoting people quoting people quoting people on different pages without losing the whole of this text (an infantile disorder, or am I just too long in the tooth...?)

As it happens, that was not the quote from Samotnaf I was referring to (and I'm not going to go and search for it in case I lose this... you'll just have to take it on trust(!)).

Here's a screenshot- the Samotnaf quote is in the post you made, following the statement, "And Samotnaf is right when he says:"

EDIT: Too small. Link: http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx195/devoration1/quote1.jpg

Page 2, Post #38

Unless you're trying to say that you made a technical error in including that particular statement, and meant to quote another one, which doesn't seem likely given that's the post he made in this thread on page 1.

Quote:
You are projecting your own shared organisational insecurities - even as a non-member, merely sympathiser of the ICC, the group you solidarise with (which, incidentally, is not synonymous with the revolutionary proletariat). It is you who has implied that the sole content of people's distrust of, contempt for, and hostility to, the ICC, is reduceible to a question of rival organisations and recruitment - notwithstanding Samotnaf's suggestion of recruitment as a motive for the wooing of 'internationalist anarchists', which is still a valid suggestion

I'm fully aware a number of people have hostility towards and distrust of the ICC for several reasons. One of them is, as you agree, the 'question of rival organizations and recruitment'- something that has been mentioned in this thread by at least 3 people (you, Samotnaf and Mciver)- which is why I then brought it up.

For a brief moment, you engaged in a coherent and well grounded criticism- in reply to Volin above (with a quote from Voline and an authentic political question regarding the question of the Bolsheviks in 1920 etc); so you are capable of discussion with groups and people you don't like and/or don't agree with.

If you have politically grounded reasons for disagreement, which you've demonstrated that you do, why not express them?

Quote:
But to Devoration1, the nauseous mention of Kronstadt and the persecution of Russian anarchists in 1918-20 expresses a 'loathing' for the ICC, 'a juvenile distraction'. From what? A ridiculous claim; doesn't this thread deal with the differences between left communists (thus originally Bolsheviks) and anarchists? How can those issues be a distraction?

You misunderstand, badly, the first point: I find the nauseous and repeatitive comparison between what happened in 1981 to you with Kronstadt. The history of Kronstadt is a valid lesson and point of discussion for everyone in revolutionary politics and beyond- you comparing what happened to you in 1981 to what happened to the thousands of workers at Kronstadt is nauseating.

I defy you or anyone else to start on Page 1 of this thread and say it "deals with the differences between left communists and anarchists". This thing was a trainwreck from the beginning, derailed. The little actual political discussion in this thread could fit in the proverbial Dixie Cup.

Thanks for that.

Quote:
devoration1 wrote:
Unless you're trying to say that you made a technical error in including that particular statement, and meant to quote another one, which doesn't seem likely given that's the post he made in this thread on page 1.

No, I observed that Samotnaf's statement - while true - does not represent the substance of what has been said by critics of the ICC. Agreement with one statement (Samotnaf's) does not preclude agreement with more substantive critiques of the ICC articulated by posters such as mciver, whose own analysis of the wreckage of the ICC has been excellent, conducted at a higher level than your reductive projections of 'sectarianism'.

Nice try... but you really didn't have to go to all that trouble. Anyway, I thought I told myself to stop feeding you these scraps?

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 8 2010 10:58
Samotnaf wrote:
I know this is off-topic (feeding the ICC's delusions of self-importance by endlessly showing up their ideological distortions and sectarian mentality has become a drag) but Angelus Novus - you never replied to my post (post 125) on that thread; I'd be genuinely interested in a response - it seems important to analyse and overcome all identities other than proletarian, and the German v anti-German confusions don't help. I don't want to have an arrogant competitive slanging match, but a genuine reflection from you about what I said would help towards overcoming part of the remnants of Jewish identity you still seem to have, and would help me clarify some things. I know this is a particularly touchy subject, given Auschwitz etc., but, unless you have no interest in overcoming some separate identity, it seems vital that the history of your own colonisation by a collectivist identity, and its remains, has to be confronted if you want to determine your existence: "The end of alienation follows the straight and narrow path of alienation itself".

devoration1 - this was the Samotnaf post I was specifically referring to in one of my more recent posts, when I agreed it was (and is) getting a bit of a drag feeding the sectarian mentality, delusions of self-importance and ideological distortions of the ICC. And in case you come back and say that wasn't what I said I was agreeing with, I'll say it again now, just so it's on record: It's getting a bit of a drag feeding the sectarian mentality, delusions of self-importance and ideological distortions of the ICC And, yes, you're quite right, I have concurred with Sam on other points - both he and I have posted more than once on this thread.

And now I'm going to go all 'Mother Hubbard' on you - the cupboard is bare...

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Aug 8 2010 11:05
Wellclose Square wrote:
But, 'Volin', I should change your user name - how about Victor Serge?

Nice one.

It might surprise you that I'm firmly against any apologism for the Bolsheviks. The genuine materialist interpretation isn't that they started off as a revolutionary force and become reactionary, but that they could never be a revolutionary force - and not out of the corruption of 'bad men' but because of real structural and material factors. Just as a party cannot represent, lead or take the place of the working class today. Of course, I believe this because I'm an anarchist communist and not a left communist.

That said, bringing it back to our own situation, when we (anarchists) seem to agree with the likes of the ICC (or other internationalist Marxists) on most things I think this is positive and worth encouraging. It doesn't mean I don't think they're mistaken on many issues, including the 'transitional state', but we can still co-operate until this becomes an issue.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 8 2010 20:53

Thanks for the courteous reply, Volin.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 9 2010 10:09

Devoration1 to Wellclose Square post 223

Quote:
... You misunderstand, badly, the first point: I find the nauseous and repeatitive comparison between what happened in 1981 to you with Kronstadt. The history of Kronstadt is a valid lesson and point of discussion for everyone in revolutionary politics and beyond- you comparing what happened to you in 1981 to what happened to the thousands of workers at Kronstadt is nauseating....

Did something untoward happen to Wellclose Square in 1981? Was he strolling around London or Manchester, got run over by French babbons speeding around like in the Périphérique? I confess I wasn't aware of Wellclose's existence then, this is news, another deposition for a Jury of Honour: a confession of ICC attempts against future critics. Granted, 1981 not like Kronstadt 1921, Chekist sleighs with machine guns crossing the ice, not like loaded voitures with ICC simians, duh!

Now, like against morning sickness, there are remedies against nausea. I understand now why chaperones Alf & Beltov were concerned by your delicate constitution. Maybe devour more slowly, or more to the point, stay away from nauseous threads, difficult to eradicate wrecker-parasites (an appropriate Yezhov term). Or better still, look at what's really written. Wellclose Square and McIver have not compared what happened to the ICC seceders in 1981 with Kronstadt, or the destruction of Russian anarchism by Bolshevism. Quote McIver where he makes such a clumsy comparison. What he has said on, a few occasions, is something like this, where he replies to the mindless fabrications of apparatchiks:

McIver Post 56 (reply to Devrim)

... The ICC is not the Bolshevik Party nor does it (fortunately) run a state. But it claims its traditions from Bolshevism, and considers the Bolshevik Party as its role model, even if it denounces its 'mistakes' ... 'ruthlessly'. Naturally the apparat's capacity to commit violence against oppositionists was limited by its size and historical origins (in Western Europe mostly). But its inner vision, its 'party spirit' was and is the same as the Bolsheviks. This is in itself an issue of great relevance, because the microcosm of a racket's existence reveals its macroscopic vision of the world, its true intentionality. Similarly, the 1907 Bolshevik bank robberies of Stalin and Kamo (supported by Lenin) expressed a criminal and pragmatic nihilism that would serve violent statist needs after 1917.

The ICC's 'amateurish thuggery' of 1981 was all it could muster, but that was enough to intimidate many of its opponents and its members, and seal the group's fate as a totalitarian racket. It's true that Its violence 'only' involved breaking into people's homes, stealing their personal property, pushing them about and slandering them venomously as parasites, provocateurs, secret spies, sluts, masons, etc, for years. That was all it needed to silence critics and rivals....

All this has been said many times on these threads, and by others years ago. Yet you ignore the details, and in effect apologises for these actions with the trivial claim that people were only 'pushed about'. Like saying that they should be grateful that they weren't tortured and maimed (or terminated) by the ICC thugs. This is really stupid, as you know that Lille, London, Manchester and Aberdeen aren't in Somalia, Syria or Colombia. The violence implemented by the apparat in 1981 was carefully measured, adapted to the confines of European life, even if risks existed and the top thugs knew it. It served its purpose quite well.

It is a banal truth that this level of violence was not equal to the mass murder of sailors and civilians by Lenin's régime or to the usual gangster activities of leftist and nationalist rackets or Leviathanic hit squads and torturers in certain parts of the world. This is a bizarre irrelevancy.

Your questions: They pushed you. Did you fall over? Did it hurt? also sounds rather unintelligent, or just ignorant. If you had read the relevant posts, you would know that I was never touched. But by contrasting violences, you accept a 'lesser evil', ie, little tolerable and acceptable violences, little 'mistakes', nothing to complain about, like spoilt European petty-bourgeois.

McIver Post 59 (to Devrim again)

Quote:
No, I think it is entirely reasonable to say that a couple of people being pushed around in the 1980s doesn't really compare with the massacre of tens of thousands of workers.

It may be 'reasonable' to you but irrelevant, as the point is not the quantitative comparison but the implicit intentionality, the vision of the world contained in the use of such methods. The scale doesn't matter, such actions have a vector quality to them. Comparing these levels of violence your way is a mockery of analysis, and this sophistry leads to minimising the 'small violence'. This is what makes you an apologist....

The whingeing impudence of Devoration1 continues:

Quote:
I defy you or anyone else to start on Page 1 of this thread and say it "deals with the differences between left communists and anarchists". This thing was a trainwreck from the beginning, derailed. The little actual political discussion in this thread could fit in the proverbial Dixie Cup.

But the first post on this thread mentions:

Quote:
The first article explaining why we support recent advances in the debate between left communists and internationalist anarchists. Perhaps a better starting point for a discussion than the question of 'platformism'.

The title of the ICC article is : The communist left and internationalist anarchism: What we have in common

It starts with:

For a few years now, certain anarchist individuals or groups and the ICC have overcome a number of barriers by daring to discuss in an open and fraternal way. Mutual indifference or rejection between anarchism and marxism have given way to a will to discuss, to understand the positions of the other, and to honestly define points of agreement and disagreement.

So to define points of agreement and disagreement DOESN'T include dealing with differences between left communists and anarchists? Either you can't grasp the written word or accept only your bureaucratic shoe-horning of words. This suggests that the apparat (plus flunkeys) decides how a 'social media' thread should progress, no 'derailing' that alters the precise intention of the 'political discussion'. Anything else except a strict adherence to the agenda of amiable discussions with fraternal anarchists is 'wrecking'. But this is a pompous and arrogant claim, there was no derailing, on the contrary, there were more than 230 posts and some excellent 12" salvoes from Battlescarred, curare darts from Nastyned, accurate and helpful precisions from Felix Frost, Rata and Volin, even some angelical treats. What more do you want? Do you propose banning your critics? Well, to cure your nausea, restrict your overtures to your home site, where at least you can virtually firewall or fumigate wrecking protozoa.

That's what these posts are, little mange-tout, that's blogging life, relax, and the nausea may yet go.

Now that you have defied anyone on the meaning of this thread, you still have not offered to devour your hat. Perhaps you should try chomping it down now, your steel one that is. It befits.

A comment on Volin's Post 230

Quote:
Wellclose Square wrote:

But, 'Volin', I should change your user name - how about Victor Serge?
Nice one.

It might surprise you that I'm firmly against any apologism for the Bolsheviks. The genuine materialist interpretation isn't that they started off as a revolutionary force and become reactionary, but that they could never be a revolutionary force - and not out of the corruption of 'bad men' but because of real structural and material factors. Just as a party cannot represent, lead or take the place of the working class today. Of course, I believe this because I'm an anarchist communist and not a left communist.

That said, bringing it back to our own situation, when we (anarchists) seem to agree with the likes of the ICC (or other internationalist Marxists) on most things I think this is positive and worth encouraging. It doesn't mean I don't think they're mistaken on many issues, including the 'transitional state', but we can still co-operate until this becomes an issue.

I agree with your brief description of Lenin's Bolsheviks. If Otto Rühle was right on Bolshevism, then it's highly probable that he would have considered left communists as a type of red fascists, so watch out, such 'issues' may jump at you sooner than you think. The Bolsheviks didn't make 'mistakes' against the anarchists in the Russian Revolution. They exterminated them. Bear that in mind, ask explanations as to why it was so crucial to do this. The Leninist tradition defended by the ICC has always been a determinant of their actions. It's up to them to clarify that past and transcend its destructive legacy. Hiding it or justifying it as 'mistakes' won't do.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 9 2010 16:33

Firtinaci, Post 222

Quote:
Wellclose square;

I think to there is no dispute here about the counter revolutionary actions of the Chekas.

But does it mean that all the bolshevik party was to blame for the Cheka actions?

Does not it sound like saying that all the germans was to blame for the genocide?

As I tried to point out many times;

- The vecheka was such an organisation that the party as a whole had no control over. Even the sovnarkom had no control over the cheka. It was autonomous inside the state and even inside itself.

Various local branchs of it acted on their own behalf even without responding to, let's say NKVD - the comissariat of internal affairs or the central vecheka.

In that case, party rank and file had hardly had control over the vecheka or provincial cheka.

In that sense the international left communist movement which was partially expelled from comintern before the second congress can not be guilty of its actions.

The bolshevik party members who also shared the similar fates with the anarchists eventually also can not be blamed for its actions. Yes I agree that left communists probably had mistakes and many bolsheviks had huge mistakes and some of them had also participated the counter revolution and betrayed.

But still, emergence of an organisation during a revolution which is killing the children of the revolution should be analysed more seperately and more cautiously. And if this analysis is going to help us to understand the root of counter revolution and draw lessons from it, then we should avoid simplistic generalizations that equate state violence with the whole party. In that sense maybe rather than showing evidences for violence that nobody argued against the existing of, we may start to understand its roots, its development and its organisational characther.

Should not we?

Firtinaci expresses himself effectively in English, pace his linguistic and patronising chaperones, Devrim & Devoration1.

His post doesn't mention the basic fact that Lenin and Bolsheviks close to him, like Sverdlov and Trotsky, proposed this terror machine in November-December 1917. The Sovnarkom decree imposing its creation was written by Lenin and supported by the Bolsheviks. The first Cheka Head was the Bolshevik Dzerzhinsky, a sociopath like most of his Bolshevik-Chekist associates: Peters, Volodarsky, Menzhinsky, Blumkin, Latsis, Uritsky and Unszlicht. The fact that Left SRs and anarchists were also Chekists (not after 1918) doesn't deny that its creation directly benefited Bolshevik domination and sped up their control of the state and civil society. There were some Bolsheviks or Left SRs like Steinberg who criticised the Cheka, but this didn't stop its formation and repression, not only against old régime supporters but against revolutionary opponents, workers and peasants. Local branch autonomy by Chekas was often more effective in unleashing terror, all was grist for the mill.

None of the points by Firtinaci erase the contention that the leading hierarchies of the Bolshevik Party supported the Cheka unconditionally in the decisive years 1918-21. That's what mattered, not the whingeing by reform-Bolsheviks, however decent and still loyal to the emancipation of mankind. The 'autonomy of the Cheka' argument proves nothing, except that it was allowed to do its job well, relentlessly endorsed by Lenin and Trotsky. How can a Cheka, or a Gestapo, be 'controlled' in the naive and romantic insinuation of Firtinaci? Even to imagine this is an absurdity, how can civil society 'control' a body set up by a clique to terrorise and bludgeon civil society into servility and obedience? The question is not how could the soviets have accomplished this in 1918-21, but why this is an impossibility in all cases.

Firtinaci's floating facts are strung together to a sophistic axiom: The Bolsheviks and their supporters in Comintern could have no responsibility over the terrorist Leviathan that emerged from 1919 onwards, replacing the old Tsarist régime. It wasn't of their doing, even if the Bolsheviks created this Leviathan, they didn't create it, so in this sense even the 'identification with the state' didn't exist or can't account for the Cheka's domination. An army of 200,000 Chekist troops materialised from nowhere in 1920. Who created this machine then? Perhaps a mass immaculate conception, awesome progress since Bethlehem, the babies were all uniformed, armed, well weaned (with huge devouring appetites) and presumably most over 16. A miracle of the October Revolution, all due to the 'autonomy' of Chekism.

But, Firtinaci may concede, OK, some Bolsheviks participated in the counter-revolution and betrayed (which ones, proof?) but not 'all the party'. Fine, one has a limb with gas gangrene, but hey look, here's a healthy patch, a few thousand good cells, let's avoid simplistic generalisations, and so opined intern Mikail.

The slothful resort to 'mistakes' is noted, their byzantine accumulation, including 'huge' mistakes, happens until the cows come home, around the 30s. But the Bolshevik communist essence must remain unsullied, a Platonic noumena, to avoid becoming bastards (ironically, the ways of history are mysterious).

In political history, even in Sociology, such an account could be called blatant apologetics. Or the fabrication of a cult-mythology. Or science fiction, why not.

The negative analogy of the Bolshevik Party with 'German' blame over the Jewish genocide is grotesque but an interesting give-away. German civil society in 1933-45 was not equivalent to a state-party in any way, even if Firtinaci implies it, revealing a totalitarian view. But membership in the Bolshevik Party was voluntary, an adult choice (even if we allow for all kinds of survival pressures). Membership in Comintern even more so. Those who didn't want to ask the right questions in 1918-21 did so because they didn't want to see, or dig out the truth. Or they saw too well. Try it again Mikail.

But this isn't the thread to air this specific and crucial issue, perhaps some anarchists will. Those who do mind what happened to the original Voline, and who don't think that this history is a side issue.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 9 2010 17:40

mciver;

Unlike you I am a marxist communist and unlike you I don't use terms like "leviethan" or "civil society" for an analysis of historical processes.

I propose you to read on the relations between the Vecheka, soviets and the sovnarkom. Then you will see that chekas' autonomy and irresponsibility towards soviets and how this was deepened over time.

I never implied that lenin was right on his policy towards Cheka. This is only your shadow boxing which is actually quite stalinistic. It is true that Lenin was defending cheka autonomy inside sovnarkom against the first SR and then Bolshevik leaders of the commisariats of justice and interior, this autonomy. In provinces too, chekas were semi independent against the local soviets. But if you have chosen to study the history of the russian revolution rather than blaming the victims of counter revolution -like left communists-, then you could have seen the constant tension between the cheka's autonomy and the soviets. The same tension, in a much more general respect also existed between the party leadership and the rank and file as the former increasingly attached itself to the "commisariats".

In your post there are also crucial points that are wrong. You are either consciously lying or motivated by your crude anti-communist hatret. In both case they deserved to be cleared up;

1. You argue that; bolshevik party was willing to form and even volunteered for the formation of the Cheka. Even the most anti-bolshevik historians like Leggett, tells that this is indeed wrong. Dzerzshinsky many times complains that he could not find any bolshevik members to join the Vecheka to do the "dirty job" so (he continues) only crazy people or adventurists are left to him (I am quoting from memory since I dont have the book).

2. 200.000 is not the Cheka organisation. Cheka had military detachments which carried out the military duties but also worked on railroad constructions etc. When initially formed it was less than 100. The military detachment was formed by the left SR's and it was under their control till the Brest and the LSR insurrection followed.

3.

Quote:
There were some Bolsheviks or Left SRs like Steinberg who criticised the Cheka, but this didn't stop its formation and repression, not only against old régime supporters but against revolutionary opponents, workers and peasants.

That is simply crazy. As its name implies cheka was set up as an "extraordinary commission". Obviously the fate of most extraordinary commission was to become permanent as the counter revolution strengthened. Still, the idea of an extra-ordinary commission was there and there was a continous struggle to limit its power -such as death sentence- both inside the party and outside of it. Since there is not many factual data, we don't know the extent of opposition. But available data shows that Dzerzshinsky himself complained many times about the some party opposition and press which showed Cheka as a monstrous organization.

4. Finally about my analogy with germany and bolshevik party. Obviously germany is not the best example. But the extent of hatret against the bolsheviks led me to use it. I am not implying that bolsheviks were equal to society. But it should be seen that it was a huge party, which included many true revolutionaries many of whom gave their lives for the cause of revolution even in... the cheka cells.

Obviously these kind of "minor details" are simply "apologisms" from your crude zorastrian "good against evil" liberalism. This is the usual banalism of opportunism which defends itself by a moral ignorance; according to that revolutionary activity-as every human activity- implies defeats and wrongs. So opportunism abstentee from communist practice by arguing that it leads to defeat. So opportunism can claim to use its "clean" measures to judge earthly dirty people which are "destined" to defeat. (For example; if you are defending that there were positive as well as negative lessons of Bolshevism you are defeated from the beggining). However for marxists historical analysis is the key for understanding the reasons of defeat and not some essentialistic-mystic satan inside people. That is surely something you can not do from your ivory tower by reading dusty cold war anti communist classics of yours.

I invite everybody who are interested in inter-bolshevik party opposition to read these two very interesting documents/articles published just about the same time by two of the organisations of international communist left;

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/142/workersgroupmanifesto

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2010-06-09/the-bolshevik-left-and-workers%E2%80%99-power

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Aug 9 2010 20:20
mikail firtinaci wrote:
Unlike you I am a marxist communist and unlike you I don't use terms like "leviethan" or "civil society" for an analysis of historical processes.

Apparently Marx had no problem with using the term "bürgerliche Gesellschaft" (i.e. "civil society").

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 9 2010 22:19

Firtinaci Post 234

My intention is hardly to convince you or your group of anything, or correct your interpretation of events, labels or use of terms. Such a reform project is beyond my capacity or interest. You are doing like you should, given your presuppositions. Each organisation attracts the personnel that suits it. But I'm not an organisation or in one, so to accuse me of 'opportunism' (?) is a laughable Pavlovian yap.

Your correcting points don't clear up or correct anything, on the contrary, more layers of tedious and confusing banality agglomerate.

The leadership of the Cheka was initially all Bolsheviks, that's all that mattered, that the main organisers were Bolsheviks, not all the rank and file. That wasn't needed, I don't see why stating this is wrong. Also, what does it matter that Dzerzhinsky had trouble getting Chekists who weren't 'crazy' or 'adventurers' (some weren't?) or that he couldn't find 'any Bolshevik' to do 'the dirty job'. You mean he never found any? More irrelevancies posing as stunning 'minor details'.

Even if that were true, the point is that the Bolshevik Party, as the governing state party, supported and benefited from the Cheka. They were symbiotic, they had to survive in tandem. You know nothing of political parties and how they are consolidated in a totalitarian party-state. It matters not one iota that a party labels itself 'proletarian'. On that you're as good as your last act, there are no 'internationalist' indulgences or dispensations. If your last act is mass murder of your own constituents, of the class that supposedly you 'represent' or that 'produced' you, then you're stuck with that. The rest is ideology, or the foundations of a new repressive cult.

If Dzerzhinsk cursed about not getting the right staff, there you have an enraged employer facing a labour shortage. How agony-auntish. And so what? Admittedly, trained, skilled torturers and killers may have been scarce in 1918. But not for long. They were found and hired above the market rate, after all, Russian society had just experienced four years of mass murder in WW1, and was now re-joining the bloodletting. Willing executioners must have saturated the body politic, in spite of your romantic hysteria. None of these anecdotal conflicts with the Cheka were basic and irreconcilable. They were negotiated but in the end total domination won, and Stalinism just cut the crap, the machinery for 'red fascism' was already in place for Stalin to expand his 'real domination'.

Resources for Dzerzhinsky's growing criminality were never lacking under Lenin. This dynamic was unstoppable, even if chaotic, conflictive and fluid. The more atomisation was fostered, the more the dynamic of counter-revolution and repression asserted itself. The soviets as autonomous organs of class affirmation had ceased to exist, these are much more fragile organisms than ever imagined, and extremely vulnerable to draconian military threats. Once the spirit of questioning, of solidarity and self-sacrifice for mankind is crushed by intimidation, it perishes, it can't be revived. Certainly not among that same generation of defeated humans, and not by the demagogues who stifled and killed that spirit.

Another irrelevant 'correction':

Quote:
200.000 is not the Cheka organisation. Cheka had military detachments which carried out the military duties but also worked on railroad constructions etc. When initially formed it was less than 100. The military detachment was formed by the left SR's and it was under their control till the Brest and the LSR insurrection followed.

This is supposed to 'correct' my statement:

Quote:
An army of 200,000 Chekist troops materialised from nowhere in 1920. Who created this machine then?

This was the Cheka's Internal Troops. I didn't claim that they were 'the Cheka organisation', so I don't stand to be corrected on fabricated 'minor details'. The other details provided by Firtinaci about this internal army of repression are completely worthless for the issues at hand. Still, he forgets to mention that apart from 'railroad construction' these troops were responsible for maintaining the Gulag, the whole vast network of Stalinist lagers. Mass deportations and mass murder were also what they did, and naturally they were there at the Kronstadt crushing. Those 'military duties', not railroads, were their main activity. These 'minor details' do matter, not the banalities collected by amanuensis Firtinaci.

In spite of his monarchist apologia, Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is a much more comprehensive study than Legget's, of the system founded by the Cheka (and Lenin and Trotsky).

Good luck in the left communist rapture.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 10 2010 03:13
jura wrote:
mikail firtinaci wrote:
Unlike you I am a marxist communist and unlike you I don't use terms like "leviethan" or "civil society" for an analysis of historical processes.

Apparently Marx had no problem with using the term "bürgerliche Gesellschaft" (i.e. "civil society").

Only to show its analytical inconsistency. I think it is not "the state and civil society" that Marx uses but "Burgeoisie and proletariat" i.e. classes as basic concepts for his class analysis. In breaking up with the left hegelianism, he systematically developed this alternative approach. I think the best source is here;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

That is at least what I think.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 10 2010 03:39
Quote:
The leadership of the Cheka was initially all Bolsheviks,

No there were SR's too in the top level leadership.

Quote:
Also, what does it matter that Dzerzhinsky had trouble getting Chekists who weren't 'crazy' or 'adventurers' (some weren't?) or that he couldn't find 'any Bolshevik' to do 'the dirty job'. You mean he never found any? More irrelevancies posing as stunning 'minor details'.

That partially explains the extent of early violence in 1918-1921 in the provinces. As serge notes in his memories and Leggett shows, there were a lot of lumpens and literally crazy people who were in Cheka and who acted on their own behalf in insane actions. Killing, loothing and torturing for personal benefit or just for "fun". These kind of people were also continously eliminated from the Cheka ranks. So the cheka organization had a huge adventurist and crazy people population in its ranks who were also getting liquidated by Dzerzshinsky on a regular basis.

Quote:
the point is that the Bolshevik Party, as the governing state party, supported and benefited from the Cheka.

No the bolshevik party is not lenin and trotsyk. And the party was physically liquidated in the end through the process out of which state-the organisation of violance gained gradually a total independence.

Quote:
You know nothing of political parties and how they are consolidated in a totalitarian party-state.

yeah I live in a place where the concept's third world variant has born and was among the most violent and still is. In a sense you are right. I not only know it but live it even in my personal history.

Quote:
If Dzerzhinsk cursed about not getting the right staff, there you have an enraged employer facing a labour shortage. How agony-auntish. And so what?

So the bolshevik party was not full of bloody murderers as you try to portrait.

Quote:
This was the Cheka's Internal Troops. I didn't claim that they were 'the Cheka organisation', so I don't stand to be corrected on fabricated 'minor details'.

Yes it is an important "detail". The people who did the interrogations, searchs, tortures were not these 200.000. These were simply the military detachments. And they were used in civil war, in street battles, in various kind of military activity but not in the core cheka activity. This also shows your lack of rigour and patience and lack of interest in understanding the roots of the counter revolution. Your sole aim is to call whole the bolsheivk party membership counter revolutionary - which is impossible to prove.

Quote:
In spite of his monarchist apologia, Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is a much more comprehensive study than Legget's

ahahaha smile Is this is a joke? Cheka -with the name Vecheka, it was so unpopular after the end of the civil war that it had to be recreated under an other name and - only existed till 1922 and its main activity was not Gulag camps at all. Gulags olny became more widespread under 1930's and Stalin. Moreover gulag system was not only under the control of the Cheka -Cheka had its own prisons which should not be confused with the gulags. In fact it was also and mainly the NKVD which organised the Gulags though OGPU and GPU had their own gulag networks.

klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Aug 10 2010 03:54

this fucking thread, is right... cry

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Aug 10 2010 06:48
mikail firtinaci wrote:
Only to show its analytical inconsistency.

As late as in the German Ideology, Marx wrote this:

Marx wrote:
The form of intercourse determined by the existing productive forces at all previous historical stages, and in its turn determining these, is civil society. [...] Already here we see how this civil society is the true source and theatre of all history, and how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states.

Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage and, insofar, transcends the State and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality, and inwardly must organise itself as State.

Marx reinterprets Hegel's concept of the civil society (which, in turn, was Hegel's reintepretation of Ferguson and early English political economy), but seems fine with using it.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 10 2010 11:01
Quote:
this fucking thread, is right...

hey laozi, nobody is forcing you to follow this fucking thread, and from the proud schematic of your brain you display, everyone can see why it's so fucking hard to follow.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 10 2010 07:53
Quote:
Yes it is an important "detail". The people who did the interrogations, searchs, tortures were not these 200.000. These were simply the military detachments. And they were used in civil war, in street battles, in various kind of military activity but not in the core cheka activity. This also shows your lack of rigour and patience and lack of interest in understanding the roots of the counter revolution. Your sole aim is to call whole the bolsheivk party membership counter revolutionary - which is impossible to prove.

Detail of what? I mentioned this huge Cheka army to stress it couldn't have been created without active Bolshevik resourcing and consent. You obfuscate by bringing in irrelevant details that many others here know already, and you continue to do so, in your role as amanuensis of trivia.

I regret to say that your coming from a country with endemic violence doesn't confer you with dispensation for slothful thinking and Stalinist knee-jerk reactions (amalgams and 'ivory tower' clichés, typical of leftist windbags).

Quote:
there were a lot of lumpens and literally crazy people who were in Cheka and who acted on their own behalf in insane actions. Killing, loothing and torturing for personal benefit or just for "fun". These kind of people were also continously eliminated from the Cheka ranks. So the cheka organization had a huge adventurist and crazy people population in its ranks who were also getting liquidated by Dzerzshinsky on a regular basis.

But the Bolshevik régime was directly responsible for unleashing this necrophilous killing machine onto civil society, you don't seem aware of the implications of what you're saying. Proletarian consciousness amid an abattoir system of daily liquidations? Maybe the violence around you has inured you, and you fantasise that autonomous critical thinking was possible in a disintegrating society. You dream that the soviets that appeared in 1917, survived throughout the 20s. But that's an apocalyptic mythology, whatever its root.

On the use of 'civil society' and 'Leviathan', I'm perplexed (shouldn't indulge that) by your infantile remarks. So certain words and concepts are not on, because 'Marx' didn't use them? Is this any argument? Jura deals with the historical fact well, but why waste time explaining, it's like throwing pearls around. And 'Leviathan'? A good term from Hobbes, and Fredy baby claimed it effectively for his His Story.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 10 2010 10:41
jura wrote:
mikail firtinaci wrote:
Only to show its analytical inconsistency.

As late as in the German Ideology, Marx wrote this:

Marx wrote:
The form of intercourse determined by the existing productive forces at all previous historical stages, and in its turn determining these, is civil society. [...] Already here we see how this civil society is the true source and theatre of all history, and how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states.

Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage and, insofar, transcends the State and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality, and inwardly must organise itself as State.

Marx reinterprets Hegel's concept of the civil society (which, in turn, was Hegel's reintepretation of Ferguson and early English political economy), but seems fine with using it.

jura I think in this quote there is a defence of materialism. But I think civil society as a concept in terms of class analysis is not a basic concept. As far as I know for instance in 18 Brumaire, it is class analysis that we see rather than a discussion on the relation between state and civil society.

At the root of my objection to the use of civil society is the certain liberal perspectives which as their basic concepts use a dichotomy of the concepts "state" and "civil society". I think this is not only a bit primitive -in the sense that it is based on early 19th century liberalism- but also harmful; Because the mentality behind is that there is a unified social whole which is facing the state as it is.

McIver;

Quote:
On the use of 'civil society' and 'Leviathan', I'm perplexed (shouldn't indulge that) by your infantile remarks. So certain words and concepts are not on, because 'Marx' didn't use them? Is this any argument?

No not at all. Everybody can use any concept as the way they want. This only shows your analytical approach. And in your case it is oportunist obscurantism.

Quote:
Detail of what? I mentioned this huge Cheka army to stress it couldn't have been created without active Bolshevik resourcing and consent. You obfuscate by bringing in irrelevant details that many others here know already, and you continue to do so, in your role as amanuensis of trivia.

So when you can't see the relevance of something your boring insults start huh? Good method of discussion. How did you learn it? By reading stalin?

Quote:
I regret to say that your coming from a country with endemic violence doesn't confer you with dispensation for slothful thinking and Stalinist knee-jerk reactions (amalgams and 'ivory tower' clichés, typical of leftist windbags).

No I know the leftist and stalinism very well since stalinism at least is very alive here and I know what it resembles. It is like your mirror image with with only approval of "leviethan". In essence there is no difference between you and them with the exception that what you reject they approve. Why? Because you both have a shared methodology underneath. To see the question of power as primary and reject a serious and undemagojical analysis.

Quote:
Maybe the violence around you has inured you, and you fantasise that autonomous critical thinking was possible in a disintegrating society. You dream that the soviets that appeared in 1917, survived throughout the 20s. But that's an apocalyptic mythology, whatever its root.

and why?

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 10 2010 11:00

why what?

Why you may be inured to violence if it's Bolshevik stamp-approved, why you fantasise, why you dream about phantom soviets, why your belief system is based on an apocalyptic mythology, whys whys whys, I don't know know which why you mean, but how could I reply to any of them, because I'm not even a lay shrink. Sorry, can't refer you, not qualified. But I know a man who can.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 10 2010 11:54

I asked why do you think that the Soviets lived only in 1917. But I suspect expecting a logical answer is too much. And yes, since your comments and criticisms are nothing but a verbiage of hatred and anti-communist, there is not much you can say actually. Except something like; "There was violence and soviets were fragile ornaments of history"

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Aug 10 2010 16:12
mikail firtinaci wrote:
At the root of my objection to the use of civil society is the certain liberal perspectives which as their basic concepts use a dichotomy of the concepts "state" and "civil society". I think this is not only a bit primitive -in the sense that it is based on early 19th century liberalism- but also harmful;

I won't divert this thread any further but the contradiction between "civil society" and "state" is just about the only thing that Marx praises about Hegel's theory of the state in his 1843 critique! Hegel was the first thinker to clearly distinguish "civil society" as an arena of private interests (i.e. the economy), whose inhabitant is the "bourgeois" from the realm of the state (i.e. the political), whose inhabitant is the "citoyen". There is thus a contradiction between private interests and the interests of society as a whole. What Marx criticizes about Hegel are not the concepts themselves or their contradictory relationship, but the illusionary, idealistic and purely conceptual solution of the contradiction by forcibly subsuming the civil society under the state, while this contradiction, according to Marx, can only be solved in practice (by abolishing both and reuniting the torn-apart citoyen-bourgeois).

I believe that the concept of "civil society" was of immense importance in the development of early Marx's thought (as even the 1859 Preface suggests). There is nothing inherently "bourgeois" about it.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 10 2010 16:24
Quote:
What Marx criticizes about Hegel are not the concepts themselves or their contradictory relationship, but the illusionary, idealistic and purely conceptual solution of the contradiction by forcibly subsuming the civil society under the state, while this contradiction, according to Marx, can only be solved in practice (by abolishing both and reuniting the torn-apart citoyen-bourgeois).

Well I can not object to that. Thanks for your comments. Appearantly I need to read and re-read much. What basically I had in mind while arguing that the main contradiction hence the focus of analysis are classes, was marx's definition of proletariat as a class "outside" of civil society in Contribution to the Crit. of Hegel's Phil. of law.

Still I hope I could make my concern clear. I think it can be said that the civil society and the state dichotomy is not working anymore in the current conditions of state capitalism where burgeois civil society is only an extension of the state without any (at least) antagonistic contradiction between them.