|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 1:54:50 GMT -5
I recently engaged a comrade named Anarcho-Communist on www.soviet-empire.com/ who came forth to discuss with us Anarchism in contrast to Marxist-Leninist philosophies. What resulted was quite interesting. Anarcho-Communist: Hello comrades, I'm a fellow revolutionary, an anarchist in fact. I am devising a plan to create an article contrasting the dissensions between Communism and anarchism giving the reader a clear perception of the arguements that seperate both these disparate political affiliations. I would like to get more feedback on the proletarian state, I already know the gist of it but I am bewildered in a few topics and hopefully I'll be able to ossify my comprehension of the proletarian state. I won't bother giving out another one of my Communist critiques now, I'll just ask a series of questions. Marx and Engels' original conception of the proletarian state was to raise the entire proletariat of the country to the position of the ruling class where they'd establish the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' signifying that the dominant class is the proletarian, defending their revolution, etc. This view somewhat distorted and changed up until 1871 when the Paris Commune came. Marx claimed that there needed to be more leadership and organization which he got the idea of establishing a vanguard party. But anyways, this proletarian state would "wither away" once global revolution had been prompted that way proletarian rule was in each country. The bourgeoise would cease to exist without any subjects. Raising each and every proletarian to the position of the ruling class and ministering an equilibrium of power to each and every individual to utilize and siphon through the state is by all means intangible unless you're talking about the people having the power communally, that way there would be no state if power was decentralized and no central organ had power over the people. This is why a vanguard party or a group of elected individuals would subjugate the proletariat and have the power, even though the people could mandate the politicians, the politicians had the power, superior power in comparison to the proletariat. The power to retrogress and recipricate their conditions, order out imperatives for the proletariat to follow through on, and deteriorate the living conditions of the proletariat while enhancing their own. So, there must be some rulers, whether it is in their intention to preserve proletarian rule, their bound to be corrupted by the power or future generations of the proletarian state will do exactly that. Don't tell me that this state is transient because it is not. I won't bother elaborating now. So, how do each of you wish to regulate your workers' state? The initial Marxian and Hegelian interpretation? Trotskyist, Leninist theory? What puzzles me is all the disparate interpretations of the proletarian state. I already know very well the Trotskyist and Leninist interpretation of utilizing the state, but the Marxist interpretation tends to vary. Also, would you also address some of your arguements against anarchism, it'd be appreciated. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 1:58:26 GMT -5
Andrei MazenovWelcome comrade. I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and a former Anarchist, but I think we can learn a lot from each other. Firstoff, before I reply to your position I will say that I greatly admire revolutionary anarchists for their fiery passion, no-compromise/take-no-shit attitude, and their contributions to various progressive movements. However, there was a reason I left Anarchism. I eventually thought to myself- okay, we're gonna have this new stateless, socialist society. Well- how are we gonna defend all that we've gained without a state, without a people's army? Disorganized people's militias can only do so much. How are we gonna even organize such a revolution in the first place? Will people just "magically wake up" with the right ideas one day? How are we gonna root out the bourgeois ideologies and traditions that have been around for so long? The fact is that if you deny the need for a vanguard party made up of the most politically-conscious section of the proletariat and its allies, you can basically just forget about a successful socialist revolution. You're gonna need a "general staff" of the working class to help bring forth revolutionary consciousness. How else is that gonna happen? The point I'm trying to make is you're gonna need to someday realize that without revolutionary leadership, you ain't gonna have a revolution. There's got to be some sort of direction and guidance. Are there deep problems involved with a party? Absolutely! But those problems stem from something bigger- the divisions of labor and the weight of traditions that class society carries. If you want to just plug your ears and close your eyes and pretend those contradictions among the masses aren't there, then the only thing you'll guarantee is that revolution will not happen and the masses will be led back into capitalism by demagogues. Do you think that correct ideas just "drop out of the sky"? No! They are forged by scientific and objective analysis of material conditions in the world. The party is meant to be made of workers who are working to forge those correct ideas. A party must then take those correct ideas, put them into practice, and then win the masses over to those correct ideas (and eventually, bring more and more of the masses into the party). The need for leadership is important- and it is only with a revolutionary party of people armed with the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that there's a possibility of the masses playing a conscious role in changing things and eventually overcoming the contradiction between leadership and led. There are no guarantees that a party won't go bad. In fact, as shown obviously by the USSR and China, it does happen! But that doesn't make it some great metaphysical law that all parties will go bad- not all parties turn into a new bourgeoisie. You're going up against some heavy contradictions, and that is why you must unleash the masses and arm them with revolutionary consciousness- so that they may be able to resist such things from happening consciously and actively. A good series of articles contrasting Anarchism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from a Maoist point-of-view can be found here: rwor.org/chair_e.htm#anarchism
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 2:01:44 GMT -5
Anarcho-Communist:
Maintaining the utilization of the state to safeguard and organize the revolution is not at all a necessetation. The state is an inherently coercive, authoritarian, exploitative, and denominational infrastructure where an elite minority rule over a majority. Abolishing the bourgeois state and implementing the proletarian state is nothing more than replacing one set of exploiters with another set and changing the name of the state. Each and every state fundamentally carries out each of the characteristics that I have listed above, a state missing any one of those characteristics is inconceivable since all of those traits are inseperable from one another. Some Communists even claim that the workers' state does carry out those characteristics but only directs them towards the bourgeois, not the proletariat. This of course is bullshit, those that are ruled over are the labourers, the workers, not the bourgeois though they may be captured as POW's and be ruled over.
In anarchism, the proletarian have absolute and full control, in Communism, the state permits a constituent of power to be dispersed to the people of the soviets. The Communist state maintains the power to overrule the proletariat and make all the big decisions because, "they know best". It's like our contemporary state, we have an autocratic minority making the decisions for us, we perceive their rule as fair and just and do not rebel, the same will go for every workers' state, or even if there are rebel uprisings, the state will suppress them. The main Communist justifications for preserving the state are:
1) Defending the revolution by preventing the bourgeois from usurping power
2) To co-ordinate and organize the economy so that it may prosper and maintain its stability
3) To guide the proletariat into military combat
1) Communists, establish a central power, the state, to regulate the central economy and take care of all the big decisions that need to be made. Just like Lenin and Trotsky stated, this is not the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', but rather the 'Dictatorship of the Party'. What's wrong with implementing a central power is that if that infrastructure and its administrative body are dismantled, the proletariat will be bewildered without their 'guidance' and will look to engender yet another central planning infrastructure to get things back on track instead of taking the power themselves and using it. Putting together another state will take months to successfully co-ordinate and organize everything once again, the bourgeois will then obliterate the revolution. Voila, there you go, though you could overcome this crisis, it'll definately deteriorate your revolutionary status. Another problem is that it is very likely for your workers' state to be infected with sectarianism, Bonapartism, Stalinism, or whatever else you want to call it, the matter of the fact is, each and every time, the despotic ruling class will implement a recipricol of the past society sooner or later. It'll either camouflage the status quo or will openly implement extremely harsh authoritarian rule. Power corrupts, even the purest of us. Once you settle yourself in and assimilate into its prerogracy, you automatically become its preserver. So, anarchists don't believe that the bourgeois will expropriate the power from the Communist state, but that the bourgeois will grow out of the Communist state. The anarchist solution to this is, communalization. Decisions that need to be made are regulated and mediated through local assemblies where those that are a part of the community will each have a say in what goes on, an equilibrium of power will be minister, each individual being his/her own state. Decisions that need to be made on a national level are taken care of by tallying each and every one of the communes' decisions, wants, and needs and will use the concensus method. If the bourgeois infiltrate one or even a few of these communes, the bourgeois adherents will be obliterated. It's easy how it works. Every commune is a constituent of the federation of communes, each community within the federation is anarchist oriented. If one of these communes mysteriously strike a vicissitude that shifts them to a totally opposite and antagonistic poisition from their anarchist affiliation, something will be suspected and if there has been an infiltration, this calls for decimation. With communalization, there's no central power that any antagonists can expropriate and rule over the people, the only way the anarchist society can fail is through defeat.
2) The Communist economy is decided upon what the Communist government feels is compatible with the Communist society under their rule, not whatever the people want. It is because the people are too stupid to live out what they're fighting for and too stupid to decide for themselves so they believe that the only way to succeed is by the means of utilizing the state to deter off and subdue the counter-revolution. This is bullshit, the people are the vanguard of the revolution and will emancipate themselves under their rule, not through state dictatorship. Did not Marx say, "the emancipation of the workers' must be done by the workers themselves"? Though Marx was stupid enough to think that an entire central organ, the state, could function with total proletarian rule, not even by utilizing communes.
In Communist rhetoric, the state is a transient infrastructure that is only implemented temporarily until global revolution is prompted. There are 200+ or so countries in the world and the Communist postpone their freedom until that global revolution is attained. They will deny the people their freedom because as long as class antagonisms exist internationally, the workers' state must as well exist, if class antagonisms cease to exist, the people will get their freedom and the state will "wither away". Do you know how long this will all take? All this time waiting for global revolution to happen, you won't even pass a couple of months or years without your ruling class turning into the bourgeois. For global revolution to be prompted, at least half of the globe must be Communist and have a chance, that could be around 100 countries under Communist rule. This could take decades, centures, etc... It's fuckin' bullshit. I see revolution as a sign of intensity, hope for change, all of the proletariats anger with their our contemporary society finally unleashed and used to change the world. The Communist revolution squanders that revolutionary energy with their perpetual cycle of retrogression in totalitarianism.
The anarchist revolution will not struggle to bring about global revolution, the anarchist revolution will strive to meet the needs of the people of the revolution and will aid any foreign revolutions once they are prompted. This is unlike the Communist ideology where the Communists vacuosly claim that they will not stop until the whole world comes down with them, which right there is an incentive for the bourgeois to devour the Communist revolution. This way, the capitalist/imperialist nations will be threatended by the Communist revolution if it grows any bigger and will incessantly attack it until the Communist revolution is no more. The incentives that the bourgeois have of attacking the anarchist revolution are:
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 2:02:06 GMT -5
(Anarcho-Communist continued:) 1) The bourgeois cannot allow a free stateless society to exist alongside their "free" statist society, giving them an incentive to attack so that the people don't figure out that what they have now is bullshit and that anarchism really is feasible. 2) Corporate exploitation. If the capitalists take power in this society, they will implement corporate exploitation amongst the people to do cheap labour for them. Keep in mind that these two incentives also incorporate into the list of incentives that the bourgeois haev of attacking a Communist society though the first one is slightly modified. If the people won't be capable of making a transition to communism right away, the anarchists will use another economic infrastructure. As in the Spanish Revolution, mutualism and collectivism were used. It was only when they would defeat the counter-revolution that they would implement anarcho-communism, but they defeated after a long battle with the fascists. The communes have numerous alternatives to use if anarcho-communism is too farfetch'd at the time; parecon, mutualism, collectivism, capitalism, etc... If you feel that you must have an organization that is the impetus for trade, use trade-unions. Trade-unions can establish trading routs and allyships with foreign and distant areas and can organize trade from within the anarchist society. You can also get your assisting anarchist organization to help you in those tasks. Unlike in Communism, the anarchist worker will keep all that s/he produces and will not have any state appropriate their labour. In retrospect, the workers have taken control of the factories, manufactured and worked for their labour where they'd put their community's labour all together where they'd disperse all of it and decide there to trade it. There are so many ways of regulating the economy. Abolish money and barter. Abolish wage-labour and implement an egalitarian or non-exploitative economy, etc..... 3) Military attacks can be co-ordinated by powerless anarchist organizations, guerrilla units amongst the people can be formed and led by well-cultivated military tacticians. There's no one specific way of doing this, but numerous ways. Perhaps this could be a reason why anarchism is so great. It's diverse. Unlike Communism, there are numerous ways of tackling problems, not just the one way where the state orders the people what to do. In Communism, conscription and coercion are used to enlist army recruits. They'll be commanded against their will to go into battle, they can be forced to go against their own people. This is because the state has a legitimate use of violence within their demarcated territory, if there is an rebel uprising or an opposition to the party, the red army will be forced to take care of it with enough rhetoric and black mail. If you don't believe that the anarchist method is viable, take a look at the Makhnovshchina in Ukraine or the successful Spanish anarchists. Then, look at the Red Army, look how far Russia got with them. They were allies with the Makhnovshchina but stabbed them in the back once the White Army was defeated with major help from the Makhnovschina. The Red Army was intimidated and out of nowhere destroyed the fuck out of them. Even though the Red Army had better equipment, Trotsky and numerous commanders from the Tzar regime, and the multitudes of conscripts, the Makhnovshchina was a much better army. Why is it that the Spanish anarchists have compiled more success in their revolution than all the Communist revolutions combined? The reason why we deny the need for a vanguard party is because we anarchists do not wish to have our society divided into two camps, the order givers and the order takers. This inevitably corrupts the revolution. We do not see the need for coercion, hierarchy, and hostile totalitarian rule. the fact is, giving someone this kind of power obliterates the revolution. You cannot create an idyllic free society with the means of an inherently evil and totalitarian infrastructure. Evil creates evil, it cannot create good. You accuse the anarchists of skipping the transitional period and right away implementing communism. Well, why can't the transitional period consist of having an powerless organization as the impetus assisting the revolution in ideas and perhaps leadership rather than a state which rules our imperatives for the workers to follow through on? It's not like the start of the anarchist revolution is identical to the end, of course not. I suggest that you guys look into some Kropotkin which goes into more detail on this. The tranisitional period is a time for experimentation, it's not like the anarchists have founded a perfect society right from the start, no, all we have done is given the people the power. I'm not going to take the chances of this party being infected with sectarianism and abusing their power which they inevitably will always do. Chances are 1 in 100 Communist revolutions will attain communism, that is perhaps if you're being generous. Contradiction within the masses won't cease to exist, but the majority has one goal, to abolish prevalent society and implement an idyllic society with egalitarianism and freedom. I doubt that there will be such big dissent among the masses during the time of revolution, it didn't happen in Spain. Let's look at Russia, there was major dissent because of the 'Dictatorship of the Party' and its authoritarianism. The reason why in Spain there was no such fighting within the masses was because people that fight are not put in coercive institutions and because there was solidarity within Spain. In Russia, there was persecution, authoritarian party dictatorship, etc.... --- It's too bad that you left anarchism, hopefully you'll change your mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 2:06:35 GMT -5
Andrei Mazenov:
It is a very real phenomenon that forces do emerge from within the communist party who take up this fucked-up position of seeking to become a new ruling and exploiting clique and who attempt to put this line into practice. More specificially, within socialist society itself, there is continual emergence of people within the communist vanguard who take the capitalist road and seek to restore capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship.
However, Mao Tse-Tung said that the science of Marxism-Leninism boils down to one thing: It's Right to Reactionaries!. The fact that it is right to rebel against reactionaries is quite profound- because it says it is right to attack those within the party who oppress the masses and those who wish to prevent the revolutionary transformation of society! This is the greatest thing about the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution- it was the most amazing mass upsurge in history. Reevaluate it if you disagree. It was by in large a popular bottom up groundswell of political action and- contrary to the hype against the Cultural Revolution- it was not dominated by the party and in fact much of it was directed at correcting the Chinese Communist Party. Mao of course supported this.
Leading the masses to recognize the essential nature of programmes of forces which promote tyranny, oppression, and capitalist restoration- and leading them to wage revolutionary struggle against this- is a decisive question is socialist society. Further, it is crucial to lead the masses to continually revolutionize the party as a crucial aspect of revolutionizing society overall and carry forward the advance toward communism as part of the world proletarian revolution.
Like I said before, there's gonna be all these contradictions in society. Under socialism, you can and MUST restrict these contradictions (these differences and inequalities between different groups in society) to the maximum degree possible at every stage; but you can't overcome the right away or in such a short period. If you try to leap beyond them or sidestep them, you will sabotage socialism and make it easier for the bourgeoisie to regain power, in one way or another.
Like Bob Avakian said, "The task of drawing the masses into the administration of the state and the all-around ruling and running of society--of increasing their mastery of every sphere of the superstructure as well as of the economic base--this must be consciously and conscientiously struggled for and realized, through an intense process of class struggle, marked by spirals and repeatedly reaching decisive points of all-out confrontation between the masses and their real vanguard leadership on the one hand, and those in authority taking the capitalist road on the other hand."
One thing I don't understand is this- when Anarchists say "we are not leaders, we are but teachers". Isn't the very act of teaching itself also leading?
I find such a statement confusing because its my understanding that the reason that there is a need for a vanguard is exactly that people dont spontaniously come to these ideas on their own - that is "what WE need to do is teach the people how to lead themselves".
Let me ask you something, my Anarchist brotha: Have you ever heard of the January Storm of 1967 in Shanghai, China?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 2:07:39 GMT -5
Andrei Mazenov:
Some even FURTHER thoughts:
The vanguard can run the risk of 'divorcing' itself from the masses, no doubt, as can any organization or collective. However you seem to think that the vanguard will inherently 'divorce' itself. I think thats kind of undialectical. Dialectical being that things are made up of contradictory elements stuggling with each other, a unity of opposites in all things. In other words I think you are being one-sided. A vanguard party is needed to maintain connections with the masses, to unleash the masses, not in dozens, but their millions across the country, in a unified way. The main thing about a vanguard is not that it is above the masses, but that it is made up of the class-conscious masses who have taken the responsibilty to lead and organize revolution. And to do everything necessary to start one as well. And to go ALL THE WAY when it comes to liberation form ALL forms of tryanny, oppression, and exploitation...
I look the vanguard as a role, not a position.
And the reason why you need a vanguard breaks down to this, to unleash the masses in a unified way, and win, you need a unified line and plan. This is crucial, or else you will have chaos, and will not win.
The vanguard does not divorse itself from the masses, because without the masses, there can be no vanguard party, no revolution, and no better world.
Many Anarchists mistake us Communists for thinking that the Communist Party is all-knowing. Absolutely NOT! It is neither superior to the masses, or all-knowing. What it does have is class consciousness, it knows what is in the interest of humanity, a world without oppression, it knows that only the proletariat can lead society all the way to classlessness, and it knows that the masses have the right to rule. The party does understand science, dialectical materialism, and tries to apply this science to its methods and understanding.
A vanguard is also far from all-knowing. Mao once said (paraphrase)We have made more mistakes than we can count, but we never made the mistake of giving up.
Many Anarchists argue that because the U.S.S.R. and China fell to capitalist restoration that it shows that the vanguard can never work. By this logic anarchists should all quit, cuz the Spanish Civil War was defeated, as were various other Anarchist revolutionary upsurges! And anarchists have around for just as long as communists have.
Or capitalists. They should have given up hundreds of years ago. Cuz hundreds of years ago many attempts at setting up capitalist eonomies had tried and been defeated. Feudalism would often reassert it's position. Yeah, I guess since the bourgeoisie of the 16th-18th centuries should have given up.
And any statement about 'giving up hypothesis where there are discrepencies' is partial and not fully accurate. Scientists, give up some hypothesis, yes, but never after one experiment. And even when they do give up a hypothesis, that does not mean something was incorrect. Getting to science. In an experiment, what scientist plans to have instance results after one experiment? None, or at leats not smart ones. Scientists understand that you may have to perform an experiment dozens of times before you are successful. And the way that they succeed in the end is to learn from the experiments they have already done.
Since the collapse of the social-imperialist Soviet Union, the ruling classes around the world have claimed communism is dead, that its a defeated ideology. This spins reality on its head. Communism was able to liberated almost half of humanity for a time, no other ideology has ever accomplished that feat. Communism was in its birth then, but its growing up.
Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 2:14:20 GMT -5
Anarcho-Communist:
My perception of the vanguard "divorcing" itself from the masses is founded upon dialectical, empirical, psychological, and historical examination. Although this thought of mine has been intrinsic ever since the time I first looked into the Communist philosophy, looking into disparate points of view had only ossified my ideology. I'd like to think that I have a suitable comprehension of the Communist philosophy, perhaps you can be the judge of this.
The fact of the matter is that it is inherent for the vanguard to seperate itself from the masses by looking into human psychology. Let's look into it. It is extremely scarce for a ruling class to be issued despotism and to rule over the subjugated masses justly. It is inherent that once sombody settles into the state's prerogacy, the state will serve as a catalyst for corrupting those utilizng its power and acting as an impetus for that group to abuse their power and oppress the masses. We can see that the state is bourgeois tool for conveying the ruling class' power amongst the masses. But did not Marx say that all bourgeois property must be abolished once the proletariat establish their "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"? Of course, Marx had a distorted vision of the proletarian state from what he later portrayed, but the workers' state will always be infected with sectarianism. Anyways, psychology will prove that it is inherent that once an individual or group are offered concessions and are elevated to a higher position, they will act in self-interest and will be corrupted by the power; they cannot be trusted. Lenin himself noted in "The State and Revolution" that, "Where there is a state, there is no freedom. Where there is freedom, there is no state." All other Communists would agree since Communists have virtually identical aims as the anarchists, but possibilities for unity is torn asunder by their split paths. The Communists' goal is to implement communism which is practically the same case for the anarchists, this meaning that the Communists concur with the anarchists thet the abolition of the state is a requisition, but the time when the state is abolished is the problem.
When is the time to abolish the state? Right when the workers gain control of the land or when global revolution is prompted? For Communists, you can speak from either the original Marxian conception of the state that when the workers capture power, they abolish the bourgeoise state and implement the proletarian state. A state where each individual siphons their power through one central organ, even having all the people dispersed around. This of course is bullshit since a party is bound to take power. Or you can speak from the Leninist-Trotskyite view point where the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" can only be maintained through a "Dictatorship of the Party". Hey, wait. Those two have the exact same outcome!
Perhaps not in all cases will the vanguard "divorce" itself from the masses, but like I've reiterated in my past writings, the Communist state is only abolished or it "withers away" after global revolution is prompted. That at minimum will take decades, the state is not at all transient! If your ruling class does not recipricate your Communist society's conditions, future generations will do just exactly that after your socialist epoch is permeated throughout generations. Just like in Russia, the Bolsheviks corrupted and decimated the revolution once they claimed power. In the embroyo of the revolution, people deemed it an anarchist revolution when there was no Bolshevik intervention and the people implemented workers', peasants', and soldiers' soviets utilizing them to siphon their power. Things were going fine until the Bolshevik party came in. There was no opposition towards them since the masses were Communist adherents and were introduced to their vanguard. This is when things got fucked up. The state appropriated the workers' labour, the state conscripted military recruits, the state persecuted and suppressed any opposition or pleas to mandations. The list is perpetual. The Soviet Union lasted so long and deemed itself Communists, but their revolution died before 1921. Until 1991 they continued to deem it Communist. The Russian Revolution has clearly put a stop to revolutionary movements around the world giving workers' revolutions a bad name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 2:14:39 GMT -5
(Anarcho-Communist continued...)
How 'bout we discuss Cuba. Communists claim that America and other nations are not intruding over there is because they have a state. Fuck that. In the Bay of Pigs, Cuba depicted themselves as opponents of America that can match up to their military, nothing about having a state. I'd have to admit, Castro is a decent leader. He's saving the Cubans from corporate exploitation and pours some of his money into education and healthcare funds. You can't blaim him for not having a top knotch health and education system, but it's decent, especially for a third world country. You can blaim Castro for exploiting the workers with his state and squandering a lot of his money on tourism and other unnecessary affairs. The only thing that differentiates Cuba from other Latino third world countries is that other Latino impoverished countries are exploited by big foreign corporations, Cubans are exploited by their workers' state. The fact is, Cuba is authoritarian, and it is a "Dictatorship of the Government", but, the government officials are somewhat sympathetic to the welfare of the people, but not sympathetic enough to grant them freedom from authoritarianism and exploitation. Once Castro dies, say goodbye to that.
Of course I have used dialectics, just because I am being a little dogmatic in saying that the vanguard will always seperate itself away from the masses and will harshly rule over them is because I have used dialectics to formulate a logical synthesis. Perhaps you're being a little biassed presupposing that through dialectical reasoning comes virtually identical syntheses'. You're being too sentimental, you're basing your ideologies on faith alone. You admit that the vanguard party can surely retrogress the society and "divorce" itself away from the proletariat, but you still believe there's a chance nothing like that will happen. I on the other hand am being cerebral and empirically observing contemporary surroundings predicting how they will evolve, assimilating tactics into contemporary conditions as well as contrasting Communism with anarchism in hope of dissipating error and making the next anarchist revolution sure to succed. History has proven that one anarchist revolution has went way beyond all Communist revolutions combined. Your revolutions have all collapsed because of ideological and theoretical bankcruptcy and fallacy and internal conflicts. The anarchist revolutions have only collapsed due to military defeat, which of course they matched up to 4+ strong militaries. My point is, dialectical reasoning produces disparate interpretations when it cannot provide concrete evidence to disprove any other theories. The anarchist-Marxist conflict is founded upon this situation.
Just because two things are opposite, doesn't mean that they absolutely have to work together because dialectical materialism says so.
A vanguard party is not at all a requisition since it derives its functions from the bourgeois resulting in the fact that the vanguard party will become the new bourgeois. All states are given a legitimate use of violence within their designated territory, centralization and delegation of power into the hands of the few, and a coercive institutions, military, and police to preserve their rule and utilize their legitimate use of violence. Anarchists advocate that the masses should control their lives and not be dependent on others to order them around and make rules for them. What makes you think that the masses are incapable of regulating and mediating decisions themselves without being forced imperatives to follow through on? It happen in Spain, Ukraine, and the embroyo of the Russian Revolution. Is it that the masses are too stupid? Even if these elected politicians are class-conscious, there is no guarantee that they'll stay this way. Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Stalin were all perceived as class-conscious and benevolent party members, look at all the havoc they created. By all means, engender an organization such as the CNT, FAI, or UGT to help co-ordinate and organize the revolution without giving them any power, don't take the power from the masses and hand it over to some autocratic elite that "know best". How do you propose you emancipate yourself from all forms of tyranny, oppression, and exploitation by using those principles as tools for subjugating and "guiding" the proletariat? Like I said before, evil creates evil, it cannot create good.
But of course, the people are the vanguard, that is their role to play. They're the ones that make everything happen, why do they need some fat cats telling them what to do? In Communist ideology, the vanguard party is the vanguard and the proletarian are the backbone. Abolish the vanguard party, the revolution continues and will surely prosper with the absense of this tyrannical despotism. Abolish the proletariat, you have nothing. That's why, the people are the vanguard and should manage their own affairs in every way.
Quite the opposite. The people are all joined in solidarity. No one has power to tell anyone to do anything against their will, the people work together, in a federation of communes to unify their forces. Sometimes each commune may have its own tactics for defensive military tactics as well as offensive. Historically, the only chaos in a workers' revolution has existed in Communist revolution.
That's the point. When the vanguard "divorces" itself from affiliation with the people, it rules over them. Therefore, this broken bond results in no revolution and no better world. Look at it this way. In Communism, the people in the vanguard party are people as well, perhaps comprised of well-cultivated revolutionary tacticians. These rulers enforce their rule with coercion, those who do not comply will be punished. In anarchism, if one offers an idea, it's up to the others to accept it. The people rule themselves, it doesn't mean that they're not open to new ideas.
They are already superior to the masses, look at all the concessions! Class-consciousness? Fuckin' bullshit! If they perceive interest in humanity in freedom, why the fuck are they empowered and enabled to suppress any oppositions violently? If they're so class-conscious, they shouldn't guide the people through force, everything should be based on voluntary participation. Why should they have to right to devour any oppositions? Here's an idea. Implement a powerless anarchist organization made up of class-conscious individuals. Do you follow? Now, if they're so benevolent, they will only offer advice, not order imperatives. It'll be up to the people to decide whether they should follow or not. See how things can work without coercion? Sure, maybe not everybody will join, but it's better than striking a diminution amongst the masses with persecution because of their discontent.
Far before any Communist revolution, anarchists such as Stirner, Bakunin, and Proudhon have argued that the red bureaucracy will collapse just exactly the way it did in China and Russia. In Paris, before they state was infect with sectarianism, the Parisians were defeated militarily.
By logic, Communists should turn to anarchism. Anarchists were not defeated by a fallacy in their theory but because they were overpowered. That's why if anarchists and Communists unite and grow in numbers, we may prevent being defeated by foreign militaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 2:22:15 GMT -5
Andrei Mazenov: Please don't bother trying to argue with me as a Trotskyist, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. The rest of your writing makes the socialist state sound so... monolithic. The new socialist society contains many leftovers from the old socialist society, especially in regards to inequality among the masses, the mental/manual contradiction, class differences, differences in rank an pay, and ultimately the contradiction between leadership and led. If your perception of the vanguard is based on "dialectical" examination, why aren't you examine the world as a whole dialectically? You would see the need for something more than spontaneity to overcome these profound contradictions within society. These contradictions provide the basis for capitalist relations and bourgeois elements representing them to constantly emerge, not to mention they have the weight of tradition on their side. The fact that economic units- and the economy as a whole- can be turned from socialist to capitalist is a result of the fact that contradictions among the people and within society will not disappear overnight. This is why one needs a vanguard party. At the same time, we must recognize the need for something to counteract reactionaries from within the party from seizing power. Through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, the proletariat and the masses of people, led by Mao Tse-Tung and the revolutionary section of the Chinese Communist Party, carried out changes that were unprecedented. Divisions and inequalities were reduced between different strata and sectors of society, including between the country and the city. The people rose up in their hundreds of millions, developing and strengthening not only new economic and social relations and the revolutionization of culture, of people's thinking, etc. but also the different forms of struggle so characteristic of the Cultural Revolution: the organization of so many things on a mass level, the January Storm of 1967 in Shanghai, the brigades and brigades of workers and youth knowns as the Red Guards, and the public mass criticism of persons in power. Mao warmly supported these struggles and initiatives of the masses and constantly urged them on to persevere in their revolutionary struggle. (see Mao Tse-Tung's Immortal Contributions by Bob Avakian, pp. 285-286). In fact, the Cultural Revolution was unprecedented, not only in China, but in the history of socialism. It sent shockwaves throughout the world. It was a huge revolutionary upsurge worldwide. It went against all the "norms" of what socialism was thought of as being, what the communist party is supposed to do in society, and so forth. It was unfathomable at the time for a chairman of a communist party to call upon the masses to rise up and strike down powerful persons within the party. Within the party there were two headquarters. The capitalist-roaders and people who wanted to oppress the masses had their own machine and their own headquarters, and it was necessary to dislodge them in order to prevent China from being taken down the road to capitalism. Mao Tse-Tung it not just order the masses around. The masses were mobilized to recognize, to drag into the light of day, and strike down top leaders of the party that were trying to turn the CCP into a new oppressor clique, and to subject to mass criticism and supervision the leading cadres in general. This was probably Mao Tse-Tung's single greatest contribution- how to stop the force of habit and the conscious action of revisionist oppressors within the party from making the party into a neo-bourgeoisie and taking society down the road to capitalism. "Well," some say, "that didn't stop people like Deng Xiaoping from taking over now, did it?" Sure. The party itself develops in a spiral-like motion as part of the overall spiral-like motion of revolution and history in the process of the development of the world from the bourgeois epoch to the communist epoch. As The Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA says: and as Mao said: -Mao Tse-Tung, "Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle" (August 14, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, P. 428. Next point... Quote: Cuba has never been socialist. I explain why here: www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=48 The U.S.S.R. became state-capitalist in 1956. I explain how here: www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=47 No offense but as a former Anarcho-Syndicalist I would love to see how the C.N.T.-F.A.I. communes during the Spanish Civil War could have made as much advances as, say, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976. Sounds rather spontaneous. Where do these correct ideas come from? Do they fall out of the sky? Do people just wake up one day and say "hmm, wow, you're right, there is a way out of this system and we should do this, and this and this and this...."? No! That's not how it works. Mao Tse-Tung spoke on this in "Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?" in May 1963: Can such be done on a large scale spontaneously? No. You need a communist party guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to do that! Quote: Far before any Communist revolution, anarchists such as Stirner, Bakunin, and Proudhon have argued that the red bureaucracy will collapse just exactly the way it did in China and Russia. In Paris, before they state was infect with sectarianism, the Parisians were defeated militarily. By logic, Communists should turn to anarchism. Anarchists were not defeated by a fallacy in their theory but because they were overpowered. That's why if anarchists and Communists unite and grow in numbers, we may prevent being defeated by foreign militaries. Actually in a sense the Communists were defeated and overwhelmed by the weight of tradition and the pressures of imperialism, which the revisionists within the party gave into. But we learn from these experiences and grow stronger and wiser with each defeat, and because of that we are certain in our victory. Our defeats are but bends in the road, and we will not give up our revolutionary party because of that. That, and we know that without a revolutionary party, there can be no revolutionary movement, and without that, we cannot have a revolutionary transformation of society. ^__^
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 8, 2004 2:23:13 GMT -5
Aight all, feel free to contribute to the debate, especially Anarchists. Things could get interesting with this one!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2004 5:09:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 9, 2004 10:14:16 GMT -5
Comrade SonofRage, I've read Makhno, Pannoekek, and Fontenis. Look, if you're gonna be part of this thread, don't just throw books at me, engage me and debate me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2004 19:38:18 GMT -5
Comrade SonofRage, I've read Makhno, Pannoekek, and Fontenis. Perhaps, but others haven't. How is contributing links to some readings worse than pasting excerpts from RCP's "Draft Programme" everywhere? I think I'll decide how I'm going to be part of this thread if you don't mind. ;D (and I can't say I like your tone but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant no offense). As I said, it doesn't serve much of a purpose to rehash the arguments that have already been made. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Apr 10, 2004 11:16:42 GMT -5
Oh, okay, if you're just submitting links for others to see, that's cool. Sorry for the harsh tone, no offense was meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by repeater138 on Apr 17, 2004 7:11:58 GMT -5
I agree generally with what you have said, but disagree with the way you have said it.
You use too much party language. You don't seem to be able to grasp the essence of the line and make it your own. I mean you seem to be reproducing alot of verbiage that others have used and even cutting and pasting others' arguments. This shows a lack of understanding on your part. If you knew the subject thoroughly you would be able to speak with your own words and talk outside of slogans and catchphrases. This is also a more effective way of communicating with others. Having been a former anarchist you should be able to freely move in and out of anarchist lingo as well as commie lingo and everyday speech.
for instance this sounds straight from the mouth of Bob Avakian (I have bolded the parts that i think suggest Avakian's rhetorical style):
"okay, we're gonna have this new stateless, socialist society. Well- how are we gonna defend all that we've gained without a state, without a people's army? Disorganized people's militias can only do so much. How are we gonna even organize such a revolution in the first place? Will people just "magically wake up" with the right ideas one day? How are we gonna root out the bourgeois ideologies and traditions that have been around for so long?"
"Do you think that correct ideas just "drop out of the sky"? No! They are forged by scientific and objective analysis of material conditions in the world. The party is meant to be made of workers who are working to forge those correct ideas. A party must then take those correct ideas, put them into practice, and then win the masses over to those correct ideas (and eventually, bring more and more of the masses into the party). The need for leadership is important- and it is only with a revolutionary party of people armed with the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that there's a possibility of the masses playing a conscious role in changing things and eventually overcoming the contradiction between leadership and led."
This whole section means virtually nothing to someone not familiar with maoist terminology.
First you use the "drop out of the sky" quote over and over, not just in the above quote but throughout your debate, this is lazy. Come up with your own metaphor.
What do you mean by scientific and objective? Is it the same meaning that the person you're debating has?
"It is only with a revolutionary party of people armed with the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" this section sounds like pure dogma. I understand what you mean and agree with you, but this is not going to influence an anarchist. It is again doubtful whether this actually means anything to the person you're directing it at.
The main problem is that you're throwing RCP Line at this person, expecting them to understand its deeper meaning. This is impossible. Why take it for granted that this person knows what you mean by "contradiction" or even "dialectics", although the person uses the term themself. Can't you say the same thing without sounding like the RCP draft program, or an Avakian article?
The issue is communication, party talk and jargon get in the way of communication. You must also understand the point of view of the person you're talking to in order to communicate with them. I'm sure you do understand, but the above debate seems more like the both of you are reproducing stale dogma and not actually interacting with eachother. In other words you're talking past one another.
Sorry if i sound too critical. I agree with you in substance, but think you could be communicating more effectively.
|
|
