|
Post by prowl on Jan 8, 2004 12:07:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by prowl on Jan 8, 2004 12:08:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by readpunk on Jan 11, 2004 10:31:50 GMT -5
His critique doesn't appear to take into consideration any previous anarchist societies. Also, why on earth would someone who if there was a revolution could possibly end up in power be for anarchism? The point of anarchism is to arrive at what Marx, who established his idea's thanks to Prouhdon, wanted to see as the end result of communism. Stateless, powerless, non-hierarchical socialism.
A marxist argument against anarchism should be made by someone who is in absolutely no position to benefit from a future communist society and is clearly and independent thinker who doesn't just throw their support to the nearest power hungry politician/revolutionary.
|
|
|
Post by porol on Jan 11, 2004 11:40:13 GMT -5
so your responce to this provocative peice is to say, "he has no right to speak"?
I think that there are some important points in this. a few beiung the way he explains that anarchism cannot maintain itself and will lead back to capitalism.
or how it is not really all the way internationalist.
and many more points.
I am frankly not all that surprised that a libertarian typed anarchist would wanna say someone doesn't have the right to speak. (not its not a typo)
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Jan 11, 2004 13:15:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by readpunk on Jan 13, 2004 5:34:47 GMT -5
so your responce to this provocative peice is to say, "he has no right to speak"? I think that there are some important points in this. a few beiung the way he explains that anarchism cannot maintain itself and will lead back to capitalism. or how it is not really all the way internationalist. and many more points. I am frankly not all that surprised that a libertarian typed anarchist would wanna say someone doesn't have the right to speak. (not its not a typo) Please, he has every right to speak and I have every right to criticize him. Amusingly enough, if there was a revolution here and Mr. Avakian was to be the head of the enormous state he would govern I would most likely be punished as a criminal for saying what I feel about State based socialism. But under Anarchism, Bobby could say whatever he feels. Funny how that works out isn't it? The right to dissent seems to always get lost somewhere in the red bureaucracy. To argue that Anarchism would lead back to capitalism is to deny what Marx believed true communism to be. Which I presume makes Marx wrong correct? Besides that the idea that decentralized freely federated collectives are unable to organize and work together is ridiculous. A great study of this topic can be read in Kropotkin's work, "Mutual Aid". Darwin's own work is used to show the fallacy neo-con's make when using Darwin to explain how great capitalism is. To be absolutely clear, in a revolutionary war I am prepared to die for Mr. Avakian's right to unhindered and completely free speech. I am quick to doubt he is prepared to do the same for I.
|
|
|
Post by readpunk on Jan 13, 2004 5:42:05 GMT -5
I'll leave the Paris Commune alone because it isn't a spectacular example. What really needs to be discussed to understand Authoritarian Communism Vs. Libertarian Communism is Spain from 1936-1939. Homage to Catalonia is a great start, by George Orwell. If you really have some time, look around the internet for Stalin's real role in that war and who he aided. And if you have wwwaaayyy to much time on your hands read this fairly accurate portion (am I afraid to admit when something written which is trying to reflect my views isn't 100% accurate? Absolutely not!) of Daniel Guerin's excellent book, about the Russian Revolution. www.zabalaza.net/texts/anarchism_guerin/russia.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2004 7:05:11 GMT -5
Looks like something that's going to make be break out the old text-to-speech software ;D
|
|
|
Post by POROL on Jan 13, 2004 10:49:21 GMT -5
people are anxiously awaiting a response to the actual political points raised by Bob Avakian. that is what is important, not your speculation on whether communists would have your back or not.... lets takle the unlikely scenario that narchists can llead a successful revolution. Does anarchism have internationalist economics? if so how does it? here is how the RCP answers this question.. 2changetheworld.info/docs/part2-14-socialist-economy-p1-grpp-en.php#a14ierOr this important issue: can you setup a society (without leadership and administration) that will be able to prevent people from immediately returning to the work they were doing before (overall) and that they were trained in under capitalism? in essence this leads to the immediate return of capitalism. if so, how? you get where I'm going.. I really would love to see you go through this article point by point. from your responces so far, it is very possible that you may not have even read the article. I say this because you have not responded to any of the points raised in the article. truth is, IMO and my experience, anarchists are not able to really reply to these questions (among many). the reason being that there is no real understanding of these points in anarchist theory. anarchism is more about the individual (a libertarian stance), while communism is about the masses (an internationalist stance). Yes anarchists will give solidarity, but are they aiming for an internationalist society? No. They are aiming for a libertarian, 'whatever I want', society. And that is why communism is, and has always been, more revolutionary than anarchism. Libertarianism is, by its nature, a petite bourgeois ideology, because it sets the individual wants over the international needs. on the second question raised above, anarchism cannot reply because the framework of the anarchist ideal is shattered by this logic. that people will, in case of a lack of leadership, push up those who have experience playing these roles, despite their ideology, is not thought through in anarchism. it is not discussed and explored by anarchists primarily because it is an unsurmountable fatal flaw in the ideology. in essence anarchists crave the 'right' to do whatever they want under anarchism, even the inevitable and immediate return to capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Jan 13, 2004 11:00:27 GMT -5
I think ist very hard to engage a whole article at once - or even more so a series!
maby it would help if you drew out certain points or questions that you would like to discuss with folks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2004 11:44:30 GMT -5
Or this important issue: can you setup a society (without leadership and administration) that will be able to prevent people from immediately returning to the work they were doing before (overall) and that they were trained in under capitalism? in essence this leads to the immediate return of capitalism. if so, how? In all fairness, the Marxist-Leninist revolutions that have happened historically have always led back to capitalism as well and, unlike the Anarchist experiments which have failed, have led to oppressive betrayals of the causes they claimed to be fighting for. The usual response I hear to this fact is that "this doesn't mean it has to lead to capitalism again in the future" but it seems that the vanguardists do not apply this same standard to Anarchism. Also, most of your arguments against Anarchism are very unfair is seem based more in misconceptions than actual substance (for example, your attempt to link Anarchism with the right-wing Libertarian movement). I encourage you to check out the Anarchy FAQ to help clear up these misconceptions. Remember, I am saying this as someone who is not an Anarchist ;D.
|
|
|
Post by porol on Jan 13, 2004 13:05:50 GMT -5
well one of the things I would like is to have a discussion, I do not mind being pointed to things to read, however to many times the only response to deep criticisms of anarchism (and that have no apparent weaknesses) come down to is 'check out the anarchy faq' I have, lots of times
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2004 13:21:31 GMT -5
Well, the reason I referred you to the Anarchy FAQ is because your criticisms frankly were not 'deep criticisms' free of "apparent weaknesses." Some of the things you said were just plain incorrect. You may have "checked out" the Anarchy FAQ, but I don't get the impression that you read it.
Again, I say this as someone who is not an Anarchist.
|
|
|
Post by roman on Jan 13, 2004 17:55:32 GMT -5
I agree with SonofRage on this point. And I am not an anarchist either.
First, anarchism is not a single system or sinlge ideology. There are many kinds of anarchisms. Off hand, there is syndicalism, communitarian anarchy, primitivism, indivisualism, etc. There are probably other kinds that I am unaware of. All of these anarchists disagree among themselves on important points. And, there is a long history of anarchists developing various models and answering the kind of shallow objections that have been raised in this thread.
As they stand, alot of the objections raised here are about as informed as the anti-communist who says "well communism failed, the Soviet Union fell". This kind of anti-communist wants to keep the debate at a shallow level because he isn't interested in a real understanding. I see something similiar going on here.
I think as a general principle of intellectual honesty, when debating against a possition, we should try to argue against the BEST version of our opponent's position. This requires getting beyond the superficial level of "anarchy can't work, you need organization and authority". If you read anarchist literature, you find that most anarchists are very aware of this.
As far as the Boba article, I haven't read the full thing and probably won't. But, in the parts cited, he says alot of things that many anarchists would agree with. Boba thinks he is making a criticism of anarchism (also forms of market socialism) in the following passage:
"In reality, these small groups, both in their relations of exchange with each other and within their units of production, would reproduce capitalist relations. They would be in a situation where, in society as a whole, there is no embodiment of interests and, yes, of authority, which is higher than these various different small groups and which can therefore unify the masses of people around those higher interests. And the fact is that, without such embodiment of higher interests and authority, there will be no means for uprooting social inequalities, for uprooting commodity production, for uprooting the material basis that gives rise to class distinctions." (BOB AVAKIAN)
However, many (maybe most?)anarchists aren't against some form of "higher embodiment of interests and authority". Many anarchists are for federations or central councils embued with various levels of authority. On this they really agree with BobA, however, they just disagree with BobA on what it will look like. They disagree on how the authority will be organized. They tend to favor federations only one step removed from the "shop floor" or "commune", rather than many steps removed in a bureaucracy. They also tend to favor different ways on how to hold the governing level accountable, they tend to favor procedural methods, direct democracy, concensus, etc. BobA as a maoist, I *assume*, favors a combination of ideological training, procedural methods, purges, and mass movements (cultural revolutions) to hold the governing class accountable. In the exerpts posted - and it isn't Bob's full series - Bob has only knocked down a strawman.
Also, I think it would be useful if we reshaped the problem in this a more practical way. How do we keep keep those at the higher level from abusing their possitions? Cultural revolutions? How do we keep them on track? Maoists say Lin Piao mislead the cultural revolution/mass movement? So, how do we keep it on track? What about purges? phoney communists can and have used purges as effectively as real communists. Massive society wide ideology training? phoney communists can and do parrot communist ideology. What about procedures? How do we stop those at the higher level from maniputalting the procedural processes to their advantage like they do in bourgeois democracy.
I don't have the all the answers to these questions. I really don't think there is single convincing answer to the abuse of power question. I just think we are going to have to expirement with things and try to reproduce what works. I am just throwing these questions out there for consideration.
Again, I also want to be fair and point out that I only read what was posted. I didn't read BobA's whole series on this.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jan 18, 2004 12:26:25 GMT -5
Now, the anarchists actually argue not only that you shouldn't have a state in their vision of a new society, but that you shouldn't have an established, organized revolutionary leadership to carry out the overthrow of the existing order. If that line were followed, it would actually mean that you couldn't overthrow the existing order--because, in order to do that, you have to go up against and actually defeat the highly organized and very powerful military as well as political forces of the imperialists and their whole state apparatus.
That contradicts the historical experience of real mass revolutions--though it is quite appropriate to Maoist peasant-based guerrilla campaigns.
As was shown most clearly in Petrograd in February 1917 (and other Russian cities), when the old order reaches a position of genuine crisis, all of its "highly organized and very powerful military" and its "state apparatus" actually crumbles away with surprising ease.
In a real crisis--of autocracy or of capitalism--the old ruling class becomes demoralized...nothing they do "seems to work". The military and political forces that they've "counted on" become restive and "unreliable". They become "afraid" to give "draconian orders" because they fear the consequences (for them) will be even worse.
They transfer liquid funds & their families abroad..."just in case".
What Avakian seems to be referring to is a Maoist "protracted peoples' war"...something that has no relevance to proletarian revolution in advanced capitalist countries.
You can make a decent argument that Mao's strategy "works" for peasant-based semi-feudal or colonialized countries.
"Protracted war" in an advanced capitalist country would be suicidal. Only a massive proletarian uprising has a chance of success...a very good chance, in my opinion.
And such an uprising cannot be "organized" in a Leninist sense--by a relatively small group. It can only take place spontaneously as a consequence of a massive crisis of the old order.
But among the many problems with this is the inescapable fact that, if you were to do this beginning on an economic foundation that resulted from the position of the old imperialist country in the overall international division of labor and accumulation process of the imperialist system, then you would be proceeding on the basis of reaping the fruits and "communizing" the plunder and exploitation that had been carried out by imperialism.
Yes, that is certainly true.
Avakian seems to hint that this would somehow be "immoral"--if that indeed is the right word.
The new society would cease to plunder and would undoubtedly offer assistance of some kind to the former victims--we are deep into the realm of speculation here.
No doubt some aid would be given to like-minded revolutionaries in countries that had not yet made a revolution.
What else?
So the question will be: are you going to have an approach of "communizing" those fruits, for the benefit only of the people in that (former) imperialist country, or are you going to utilize those productive forces first and above all to advance the world revolution toward the aim of overcoming all exploitative and unequal relations in the world, including the "great divide" between the imperialist and the colonial countries?
As noted, the exploitation will naturally end with the revolution. The inequality won't...it will just stop getting worse.
Avakian seems to think that what the new society in the former imperialist country should do is "forget about communism for decades or even centuries" until, by artificial transfer of gifts, the semi-feudal or primitive capitalist world can be "brought up to the level" of development of the former imperialist country.
Only when the entire world is materially developed enough for communism to work is the transition to communism allowed to begin.
If you want to know why Maoist parties can't get anywhere in the "first world"...there's a start, right there.
Another way of getting at this is to say that, so long as society is divided into classes--and so long as the economic-material basis exists for such class division--it is only through a socialist state that the highest interests of the proletariat and masses of people can be realized. And what goes along with that is that it is only through such a state that proletarian internationalism can be given its fullest and highest expression. This is the only way that the larger interests of the proletarian class, including its proletarian internationalism, can actually find expression--can actually be implemented and, yes, enforced...
In other words, the working class of a former imperialist country cannot be allowed to begin the transition to communism at once because it is against their "higher interests". Instead, they must be forced to endure an additional period of class society called "socialism"...a dictatorship that may impoverish and will certainly oppress them to make reparations to the former colonialized world.
It will not be possible to do away with commodity relations and money right away--in fact for a considerable period of time--after the overthrow of the present capitalist system; and if you try to abolish them right away, you will have chaos and the result, politically as well as economically, will be anything but the idealized vision of the anarchists of a society without elites monopolizing authority and power.
This is simply rhetorical assertion, of course. It's just a slightly different version of the boss that says "without constant supervision, the workers will screw up everything".
I think it's reasonable to expect that communist society in its early years will be "ragged"...often inefficient, occasionally chaotic, etc. It will take our class a while to learn how to run a complex technological society "smoothly". There will be many experiments and many failures...and we will learn from them.
Two years ago, I knew nothing about computers or the internet. I'm far from "expert" now...but I'm comfortable with both.
What is not known...can be learned.
The result would be re-polarization of society along capitalist lines, with the emergence of a bourgeoisie full-blown and a bourgeois society full-blown. And, along with that, the result would be the restoration of imperialist plunder and exploitation throughout the world.
I agree that any form of "market society"--no matter what "revolutionary" label it bears--contains within itself the seeds of the restoration of capitalism.
The obvious prophylactic is to push very hard for the rapid elimination of production for sale and its replacement by production for use.
No one knows how long that would take for full implementation...but to do it with regard to basic necessities should be both "quick" and "easy".
In other words, if you have not, in reality, uprooted the material conditions that give rise to and underlie the division of society into classes; if you have not overcome the division between mental and manual labor, the social division of labor that involves the oppression of women, and other major social contradictions; if you have not brought into being the conditions that make it possible to articulate the production and exchange of goods and services without commodity relations and money; if you have not accomplished all that--not only in one part of the world but in the world as a whole...
Makes it all sound a lot harder than it probably will be; and also makes it sound as if everything must be "done at once".
No sensible anarchist denies that there will be a period of transition to communism--the argument with Leninists concerns the shape of that transition and who should run it.
Avakian seems to envision a "Proudhonist" version of anarchism; a whole bunch of small producers competing in some kind of marketplace, learning gradually to exploit each other, etc.
I agree with him; that would be a mess and would restore capitalism within a generation.
That's why I don't think it will work like that...or that there will even be any Proudhonists around by the time of the next wave of proletarian revolutions.
But there are many other ways things could be organized without commodity exchange at all.
And without creating relationships that could lead to exploitation.
Without the proletarian state, there's going to be, frankly, nobody to stop them--no unified force, no leadership, to represent the proletariat as a whole in being able to combat this capitalist restoration.
In other words, we may be bad...but you better learn to put up with us or the "bogey-man" will "get you".
All of the so-called "proletarian states" did not stop the restoration of capitalism.
If that's really a danger in this century, we'd better "try something different".
Libertarianism is, by its nature, a petite bourgeois ideology, because it sets the individual wants over the international needs.
And if you have an ideology that reverses those priorities, what do you call it?
Charity?
Give until it hurts?
Why exactly should not the "wants" of the individual worker take priority over "international needs"?
And who gets to define that marvelous phrase "international needs" anyway?
What loathsome insects are crawling around in that glittery box?
In essence anarchists crave the 'right' to do whatever they want under anarchism, even the inevitable and immediate return to capitalism.
Some may, most don't. The effort to portray anarchists as "selfish petty-bourgeois individualists" is a distraction.
I would love to see you try that on with a Barcelona factory worker back in 1936.
Her response would not, I think, be to your liking.
|
|