Post by porol on Jan 20, 2004 10:48:28 GMT -5
Well lets be clear on a few things, the old arguement that a criticism of anarchism is wrong because there are so many trends of anarchism is an excuse for anarchism to not be criticized. First primitivism is not an anarchist ideology, though it is a similar trend, it is Luddism. Individualism as an ideology? sorry but that is no escape from Bob's analysis, communalism also does not escape the basic points of this criticism. The differences between syndicalism and anarcho communism are minor and also, neither escapes the criticism.
But just because anyone can call themselves anarchist does not mean their is no anarchist ideology. Just like because people call themselves a communist, does not mean people are communist (case in point:redstar2000)
Anarchism is tangible, it can be understood, and it should not be able to escape criticism.
Bob Wrote
and redstar said
my question
because as a matter of fact THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REVOLUTION IN AN IMPERIALIST COUNTRY
And what is even more sad is that you conveniently ignore large sections of history, including the Russian Civil war that began in 1918. The lesson from theSoviet Expereince is not thaqt revolution is easy, but that it is very very hard.
Not only this but what is interesting is that you do not seem to uphold any of the revolutions of the past (or at least not the organizations and leadership that led the revolutions), but you still use them to make false arguments with, using them as a yardstick to judge the RCP by. You distort history and then use this twisted thing as a cornerstone of an argument. It is dishonest and distracting, but revealing.
And the attacks on Maoism because there have not been Maoist revolutions in the 'first world' are also rather distorted. In fact there has been no socialist revolutions in the first world since the Soviet Union. This is a reflection on the situation in these countries at present, not a reflection on ideology. Your arguemtns are very weak.
But just because anyone can call themselves anarchist does not mean their is no anarchist ideology. Just like because people call themselves a communist, does not mean people are communist (case in point:redstar2000)
Anarchism is tangible, it can be understood, and it should not be able to escape criticism.
Bob Wrote
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.
and redstar said
That contradicts the historical experience of real mass revolutions--though it is quite appropriate to Maoist peasant-based guerrilla campaigns.
my question
are you used to saying things as if they are fact with no real truth to them?
because as a matter of fact THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REVOLUTION IN AN IMPERIALIST COUNTRY
And what is even more sad is that you conveniently ignore large sections of history, including the Russian Civil war that began in 1918. The lesson from theSoviet Expereince is not thaqt revolution is easy, but that it is very very hard.
Not only this but what is interesting is that you do not seem to uphold any of the revolutions of the past (or at least not the organizations and leadership that led the revolutions), but you still use them to make false arguments with, using them as a yardstick to judge the RCP by. You distort history and then use this twisted thing as a cornerstone of an argument. It is dishonest and distracting, but revealing.
And the attacks on Maoism because there have not been Maoist revolutions in the 'first world' are also rather distorted. In fact there has been no socialist revolutions in the first world since the Soviet Union. This is a reflection on the situation in these countries at present, not a reflection on ideology. Your arguemtns are very weak.