a marxist history of the world- counterfire

[cesare]

you did. do you mean this response?>

Yeah, that's it. I'm not sure why you've taken what I said and imported it here.

 

[TremulousTetra]

So if anarchisms can exist which don't meet Newman's 'crucial politico-ethical standpoint', then his take on what makes anarchism anarchism (and not something else), would seem wide of the mark.

In the space of a few posts you seem to be flatly contradicting yourself by putting firstly Newman forward as making sense of anarchism but then rapidly accepting that his 'crucial politico-ethical standpoint' of anarchism (i.e. it's defining characteristic) isn't correct.

Or is your point that butcher's description is not of anarchism, because it doesn't meet Newman's criteria? If so then you need to be clearer and provide some evidence as to why you opt for Newman.

Louis MacNeice

if you look through the lens that Sall provides, Sall's interpretation of anarchism, all the objections I have read in the past by butchers panda etc to workers state, political parties, the lumpenproletariat etc make sense. ie they object to a worker state, because "So the State, for anarchists, is a priori oppression, no matter what form it takes."

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyway, rmp3, a reply to 281 would be good.

 

[Pickman's model]

if you look through the lens that Sall provides, Sall's interpretation of anarchism, all the objections I have read in the past by butchers panda etc to workers state, political parties, the lumpenproletariat etc make sense. ie they object to a worker state, because "So the State, for anarchists, is a priori oppression, no matter what form it takes."

The state for marx is the tool by which one class oppresses another so there is clearly oppression at the heart of the state. Don't you do marx anymore?

 

[butchersapron]

if you look through the lens that Sall provides, Sall's interpretation of anarchism, all the objections I have read in the past by butchers panda etc to workers state, political parties, the lumpenproletariat etc make sense. ie they object to a worker state, because "So the State, for anarchists, is a priori oppression, no matter what form it takes."

Now, what did MARX say? As if it even matters. As if this is not just your usual incoherence,

 

[Pickman's model]

He's the cowdenbeath of politics

 

[butchersapron]

if you look through the lens that Sall provides, Sall's interpretation of anarchism, all the objections I have read in the past by butchers panda etc to workers state, political parties, the lumpenproletariat etc make sense. ie they object to a worker state, because "So the State, for anarchists, is a priori oppression, no matter what form it takes."

All your misunderstandings now make sense to you because someone else made the same misunderstandings for polemical reasons? And - as a brucie bonus - all the the anarchists you name agree with saul newman. Despite them not doing so, nor the majority of anarchists agreeing historically or currently.

 

[butchersapron]

He's the cowdenbeath of politics

The accrrington stanley.

 

[cesare]

And, for the avoidance of doubt RMP3, I'm not an anarchist.

 

[Pickman's model]

if you look through the lens that Sall provides, Sall's interpretation of anarchism, all the objections I have read in the past by butchers panda etc to workers state, political parties, the lumpenproletariat etc make sense. ie they object to a worker state, because "So the State, for anarchists, is a priori oppression, no matter what form it takes."

Forget answering 281. You're not well read on the second world war, you're not even well read on basic marxist theory. It's one of those 'you stupid boy' moments.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

if you look through the lens that Sall provides, Sall's interpretation of anarchism, all the objections I have read in the past by butchers panda etc to workers state, political parties, the lumpenproletariat etc make sense. ie they object to a worker state, because "So the State, for anarchists, is a priori oppression, no matter what form it takes."

When picking a lens shouldn't it be the clarity of the image produced rather than its rosiness that determines the choice; you may be comforted by the view Newman provides but that doesn't make it accurate. Why do you think Newman is right?

Louis MacNeice

 

[love detective]

He's the cowdenbeath of politics

that's insulting to the blue brazils!

 

[butchersapron]

Good to learn from rmp3 that anarchists oppose the state - and that he has just grasped this.

 

[Pickman's model]

Good to learn from rmp3 that anarchists oppose the state - and that he has just grasped this.

He's on the ball today

 

[Pickman's model]

Perhaps it's time for someone to leave rmp3 with a pistol with one round in and wait for him to do the decent thing.

 

[TremulousTetra]

When picking a lens shouldn't it be the clarity of the image produced rather than its rosiness that determines the choice; you may be comforted by the view Newman provides but that doesn't make it accurate. Why do you think Newman is right?

Louis MacNeice

Observing what they, Butchers Panda, have said, I thought they would agree with Salls general statements about anarchism. His views seems to chime very well with lots of things they had said on here. ie "So the State, for anarchists, is a priori oppression, no matter what form it takes." Whether you agree with it are not, Salls is A coherent analysis as to why anarchists should object to ie a worker state. A coherent analysis.

whereas this

Saul Newman gave a rather disengenous one-sided account designed to hide the large scale crossover between the anarchist tradition that concentrates on the economy and the state as intertwined manifestations of capital (traditionally and currently by far the largest anarchist tradition) and the marxist tradition.

leaves butchers objections to a worker state incoherent. Again.

Oh, well.

 

[butchersapron]

All about the coherency.

 

[JimW]

Down with Butchers-Panda ultra-left obscurantism! Points on power must be made in PowerPoint!

 

[butchersapron]

caring-apronism is dust.

 

[butchersapron]

Bombard the mosque!

 

[elbows]

Regarding the state, socialism, marx and anarchism stuff, Im not terribly well read so I thought Id go looking for something to help flesh this stuff out a bit.

This is the first thing I found, and it seemed like a reasonable fit:

'Notes on Anarchism' in For Reasons of State. Noam Chomsky, 1970.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000281.html

I found it rather helpful, any obvious failings in it that anyone would like to alert me to?

 

[butchersapron]

It's a great intro.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Good to learn from rmp3 that anarchists oppose the state - and that he has just grasped this.

yes, I was blissfully unaware of your opposition to the state.

It is not so much the anarchists opposition to the state, so much as the why?

So the State, for anarchists, is a priori oppression, no matter what form it takes .
Indeed Bakunin argues that Marxism pays too much attention to the forms of State power while not taking enough account of the way in which State power operates: “They (Marxists) do not know that despotism resides not so much in the form of the State but in the very principle of the State and political power.”14 Oppression and despotism exist in the very structure and symbolism of the State — it is not merely a derivative of class power. The State has its own impersonal logic, its own momentum, its own priorities: these are often beyond the control of the ruling class and do not necessarily reflect economic relations at all. So anarchism locates the fundamental oppression and power in society in the very structure and operations of the State. As an abstract machine of domination, the State haunts different class actualizations — not just the bourgeoisie State, but the worker’s State too. Through its economic reductionism, Marxism neglected the autonomy and pre-eminence of State — a mistake that would lead to its reaffirmation in a socialist revolution. Therefore the anarchist critique unmasked the hidden forms of domination associated with political power, and exposed Marxism’s theoretical inadequacy for dealing with this problem .

 

[butchersapron]

What is?

 

[cesare]

RMP3 could you just tell us what your overall point is rather than building up to it in quotes?

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3 could you just tell us what your overall point is rather than building up to it in quotes?

My point is quite simply, that Sall SEEMED to make sense of Panda and butchers. A lot of their remarks seemed to chime with his view of the state, as autonomous, having a logic of its own, which inevitably leads to oppression of the many by the few. Butcher says it doesn't reflect his views, he says;

the economy and the state as intertwined manifestations of capital

this is clearly not the same as Sall.

In my view, in a workers state the economic base and the state would be intertwined.

The revolutionary Socialist denies that State ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism. We have seen why the State cannot democratically control industry. Industry can only be democratically owned and controlled by the workers electing directly from their own ranks industrial administrative committees. Socialism will be fundamentally an industrial system; its constituencies will be of an industrial character. Thus those carrying on the social activities and industries of society will be directly represented in the local and central councils of social administration. In this way the powers of such delegates will flow upwards from those carrying on the work and conversant with the needs of the community. When the central administrative industrial committee meets it will represent every phase of social activity. Hence the capitalist political or geographical state will be replaced by the industrial administrative committee of Socialism. The transition from the one social system to the other will be the social revolution. The political State throughout history has meant the government of men by ruling classes; the Republic of Socialism will be the government of industry administered on behalf of the whole community. The former meant the economic and political subjection of the many; the latter will mean the economic freedom of all---it will be, therefore, a true democracy.

I still don't understand why butchers objects to this form of workers state.

Still haven't finished all the work from Chomsky, perhaps it will become clear from that.

 

[mk12]

In purely theoretical terms I don't think there's much difference between the Marxist (not Leninist) dictatorship of the proletariat and the anarchist post-revolutionary stateless society. Both seem to propose the democratic control of industry and political institutions by the majority, in the interests of the majority.

However, the question of "the Party" and its role in all this seems to be the major dividing line between the two traditions. Obviously there were nuances between Bakunin and Marx, and there must have been something in Marx's views that led many at the time to accuse him of authoritarianism. I think this was exaggerated by anarchists at the time though (see Marx's comments on Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy).

To suggest Lenin, Trotsky or many others who the SWP venerate subscribed to the "workers state" detailed in that RMP3 quoted is just incorrect.

 

[Pickman's model]

In purely theoretical terms I don't think there's much difference between the Marxist (not Leninist) dictatorship of the proletariat and the anarchist post-revolutionary stateless society. Both seem to propose the democratic control of industry and political institutions by the majority, in the interests of the majority.

However, the question of "the Party" and its role in all this seems to be the major dividing line between the two traditions. Obviously there were nuances between Bakunin and Marx, and there must have been something in Marx's views that led many at the time to accuse him of authoritarianism. I think this was exaggerated by anarchists at the time though (see Marx's comments on Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy).

To suggest Lenin, Trotsky or many others who the SWP venerate subscribed to the "workers state" detailed in that RMP3 quoted is just incorrect.

from what i've read marx said basically fuck all about the post-revolutionary society, and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was never really gone into. unless you know better, of course. whereas some thought has been given by anarchists to potential forms of a post-revolutionary society.

 

[mk12]

Yeah, I agree with you there. I think this commentary on Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy' is quite revealing however (although I think some of his comments seem naive with the benefit of hindsight):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that.

 

[Random]

However, the question of "the Party" and its role in all this seems to be the major dividing line between the two traditions. Obviously there were nuances between Bakunin and Marx, and there must have been something in Marx's views that led many at the time to accuse him of authoritarianism. I think this was exaggerated by anarchists at the time though (see Marx's comments on Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy).

Between Marxism and Anarchism? isn't it only with Lenin that a disciplined party becomes central? The Mensheviks were also left-Marxists.