An open question to all SWP members on u75

[kropotkin]

they can certaibnly be traced to the proposals that marx made for acheiving communism. This is our point, that the brutalities unleashed were emergent properties of the organisational form chosen. Like Blair or Howard, the man at the top was less important than the form and structure of the system they captained.

 

[JoeBlack]

To go back to the value or otherwise of Marx's orginal work . . . can the crimes of Lenin cited above by Joe and others be said to have their roots in Marx's thought and proposals?

Yes but ...

Seeing as Bakunin more or less predicted leninism from his analysis of Marxs writings and organisational methods it would be foolish to declare leninism was a complete break from marxism. But social democracy also arose out of Marx so he gave us Blair as well as Lenin. There were clearly other paths marxism did develop down.

Personally I think the problem with marx is that his followers turned him into a deity who back in the 1870's knew not only everything that was to be know but also everything that there would be to know in the future. And also of course with the thicker ones his knowledge jumped unformed into his mind (rather than being gleaned and complied from a wide variety of existing work in the British library).

Marx the man was a complex and flawed character who played an important and indeed central part in developing socialist thought 130 years ago. His organisational contribution was probably on balance quite damaging to the emerging movement as he legtitamised a number of pratices that have done a lot of damage in the years since (eg bad jacketing, packing meetings, personalising political disagreements etc). But overall, particularly in economic analysis he played a useful role for the developing left.

 

[charlie mowbray]

From the Communist Manifesto:
"5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. "
As Joe said, Marx led directly to both social democracy and Bolshevism- although equally it led to the council communism of Pannekoek and Gorter.
The personalised polemics of Marx- which included character assasination, mocking of physical characteristics etc- carried on within Leninism. Unfortunately it effected anarchism too as it tainted the political environment and this type of polemicising (I'm guilty of it myself) needs to be gotten away from.

 

[Idris2002]

But social democracy also arose out of Marx so he gave us Blair as well as Lenin. There were clearly other paths marxism did develop down.

Look at the debate over revisionism (people may have slagged Bernstein, but I don't think anyone called him a non-Marxist) - or Luxemburg's admonition to Lenin that 'freedom is always and only the freedom for the one who disagrees'.


AFAIK, Marx regarded centralisation as an objective necessity called into being by the development of capitalism throughout the nineteenth century.

When he started writing, capital was diffused into various regional small and medium sized firms. By the time he died, the first big monopolies and cartels were appearing.

So even though the anarchist critique of the political evils that flow from centralisation were true, Marx may have had a point - especially since he felt that a non-utopian socialist programme would have to base itself on the real tendencies appearing in capitalist society.

About the 'industrial armies'. I don't know of that appearing in Marx's work after the Manifesto. I don't recall it being in the Critique of the Gotha Programme for example. What I do remember is David McLellan's point that the title 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' was only chosen because the word 'socialist' was at that time identified with the likes of Comte and Fourier. So would it be true to say (or not) that the choice of 'industrial armies' was simply an attempt to find some way of distancing their programme from the utopian socialists? Did he ever specify what form these 'industrial armies' would take? Does the use of the word 'army' here necessarily refer to military forms of organisation?

A self-styled 'Christian Hippy Anarchist' I used to know once told me that Marx reputedly said to Bakunin that 'the workers don't need freedom'. Is there any truth in this?

 

[fanciful]

there's no doubt that the bolsheviks had to make some tough decisions to defend the revolution, "a revolution is a most authoritarian thing" Engels.
And many anarchists object to those measures because they think the revolution failed to live upto their ideal as a result. to such an extent in fact that they deny its legitimacy and blame the bolsheviks for expropriating the working masses.
Lenin was the first to recognise that as a result of the exceptional measures necessary to win the civil war the bureaucratisation of the revolution took place. He did so in 1920, he allied with Trotsky to fight that bureaucratism. The Trotskyists were the first victims of stalinsim.
But as Lenin recognised himself during war communism, if anything the bolsheviks were still too liberal. too soft on the counter revolution, too committed to the revolutionary ideal and that their softness allowed their enemies time to undermine and attack the revolution further. undoubtedly this softness cost the revolution dear.
but what's the alternative to fighting and losing? surrendering and losing. The anarchists declined to take power in spain in 1936 because they feared the authoritarianism necessary to win a revolution. as a result they were massacred and a fifty year fascist tyranny instituted.
Better i think for the anarchists to have taken power and defended it to the utmost, even with authoritarian measures, the worst kind of defeat is the refusal to fight to the utmost. although today all the latter day fluffies would no doubt criticise them for that defence. it's a shame their doctrine meant that they abstained from that fight.
finally ask yourself why the bosses still continue their campaign to convince us that Leninism=stalinism. why the only programmes you see on the history channel are about world war two or the horrors of communism.
it's because they understand that lenin understood how the working class party must relate to the class. that's why they oppose leninism so virulently to this day, whereas anarchism is regarded as an anachronist curiosity which poses no threat to the system. what it boils down to i suppose is do you really want to change the world? or not.

 

[smashthestate]

Fanciful, have you heard of paragraphs?

 

[fanciful]

yeah soz!

 

[cockneyrebel]

Joe I've followed the links and kind find the footnotes you're talking about...

Then you talk about 100,000s losing their liberties and say the Makhnovites would account for a big proportion of this. But the Bolsheviks regarded the Makhnovites as counter revolutionaries so is it very surprising they would take their liberty away in a revolutionary situation! Would anarchists stand by and let trotskyists take power?

And would anarchists not execute people in a revolutionary situation? Did this not happen in Spain?

Then you say the Maknovists say there were 200,000 left prisoners. When I quoted Trotsky I was told this wasn't valid because he was just defending himself. So why should I accept the evidence of pro-Makhnovists?

As for soviets being shut down, I don't deny this happened, but it's important how many and why this happened. Would anarchists have allowed pro-White and pro-Menshevik soviets to carry on operating in a revolutionary situation?

Again on the KAS numbers, you give me an anarchist source. And is 75,000 a big number in a population of 160 million or even the estimated 5 million workers?

Are you seriously suggesting that their weren't shortages after the Spanish Civil war started?

Then you say the FOD said they had 5000 members so I should accept? And you don't think organisation exagerate their own size? And if you call 7% significant fair enough, I wouldn't say 7% was to be honest....

Also I think Trotsky said a bit more than it was the wrong man who got the job, but there you go.....

As for the FOD it is interesting that anarchists admit there has to be a centralisation of power, even if it is in a different format to Leninism.

As for the anarchist defeat in Spain I would say its international significance was huge. It was a massive defeat for the international working class.....

But if you do see such evidence, you don't really care, because you think the Bolsheviks were right anyway.
Have I missed anything, or is that a fair summary of your position?

Nope I said that if the Bolsheviks fucked up I still wouldn't abandon the methods of a revolutionary party, workers state etc Just as anarchists say they wouldn't abandon anarchism because of the Spanish Civil War and the actions of the CNT......

Anarchists may have some valid points about the contact of the Bolsheviks and that they got some things wrong (I'm still to be anything like convinced that they got it all wrong though, and the evidence still doesn't seem that great). But that still leaves them with an unproved, utopian ideology that has failed at every turn......

 

[montevideo]

Joe I've followed the links and kind find the footnotes you're talking about...

Then you talk about 100,000s losing their liberties and say the Makhnovites would account for a big proportion of this. But the Bolsheviks regarded the Makhnovites as counter revolutionaries so is it very surprising they would take their liberty away in a revolutionary situation! Would anarchists stand by and let trotskyists take power?

And would anarchists not execute people in a revolutionary situation? Did this not happen in Spain?

Then you say the Maknovists say there were 200,000 left prisoners. When I quoted Trotsky I was told this wasn't valid because he was just defending himself. So why should I accept the evidence of pro-Makhnovists?

As for soviets being shut down, I don't deny this happened, but it's important how many and why this happened. Would anarchists have allowed pro-White and pro-Menshevik soviets to carry on operating in a revolutionary situation?

Again on the KAS numbers, you give me an anarchist source. And is 75,000 a big number in a population of 160 million or even the estimated 5 million workers?

Are you seriously suggesting that their weren't shortages after the Spanish Civil war started?

Then you say the FOD said they had 5000 members so I should accept? And you don't think organisation exagerate their own size? And if you call 7% significant fair enough, I wouldn't say 7% was to be honest....

Also I think Trotsky said a bit more than it was the wrong man who got the job, but there you go.....

As for the FOD it is interesting that anarchists admit there has to be a centralisation of power, even if it is in a different format to Leninism.

As for the anarchist defeat in Spain I would say its international significance was huge. It was a massive defeat for the international working class.....



Nope I said that if the Bolsheviks fucked up I still wouldn't abandon the methods of a revolutionary party, workers state etc Just as anarchists say they wouldn't abandon anarchism because of the Spanish Civil War and the actions of the CNT......

Anarchists may have some valid points about the contact of the Bolsheviks and that they got some things wrong (I'm still to be anything like convinced that they got it all wrong though, and the evidence still doesn't seem that great). But that still leaves them with an unproved, utopian ideology that has failed at every turn......

none of this makes sense. It was ionly a 'revolutionary' situation because those in charge said it was & used the term ad hoc to impose repressive conditions on anyone who a) opposed their particular brand of authority b) they didn't like.

A 'revolutionary' party (like a working class party) becomes meaningless because the party always wins.

 

[gurrier]

hen you say the Maknovists say there were 200,000 left prisoners. When I quoted Trotsky I was told this wasn't valid because he was just defending himself. So why should I accept the evidence of pro-Makhnovists?

Because, you idiot, it was included in the treaty between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks. If the prisoners hadn't existed, it would probably have been noticed by the bolshies at the treaty negotiation stage. Would you like to sign a contract with me which will include a provision that you pay me back the 50 grand that you own me?

You have been given sources, if you want to continue to challenge the data given, find some fault with the sources yourself, don't continue to waste people's time with demands that they do the work for you.

Would anarchists have allowed pro-White and pro-Menshevik soviets to carry on operating in a revolutionary situation?

Anarchists considered soviets to be autonomous and sovereign bodies, so of course they would have let them continue to operate. Also, anarchists would have no means of shutting them down - as there could hardly be an anarchist state to suppress them. Also, your example is patently ridiculous, do you really believe that there were pro-white soviets? "We demand that the boss comes back, takes back the factory and starts exploiting us again..."

A source has been given for the numbers in KAS, if you want to question it, go off and find some source that disputes it - that is the standard approach to scholarship, not to demand the impossible of providing conclusive proof.

Are you seriously suggesting that their weren't shortages after the Spanish Civil war started?

Nobody suggested that. There were shortages caused by all sorts of things, from lack of credit facilities, to markets being cut off from suppliers, etc.. However, it is very well documented that production increased wherever these factors did not apply. There is even a whole chapter on it in the standard liberal history (the spanish civil war by somebody Taylor I think)

As for the FOD it is interesting that anarchists admit there has to be a centralisation of power, even if it is in a different format to Leninism.

It is not interesting at all, anarchists are generally sensible and realise that some things are done more efficiently by centralising certain functions. But this is nothing to do with centralisation of power in the Leninist sense - the delegated nature of the proposed defence juntas was intended to centralise the co-ordination of defence functions in a democratic way, not to create a body of individuals who wielded power.

As for the anarchist defeat in Spain I would say its international significance was huge. It was a massive defeat for the international working class.....

The working class defeat in Spain had huge international significance. The mistakes of the anarchists played only a tiny part in this defeat. If the anarchists had turned Spain into a prison camp and slaughtered millions of workers, you could start to compare them to the Leninists. Moreover, the errors that were made, most importantly the failure to dismantle the political power in Catalonia immediately in July 1936, have been learned from since and there are virtually no anarchists who would repeat them. In contrast, Leninists continue to repeat the major and enormous mistake of the Bolsheviks - the idea that hierarchical and coercive means can bring about a free and equal society.

Nope I said that if the Bolsheviks fucked up ...

The thing is that the bolsheviks didn't fuck up, they did what they said they were going to do. The problem is that bolshevism proved, as predicted, to be a fuck up. A fuck up that you seem only too happy to replicate again and again.

Fanciful - you are truly beyond reason. You seem to be impervious to all logic and have not managed to grasp any of the ideas on the thread.

And would anarchists not execute people in a revolutionary situation?

There is nothing in anarchism that calls for the execution of people and I can't see what purpose it would serve, although Fanciful makes a good case for an exception

 

[cockneyrebel]

What you don't think it was a revolutionary situation? If it wasn't what is?

As said wouldn't anarchists use oppression in a revolution? Would anarchists try to use violence to stop Bolsheviks?

 

[gurrier]

But the Bolsheviks regarded the Makhnovites as counter revolutionaries

Can you really be so dim as to miss the circular logic in this?

 

[butchersapron]

I should just back up what charlie said yesterday:

"But a word of warning- debating with Cockney Webel is a complete waste of time- brick walls come to mind!! Me n' Butchers and Co have been over all of this with him before"

 

[montevideo]

What you don't think it was a revolutionary situation? If it wasn't what is?

well, the bolsheviks taking over was technically a coup wasn't it?

Would anarchists try to use violence to stop Bolsheviks?

I'd say happily, willingly. Stop them/you imposing your own particular brand of authoritarian control.

 

[JoeBlack]

I should just back up what charlie said yesterday:

"But a word of warning- debating with Cockney Webel is a complete waste of time- brick walls come to mind!! Me n' Butchers and Co have been over all of this with him before"

Yeah that last 'reply' convinced me of the same

cockneyrebel you are taking the approach of a 14 year old trying to 'win' an argument. I don't find that useful. If you want to actually reply to my post then I'll continue this discussion.

 

[Random]

In Jhn Reed's 'Ten Days that Shook the world' he happily calls the Oct Rev a coup d'etat; this in the edition sanctioned by Lenin.#

p.s. all you authoritarian muthafukas can happily suck my cock

 

[cockneyrebel]

Butchers you and Charlie are wrong about that. What has been said on here at times has been very interesting, including on this subject, and has often made me think hard (although the standard of debate seems to have gone down hill lately and their seem a lot more stupid abuse). Yeah the arguments might have got heated and entrenched, but I think that's inevitable sometimes (and in the case of me and Charles/butchers pretty pathetic at times).

Gurrier on the 200,000 left prisoners. Joe said "From the context this is clearly a figure presented in the exchange of documents between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists at that time". This doesn't say it was in the treaty it says it was in documents exchanged between them. This could have been the Makhnovists figures. Have you got a link to the treaty and where it says there were 200,000 left prisoners?

As for KAS figures they were provided from KAS sources. As said before almost all organisations exageratte their size, so it's fair enough to be sceptical about such a biased source. And as said even the figure given is very small.

However, it is very well documented that production increased wherever these factors did not apply.

Wherever these factors didn't apply?! What a cop out! Obviously these factores are gonna apply in a revolutionary situation and civil war, that's the whole basis of the need for a workers state!

It is not interesting at all, anarchists are generally sensible and realise that some things are done more efficiently by centralising certain functions. But this is nothing to do with centralisation of power in the Leninist sense - the delegated nature of the proposed defence juntas was intended to centralise the co-ordination of defence functions in a democratic way, not to create a body of individuals who wielded power.

But the method of democratic centralism that I believe in has to be democratic and delegate based. But what the FOD showed was that a centralisation of power was needed over and above federal autonomy (at least with the military). This is a real challenge to anarchist thinking.

The mistakes of the anarchists played only a tiny part in this defeat. If the anarchists had turned Spain into a prison camp and slaughtered millions of workers, you could start to compare them to the Leninists.

A tiny part! What the anarchists joining a stalinist/capitalist government was a tiny part, are you taking the piss? This was a massive error and contributed hugely to the defeat in Spain. And did the CNT raise the call for independence for Morocco? I didn't think they did. Again, if I'm right, a massive mistake.....and as for the Bolsheviks/Leninists slaugtering millions of workers, I think this is utter rhetoric and you know it. Not even the link Joe gave claims anything like that.

In turn what you and montevideo have said raises interesting questions. I don't think anyone denies that the Makhnovists and anarchists in the Spainish Civil War executed people. Indeed:

December 6, 1936: In Solidaridad Obrera, Balius publishes an article entitled "Durruti's Testament" in which he states: "Durruti bluntly asserted that we anarchists require that the Revolution be totalitarian in character."

And as for there being pro-White soviets, why is this ridiculous? What about the pro-Mensheviks soviets. The Mensheviks aided the Whites.

And how would anarchists relate to Bolshevik organisations? Would they oppress them?

Anarchists considered soviets to be autonomous and sovereign bodies, so of course they would have let them continue to operate.

So you're saying that in a revolutionary situation no matter how reactionary or disruptive a soviet was you think revolutionaries should just let it be? So if a soviet was actively trying to disrupt or fight against revolutionaries, you would just say fair enough? And are you saying that anarchists would have no means of oppression? Really, so how would anarchists oppress the capitalists?

Because this is where I have a problem with anarchism. I think the critiques of the Bolsheviks are good at times and raise problems that need to be learnt from in some cases. However what are the anarchist answers? How would thousands of federations, acting autonomously, be efficient or co-ordinated enough to win a revolutionary war? As I've said in the past, how would instant military decisions be made that needed to be co-ordinated centrally? How would an airforce operate for instance? Would every federation have their own plane?

PS Montevideo even if you think what the Bolsheviks did was a coup, do you not think it was a revolutionary situation?

PPS Joe you're wrong there, as I said above. It's not about point scoring, but about trying to find out what happened, and then what the solutions are. Just because I question your sources, is that wrong? And looking back on the thread is it me taking part in stupid abuse from "webel" to "dim"....

 

[Ray]

Nope I said that if the Bolsheviks fucked up I still wouldn't abandon the methods of a revolutionary party, workers state etc Just as anarchists say they wouldn't abandon anarchism because of the Spanish Civil War and the actions of the CNT......

The major mistake made by the CNT was to take part in a republican government. Anarchists have always opposed the idea of taking part in a government, so the CNT leadership were quite clearly not following anarchist principles when they joined the government. What's more, the fact that they could make that decision caused anarchists to seriously question the practice of anarcho-syndicalism.

In contrast, Leninists today are hard-pressed to think of a single mistake that the Bolsheviks made. They say the Bolsheviks were right to take over the government, right to close down dissident soviets, right to shut down other political parties and papers, right to militarise labour and abandon socialism in the armies, and right to do everything that they did, until Stalin appeared and everything that had been right suddenly became wrong.

You don't agree? Then here's a simple way for you to prove me wrong.
Take a single specific allegation, the closing of opposition soviets for example. Now, either
1) Show that the sources quoted by Joe Black and others are wrong, and that the Bolsheviks were happy to accept the existence of soviets that voted against them, and elected left-wing oppositionists.
or 2) Agree that the Bolsheviks (while Lenin was in charge) overturned democratic elections in the soviets, and this was the wrong thing to do, that it destroyed the democracy necessary for socialism.
or 3) Explain why it was a good thing for Lenin to stamp out democracy, but Stalin's stamping out of democracy proves he was an evil man and completely different from Lenin.

Because your argument at the moment is "They didn't do it, but if they did it they were right, and besides its completely different from when the other guy did it"

Anarchists may have some valid points about the contact of the Bolsheviks and that they got some things wrong (I'm still to be anything like convinced that they got it all wrong though, and the evidence still doesn't seem that great). But that still leaves them with an unproved, utopian ideology that has failed at every turn......

How long have you been a Leninist? Is this the first time you've heard these allegations? Have you never thought of investigating them yourself?

But that still leaves them with an unproved, utopian ideology that has failed at every turn......

I've heard this pathetic non-argument so many times from Trots, Stalinists, Maoists, and other apologists for dictatorships that I swear, the next time I'm going to belt someone.

You want to talk about ideologies that failed at every turn? Your fucking heros created a dictatorship that killed millions. THAT is failure. What planet are you from that you think creating the Soviet Union counts as a success? It was a disaster, a completely unmitigated fucking disaster, that killed millions of people directly, and that served as a bad example to other distatorships around the world, who went on to kill millions more.

Get it through your head. The Bolsheviks did not succeed. They wanted to create a socialist society. They didn't create one. That means they FAILED.

So which revolutionary ideology are you going to choose?
1) The one that has failed to create a socialist society so far. The last failed attempt was severely criticised from within its own camp, leading to many changes in practice.
2) The one that has failed to create a socialist society so far. The last failed attempt is still being hailed as a success, and all of its followers are determined to recreate the practices that failed so spectacularly last time. Particularly irony-free adherents describe this method as 'scientific' socialism.

Just how far do you think blind optimism is going to get you?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Calm down Ray!

I've clearly said above that I think the Bolsheviks made mistakes. Banning internal factions was a big one for a start.

In terms of shutting down soviets the evidence I've been given is either totally biased or vague. The links that Joe gave don't show why and when soviets were shut down. As said I've have nothing against shutting down a soviet in principle if it was totally reactionary. Would anarchist federations not do the same? However, as said, I'm more than willing to say the Bolsheviks shut down soviets that shouldn't have been shut down, but I'm not gonna just take someones word for it. If I've missed a link put it up again that does that put it up again. And how would anarchists react to Bolsheviks organisation/soviets? Some anarchists I've spoken to say they see them as the enemy and would therefore oppress them. What's the difference?!

As for what happened in Spain not being a result of anarchism I'd disagree. I think it came from the inability of anarchism to deal with the question of power which still runs through anarchism today. As said how would thousands of fedearations work? How would the airforce work? Would every federation just do what it likes? How would instant decisions be made without a centralisation of power?

And what do you think of the Durutti comment about a revolution being totalitarian?

And where did I say the Russian revolution didn't fail? Of course it did - that's why lessons have to be learnt (and of course the conditions taken into account). But it did manage to overthrow a capitalist state, something anarchism has always failed to do, even in far better social conditions in Spain.

Leaving the stupid comments about "my heroes" aside, if I became convinced that the methods of revolutionary socialism (workers state, revolutionary party etc) wouldn't work and the only alternative left was anarchism I'd give up politics. It's utterly utopian and faced with a revolution will just, as it has always done, fall apart.....

 

[butchersapron]

"And what do you think of the Durutti comment about a revolution being totalitarian?"

Just picking this one point out as an example of the pointlessness of debating with you - on at least five seperate occasions in different debates both me and charlie have pointed out to you that correct meaning of the term totalitario as used by Durruti - it means thoroughgoing and complete - not authoritarian. You still come back and throw it in peoples faces as meaning what you've been shown that it doesn't.

You've done this dishonest liitle trick with numerous other points we've covered over the last few years - you've been shown almost to the line and paragraph references for many of the facts you're demanding evidence for now, only to then turn around and say 'well, that's what an anarchist/non bolshevik is bound to write - here's what trotsky had to say on the matter' - it really is not worth the time and effort with you.

 

[Ray]

Calm down Ray!

I've clearly said above that I think the Bolsheviks made mistakes. Banning internal factions was a big one for a start.

You're a member of the SWP, right? A party that bans internal factions...

In terms of shutting down soviets the evidence I've been given is either totally biased or vague. The links that Joe gave don't show why and when soviets were shut down. As said I've have nothing against shutting down a soviet in principle if it was totally reactionary. Would anarchist federations not do the same?

No, they wouldn't. If someone takes up arms against you, you fight back. But voting you out in a soviet is not taking up arms against you.

Put it like this. The Bolsheviks claimed that they were doing what was in the best interests of the working class, right? But the Mensheviks, the SRs, the anarchists, the nationalists, whoever else, all claimed the same thing, but had different ideas of how to go about it. You agree so far, yes?

Now, what gives the Bolsheviks the right to put their programme into effect? Remember, their programme involved the treaty of Brest Litovsk, the militarisation of labour, reintroduction of differential treatment in the army, and all of that. (Not that they said they'd do anything like that before they were elected). Do you think they should have been able to do all of that because they were sincerely convinced it was the right thing to do? Or was it because they had enough guns to force everyone else into line? Or were they the legitimate leaders of the working class because they had a majority in soviet elections?

If you think it was the latter, they were legitimate because they were elected, then you agree that the decision on who gets to rule should be in the hands of the working class, right? Which, in Russia at the time, meant the soviets, right? So why was it okay for the Bolsheviks to abolish soviets that elected the wrong people? How can the soviets be right when they are electing Bolsheviks, and wrong when they are electing anyone else?

However, as said, I'm more than willing to say the Bolsheviks shut down soviets that shouldn't have been shut down, but I'm not gonna just take someones word for it. If I've missed a link put it up again that does that put it up again.

You've obviously missed the link Joe Black put up
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/russ/oct.html#The Soviets
which opens a footnoted article.

And how would anarchists react to Bolsheviks organisation/soviets? Some anarchists I've spoken to say they see them as the enemy and would therefore oppress them. What's the difference?!

If a soviet elects a Bolshevik committee, or a White committee, or a committee of flat-earthers, that's their problem.

As for what happened in Spain not being a result of anarchism I'd disagree. I think it came from the inability of anarchism to deal with the question of power which still runs through anarchism today. As said how would thousands of fedearations work? How would the airforce work? Would every federation just do what it likes? How would instant decisions be made without a centralisation of power?

You know, this is just bizarre. The CNT entered the government in Spain as an attempt to build an anti-fascist alliance. It was the wrong decision, as many anarchists said then and now, but that's why they made it. They did not enter government because they were incapable of coordinating thousands of federations. That side of the revolution continued to be run by the unions until the government seized control.

As plenty of people have pointed out on this thread, anarchist failures in Spain don't make Bolshevik failures in Russia any less awful, and don't make the Bolshevik model any more worthy of imitating. But if you're going to criticise anarchist failures in Spain, then you have to criticise the things that they failed at. It doesn't make any sense to argue that because the anarchists failed in one area (relation to the government) they must have failed in all others as well (like management of industry) - any more than it makes sense to argue that because the Bolsheviks completely destroyed the socialist and democratic elements of the revolution, they must also have torn up Russia's railroads. One does not imply the other.

And what do you think of the Durutti comment about a revolution being totalitarian?

I'd point to Durruti's practice, which was completely non-authoritarian. I'm more concerned with what people do then with what they say they'll do. Which is why I have so little time for Lenin and Trotsky.

And where did I say the Russian revolution didn't fail? Of course it did - that's why lessons have to be learnt (and of course the conditions taken into account). But it did manage to overthrow a capitalist state, something anarchism has always failed to do, even in far better social conditions in Spain.

If you agree that the Bolsheviks failed in Russia, why do you think it is a damning criticism of anarchism that it failed in Spain? You can't have it both ways, you know. Either both ideologies have failed so far, or one has been a success. I don't see any success stories.

As for managing to overthrow a capitalist state, that is wrong on two counts.
1) The Bolsheviks didn't overthrow the Russian state. They were involved, but they were a small part of some massive events. Anything else is myth.
2) Overthrowing a capitalist state is not a victory, however small, if you replace it with something just as bad, if not worse.

Leaving the stupid comments about "my heroes" aside, if I became convinced that the methods of revolutionary socialism (workers state, revolutionary party etc) wouldn't work and the only alternative left was anarchism I'd give up politics. It's utterly utopian and faced with a revolution will just, as it has always done, fall apart.....

So you would rather stick with the ideology that if faced with a revolution will just, as it has always done, create a brutal dictatorship?

Look, either both Leninism and anarchism are ideologies that are trapped by their own contradictions, doomed always to repeat the same mistakes in the same ways whenever they have a chance of being put into practice
OR
the next time could be different.

If you think history will always repeat itself, then you think you're in a party that will create another Stalin. I don't know why you want to be in a party like that.

If you think the next time could be different, then I'd suggest that the first thing to do is try to figure out why things went wrong the last time, so you can change your practice, and avoid making the same mistakes again.

Ever since 1917, Leninist parties have been trying again and again to recreate the Bolsheviks. They embrace Democratic Centralism because that was the Bolshevik method. They try to draw a direct line of descent from the sainted Lenin and Trotsky to their own internal dictators - Cliff, Taffe, Healy, and all the rest. And when critics point out the failings of the Bolsheviks - the attacks on workers control, democracy, internal and external oppositions - they deny that it happened, then say that the Bolsheviks were forced to do it.

Anarchists don't fetishize the organisational structure of the CNT, and are happy to agree that the CNT was wrong to enter government. As soon as it happened anarchists were criticising it, and putting forward alternatives.

Only one of these groups is learning from the past. Only one of these groups has the potential to avoid making the same mistakes again.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Butchers from your point of view you might have given me "the facts" but not from mine. If that makes debating pointless, fair enough. As for the meaning of totalitarian in terms of the context of the rest of the book on this link I disagree with you:

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001780/biblio.html

Indeed the FOD also said:

Our Group demands the immediate establishment of a revolutionary junta, the shooting of the guilty ones, the disarming of the armed corps, the socialization of the economy and the disbanding of all the political parties which turned on the working class

Who had turned on the working class must be a matter of debate? But the FOD said the CNT leadership had the comitted treason so presumably they should be disbanded? Ray would you say nothing about this statement is "authoritarian"?

You might disagree with the book, but it's one of the most thorough books on the subject I've found. Disagreement with you or interpretating things differently isn't "a trick" or "dishonest" its just a difference in opinion. And what I've said is I won't accept anarchist sources as non-biased towards anarchists. Can't see the problem there!

No Ray I'm in Workers Power, and we do have the right to internal factions....

No, they wouldn't. If someone takes up arms against you, you fight back. But voting you out in a soviet is not taking up arms against you.

Well for what it's worth the FOD don't seem to agree with you....

And in the middle of a civil war freedoms probably will have to be restricted, even anarchists agree with this surely? If a soviet became pro-White and was organising against the revolution, you'd just let it be? As said I'm not saying every soviet shut down by the Bolsheviks was the right decision, but I am saying that it is valid, IMO, for counter revolutionary activists to be stopped in a revolutionary situation.....

I'll take a look at the link you gave, obviously I'll have to read it through....

As for the anarchists failing in Spain, IMO it comes out of their failure to deal with the question of power, and that remains today. I just can't believe that 1000s, 10,000s of federations all doing their own thing is capable of winning a revolution.....

As for overthrowing the state in Russia, we'll have to agree to disagree on how important the role of the Bolsheviks was. But the overthrowing of the state is a crucial act. Anarchists have never managed this, even when in better conditions in Spain - far better than Russia I would say.

Obviously I don't believe the methods I believe in will lead to a brutal dictatorship! I think there are real lessons to be learned. However, as said, even if I came to the conclusion that what I believe is the best way forward was wrong if anarchism was the only alternative I'd give up doing political stuff as I think 1000s of federations doing their own thing is utterly utopian and will be crushed. As said I can't even work out how an airforce would be run by federations, let alone how instant military decisions and decisions around production would be made. I dont' think anarchists are arseholes or anything like that, I just think the ideas are doomed to fail. I accept the in democratic centralism there are dangers around bureaucracy and democracy and this has to be taken very seriously, but it's the only realistic way I think a revolution could be won.....

PS Had a quick look at the link Ray. The footnotes aren't very clear about what to look at. I'll look at it more thoroughly later but there still don't seem to be any figures about how many soviets were shut down only a couple of examples. Also in terms of allowing pro-capitalist soviets in a revolutionary situation, we might have to agree to disagree on that one. How can a revolution be successful if pro-capitalists are allowed to operate in the middle of us? Again from my reading of the FOD they wouldn't agree with you on that one.....

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers from your point of view you might have given me "the facts" but not from mine. If that makes debating pointless, fair enough. As for the meaning of totalitarian in terms of the context of the rest of the book on this link I disagree with you:

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001780/biblio.html

Indeed the FOD also said:



Who had turned on the working class must be a matter of debate? But the FOD said the CNT leadership had the comitted treason so presumably they should be disbanded? Ray would you say nothing about this statement is "authoritarian"?

You might disagree with the book, but it's one of the most thorough books on the subject I've found. Disagreement with you or interpretating things differently isn't "a trick" or "dishonest" its just a difference in opinion. And what I've said is I won't accept anarchist sources as non-biased towards anarchists. Can't see the problem there!

Er..first off, i'm the person who directed you towards that book in the first place. You were totally unaware of its existence - as you are seemingly unaware of the other non-bolshevik sources that people are using here - sources that anyone serious about informing themselves of the reality of revolutionary situations and perspectives should have read and digested.

As for what the books actually argues - and which you should by now know very well because i've demonstrated it to you on numerous occasions - it doesn't support a single one of your timeless and oft-repeated assertions about the FOD - that they were becoming marxists etc

"As for the meaning of totalitarian in terms of the context of the rest of the book on this link I disagree with you"

Sorry, what does this mean? You pull an entirely context free quote from Durruti (that you have had explained to you the meaning of on at least 6 different occassions) - and then try and link this quote with a book on a group that formed after Durrutis death and that he himself had nothing to do with - what on earth is that supposed to mean? It's senseless.

I've also explained to you that 'Junta' in this sense in the quote you provide simply means council - it is a common term in the spanish labour movemnt, But again despite being told this over and over, you simply plough on with the original assertion or point totally ignoring all evidence and proof to the contrary.

No, you geniunely can't see the problem with your approach can you? That's precisely the problem.

edit: and save your time mate, don't bother going through the book because i don't really think i shall be doing this with you all over again.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Er..first off, i'm the person who directed you towards that book in the first place. You were totally unaware of its existence - as you are seemingly unaware of the other non-bolshevik sources that people are using here - sources that anyone serious about informing themselves of the reality of revolutionary situations and perspectives should have read and digested.

A bit arrogant there butchers. I was "directed" towards it by someone in WP.....

If I'm unaware of some sources is that my fault! I'm prepared to read them. Sorry if I haven't "digested" them all yet. I don't get a lot of time to read, but try my best....will try harder! As for you explaing the mean of totalitarian I very much doubt you've told me six times as I don't remember....

I'm not ignoring you and actually can accept there are presumably different meanings of junta, but what is important is the methods of the FOD. I know the FOD didn't write it but they did call for a single common command (which must be centralisation of power on some level) and did say:

Our Group demands the immediate establishment of a revolutionary junta, the shooting of the guilty ones, the disarming of the armed corps, the socialization of the economy and the disbanding of all the political parties which turned on the working class

If you don't think this quote contains anything authoritarian then again we'll have to agree to disagree.

Because you get so heated and often abusive when debating you take everything as "a trick" or "dishonesty".

PS I didn't ask you to butchers, I was replying to Ray!

 

[Ray]

Who had turned on the working class must be a matter of debate? But the FOD said the CNT leadership had the comitted treason so presumably they should be disbanded? Ray would you say nothing about this statement is "authoritarian"?

As far as I'm aware, at no point did the FoD call for the CNT, UGT, or POUM to be disbanded, nor did they try to close any of them down.

You might disagree with the book, but it's one of the most thorough books on the subject I've found. Disagreement with you or interpretating things differently isn't "a trick" or "dishonest" its just a difference in opinion. And what I've said is I won't accept anarchist sources as non-biased towards anarchists. Can't see the problem there!

Tell me then, which sources will you accept as unbiased? If anarchist sources are biased against the Bolsheviks, and academic sources are biased against the Bolsheviks, and popular histories are biased against the Bolsheviks... do you only believe things written by card-carrying members of Trotsky's fan club?

No Ray I'm in Workers Power, and we do have the right to internal factions....

Ah, I see. So tell me - why is it okay for a member of the Leninist party who disagrees with the leadership to form a faction around a position, but not okay for the same person to leave the party and form a new party around that position? Or do you think people should be allowed form oppositional parties too?

Well for what it's worth the FOD don't seem to agree with you....

I'd like a little more than one quote to back that up. Its far from clear exactly who they're talking about in that quote - other left parties, or coup-supporting parties.

And in the middle of a civil war freedoms probably will have to be restricted, even anarchists agree with this surely? If a soviet became pro-White and was organising against the revolution, you'd just let it be? As said I'm not saying every soviet shut down by the Bolsheviks was the right decision, but I am saying that it is valid, IMO, for counter revolutionary activists to be stopped in a revolutionary situation....

What counts as counter-revolutionary activity? Printing a critical paper? Calling for a strike?
More importantly, _who decides_ what counts as a counter-revolutionary activity? The government or the workers?

As for the anarchists failing in Spain, IMO it comes out of their failure to deal with the question of power, and that remains today. I just can't believe that 1000s, 10,000s of federations all doing their own thing is capable of winning a revolution.....

This is known as 'the argument from personal incredulity', BTW. "I can't believe apes could possibly turn into humans". "I can't believe the universe is really that big".

As for overthrowing the state in Russia, we'll have to agree to disagree on how important the role of the Bolsheviks was.

<sigh> I'm not even saying anything that controversial here. Russia in 1917 was falling apart at the seams, an ineffectual government losing an unpopular war. There were strikes everywhere, units deserting from the front, factory seizures, and general chaos. Claiming that the revolution was the creation of the Bolsheviks is the height of arrogance.

But the overthrowing of the state is a crucial act. Anarchists have never managed this, even when in better conditions in Spain - far better than Russia I would say.

Overthrowing the state is crucial, but meaningless if it isn't followed by making something better.

Suppose I have this old house. Its getting pretty ratty, plumbing's dodgy, walls are damp, not a nice place. I decide the best thing to do is tear it down and start over. So I call in the Bolshevik Building Company ("Demolitions our Speciality"). They say "No problem mate, take down the old house, build a new one in its place. We do it all the time."
I come back a week later, to find a glowing radioactive hole in the ground where the house used to be. Can't get near the place for the giant mutated rats running around. The whole street, the whole town, is a fucked up mess. I am not pleased.
So I call the BBC.
"My house."
"Oh, yeah. Couple of problems with it. But, you know, could be worse. At least we got rid of the old place. Clean slate and all that."
"But what about the new house? Where am I going to live? I can't live there, its worse than it was before!"
"Hold on, hold on. You wanted the old house down and a new house up. There's a bit of a delay on the new house, bit of bureaucratisation, some radiation round the edges. But the old house is gone, no doubt about that."

So anyway, its a couple of years later, and I've got a new house. Well, not a _new_ house as such, its actually a bit fucked too, though still habitable. I'm looking around for quotes, and I find the old BBC are still going strong, though under new management. I get them on the phone, and explain the situation. They say it won't be a problem. Being a little more cautious, I ask them what their plan is...
"Oh that's sorted mate. What we do is, we get this nuke, and we set it off underneath the house that needs demolishing."
"A nuke? Is this some sort of clean bomb or something, doesn't leave any radiation behind, something like that?"
"Yeah, yeah, good one mate. No, still the same old nukes. They go boom, house goes bang, radiation everywhere. Great fireworks show for all the family"
"But how will you build the new house then?"
"The new house? Oh yeah, yeah, the new house... Well, we reckon we're getting pretty good at the old setting-off-nukes game, plenty of experience like. So this time it will probably go okay. Probably."

Your master plan is to set up a revolutionary party and take over the state. (Not smash the state. You're not planning on getting rid of the army or closing the prisons, this is a takeover bid). And then after you've completed your coup, you'll institute socialism. Thing is, while coups are relatively easy to organise, and they've managed to take over the state, they are completely the wrong way to go about building socialism. Instead of bringing you nearer to your goal, they take you further away.

Obviously I don't believe the methods I believe in will lead to a brutal dictatorship! I think there are real lessons to be learned.

So, do you think opposition parties should be allowed organise, run in elections, distribute propaganda? Do you think the workers should have direct control over their workplaces, or should the control be in the hands of the government? Do you think militarisation of labour is a good idea?

The only lesson you seem to have learned is that banning factions is not a good thing.

However, as said, even if I came to the conclusion that what I believe is the best way forward was wrong if anarchism was the only alternative I'd give up doing political stuff as I think 1000s of federations doing their own thing is utterly utopian and will be crushed. As said I can't even work out how an airforce would be run by federations, let alone how instant military decisions and decisions around production would be made. I dont' think anarchists are arseholes or anything like that, I just think the ideas are doomed to fail. I accept the in democratic centralism there are dangers around bureaucracy and democracy and this has to be taken very seriously, but it's the only realistic way I think a revolution could be won.....

Question. You describe yourself as a Marxist, right? Do you think anarchists and Marxists share the same long-term goals, that the communist society (after the revolution has been defended) looks like the anarchist society? Or do you think self-governing federations are an unworkable idea, and that society will always need a state in the centre to organise it?

 

[cockneyrebel]

As far as I'm aware, at no point did the FoD call for the CNT, UGT, or POUM to be disbanded, nor did they try to close any of them down.

But surely if they called for "the disbanding of all the political parties which turned on the working class" and accused the CNT leadership of treason, don't you think that means they would have wanted the CNT leadership and their sympahthisers "shut down". It would also mean that they would have wanted the Mensheviks shut down in the Russian revolution by the same logic, surely?

and academic sources are biased against the Bolsheviks, and popular histories are biased against the Bolsheviks

Can you point me to where I said this? I said pro-anarchist sources were probably biased when talking about anarchism....

but not okay for the same person to leave the party and form a new party around that position? Or do you think people should be allowed form oppositional parties too?

Of course I do! I don't know exactly what would happen in any future revolution. What I have said is that I wouldn't be against organisations who were organising against the revolution being shut down.

What counts as counter-revolutionary activity? Printing a critical paper? Calling for a strike?
More importantly, _who decides_ what counts as a counter-revolutionary activity? The government or the workers?

Well I think a government should be based on the soviets/workers....

As for me not believing 1000s of federations being able to carry out a successful revolution or overthrow a capitalist state. Where is your evidence?

Claiming that the revolution was the creation of the Bolsheviks is the height of arrogance.

Obviously it wasn't just the Bolsheviks who created a revolutionary situation, but they did provide a leadership which overthrew the state. In far better conditions the anarchists failed in Spain.

Not smash the state. You're not planning on getting rid of the army or closing the prisons, this is a takeover bid

Well no I think that the capitalist state should be smashed and a workers state formed based on soviets. As it goes do you not think/do anarchists not think there should be prisons?!

As for the army, it should be closed down, and militias should take its place. Hardly a takeover bid!

And would you be against short term measures like paying reactionary workers for their expertise or military experts etc?

Do you think militarisation of labour is a good idea?

Many of things weren't what you would want to do, but the conditions were fucked. Would I want these things, no.

But on workplaces, I don't think local areas are necessarily best placed to decide what is produced, it's something that should be decided collectively and at times, centrally. How would 10,000s of autonomous federations do this and how would disagreements be sorted out if quick decisions are needed?

I think the long-term goal is the same, but I think autonomous federations will inevitably be crushed in a revolution. As said how would an air force work for a start? Serious question!

And how do you stop each federation becoming a mini-state? Surely even on small scale federations centralisation/prevailing majority will would be needed for logistics?

Once the capitalists have been defeated internationally and there is a classless society things will be very different, but while there is still war and counter revolution going on I think anarchism will always fail. However even in a classless society I should think you will need some centralisation in production/the economy to run airlines, sort out natural disasters etc...

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Question. You describe yourself as a Marxist, right? Do you think anarchists and Marxists share the same long-term goals, that the communist society (after the revolution has been defended) looks like the anarchist society? Or do you think self-governing federations are an unworkable idea, and that society will always need a state in the centre to organise it?

I've been ignoring the retreads of the same old stuff on this thread, but this bit caught my attention. Marxists aim for a classless, stateless society, as do Anarchists.

What precisely this classless and stateless society will consist of is in both cases rather imprecisely described.

For Marxists, a state is an apparatus that is used by one class to supress another. The capitalist state is used by the capitalists to suppress the working class. A workers state would be used by the workers to supress the capitalists. The theory is that as class divisions disappear so too does the rationale for a state in this sense.

Anarchists have a range of different views on the state, from people who have a basically Marxist analysis of the capitalist state but with a different strategic approach to dealing with its overthrow, to people who view the state itself as the main enemy. The transition to a classless, stateless society envisioned by class-struggle anarchists is essential instantaneous but the goal is theoretically much the same.

It is noteworthy though that the classless and stateless society described by Marxists is not necessarily described in quite the same ultra-decentralised fashion assumed by many anarchists. There would not need to be an apparatus to suppress a particular class but the need for what Lenin described as "the regulation of things" would not disappear. Driving on the correct side of the road - or futuristic equivalent - doesn't become unnecessary because capitalists have been expropriated. Neither does making sure that town A and town B don't decide to use different railway gauges.

Most importantly there is the basic issue of centralised economic planning. It is a basic Marxist contention that it would not be possible to create a socialist society without economic planning on an international scale. This is something I am only presuming that anarchists agree with, I realise.

What are people's thoughts on "the regulation of things" in a socialist world?

 

[Ray]

But surely if they called for "the disbanding of all the political parties which turned on the working class" and accused the CNT leadership of treason, don't you think that means they would have wanted the CNT leadership and their sympahthisers "shut down". It would also mean that they would have wanted the Mensheviks shut down in the Russian revolution by the same logic, surely?

Since they wrote quite a lot about the CNT, but never called for it to be shut down (as far as I know), the obvious conclusion is that no, they didn't want the CNT to be shut down. (As far as I know, most/all of the FoD were also members of the CNT)
Also as far as I know, they never called for the UGT or POUM to be forcibly disbanded. So I conclude that they wouldn't have declared the SRs or Mensheviks illegal in Russia.

Can you point me to where I said this? I said pro-anarchist sources were probably biased when talking about anarchism....

Ah, I thought you were talking about Russia, given your repeated insistence that you don't know what to believe there. I suppose I could make the same point though - are there any non-Leninist sources that you will give any credence to, about Spain or Russia?

Of course I do! I don't know exactly what would happen in any future revolution. What I have said is that I wouldn't be against organisations who were organising against the revolution being shut down.

So what are you saying - that the Bolsheviks were wrong to close down internal factions and also wrong to close down left-opposition parties (and is this list growing to grow like the weapons of the Spanish Inquisition?) Or is it that the Bolsheviks were right to declare the anarchists, SRs, Mensheviks, and everybody else illegal, and to close down all their papers, because they were organising against the revolution?

And this is where I ask you again - what counts as counter-revolutionary, and who gets to decide?

Well I think a government should be based on the soviets/workers....

But this is where we came in. If a soviet elects one group of people can the government declare them 'counter-revolutionary' and overthrow the election? Is that not a case of the government overruling the will of the workers?

As for me not believing 1000s of federations being able to carry out a successful revolution or overthrow a capitalist state. Where is your evidence?

Its out the back, along with the evidence that a party modelled on the Bolsheviks can create a successful revolution. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

(I could give this a serious answer, but as has been said again and again and again on this thread, the weakness or strength of the Bolshevik model doesn't really depend on the weakness or strength of the anarchist model. Either your system works or it doesn't.)

Obviously it wasn't just the Bolsheviks who created a revolutionary situation, but they did provide a leadership which overthrew the state. In far better conditions the anarchists failed in Spain.

At what point do you think the state was overthrown? Was it the storming of the Winter Palace, for example? Can you prove that the Bolsheviks were in a uniquely persuasive position at that point, and that the critical act, whatever that was, would not have happened without them?

Well no I think that the capitalist state should be smashed and a workers state formed based on soviets. As it goes do you not think/do anarchists not think there should be prisons?!

As for the army, it should be closed down, and militias should take its place. Hardly a takeover bid!

When the Bolsheviks took over the army they reinstuted differential pay and treatment, abandoned the democratic principle, and brought back the death penalty for desertion. How can you possibly describe that as militias taking the place of the army? The only difference was in the command. Or can you point to anything else?

And would you be against short term measures like paying reactionary workers for their expertise or military experts etc?

I would be against paying differential wages to appointed experts, introducing one-man management in the face of factory committees and unions, and appointing White generals to command revolutionary militias, yes. Because all of these 'short-term measures' do the same thing - take the power out of the hands of the workers and soldiers, and put it into the hands of the state bodies who make the appointments.

Many of things weren't what you would want to do, but the conditions were fucked. Would I want these things, no.

The question is not 'would you want them'. The question is 'would you do them anyway'? If a factory has been taken over by its workers, and is being run by a worker-appointed committee, would you appoint a manager to replace them?

But on workplaces, I don't think local areas are necessarily best placed to decide what is produced, it's something that should be decided collectively and at times, centrally. How would 10,000s of autonomous federations do this and how would disagreements be sorted out if quick decisions are needed?

This is why I ask about the classless society. If you think autonomous federaions, working collectively through delegate meetings, are impossible, then doesn't that mean you think the classless society is impossible? Are you waiting for a New Soviet Man?

The workers in Russia weren't waiting. They were forming factory committees, and federating these committees to coordinate production. But they were shut down by the Bolsheviks. The workers in Spain managed to coordinate massive industrial (and agricultural) production through their unions, without the need for the reintroduction of one-man management.

I think the long-term goal is the same, but I think autonomous federations will inevitably be crushed in a revolution. As said how would an air force work for a start? Serious question!

What do you think is so impossible about a worker-run airforce? I can't answer unless you tell me what the enormous obstacles are.

And how do you stop each federation becoming a mini-state? Surely even on small scale federations centralisation/prevailing majority will would be needed for logistics?

Why do you think federations and majorities are so oppposed? Why do you think coordination has to be from the top down, and not the bottom up? Have you heard of delegates? As for forming mini-states, you might as well ask what's to stop the workers from seceding from a centralised state? What do you propose should happen then?
(When your questions were asked in real life, in Spain, workers managed to run large industry from below, and collectives worked together, rather than forming mini-states)

Once the capitalists have been defeated internationally and there is a classless society things will be very different, but while there is still war and counter revolution going on I think anarchism will always fail. However even in a classless society I should think you will need some centralisation in production/the economy to run airlines, sort out natural disasters etc...

So you disagree with Marx, then? You don't think the state will wither away? You think there will always need to be a workers' state overseeing society?(Its a perfectly coherent position, but one that few socialists feel comfortable actually expressing.)

 

[Idris2002]

What are people's thoughts on "the regulation of things" in a socialist world?

A wholly planned economy is probably unviable, IMO; a wholly planned economy that is tightly regulated from the centre with disregard for local autonomy is definitely unviable.

Some kind of 'market socialism' is required, come what may.

I'm sure the anarchists can speak for themselves, but from their posts earlier on this thread, they seem to envisage the strictly limited delegation of strictly limited powers to some central body in this or that area of human activity.

 

[cockneyrebel]

But Ray they say that parties should be disbanded that turned on the working class and call the CNT leadership traitors. Surely that means they think the CNT leadership has turned on the working class?

And do you really put the POUM in the same boat as the Mensheviks? The Mensheviks sided with the Whites at times! That means they turned on the working class in my book.....

As for credence about Spain, I think the book I gave a link to does that, and the author is no trotskyist!

So what are you saying - that the Bolsheviks were wrong to close down internal factions and also wrong to close down left-opposition parties

I think they were wrong to close down internal factions. As for "left opposition" I wouldn't include the Mensheviks in that one! They were pro-capitalist/Whites. They were anti-working class, so I think they should have been closed down, in the same reasoning as the FOD. As for the SRs and anarchists, I think you'll agree it was a strained relationship to say the least, the SRs and anarchists did physically attack the Bolsheviks, it was hardly all one way. Unfortunatly in Russia the conditions were awlful, and the working class only made up about 3-4% of the population, so working class democracy was strained to say the least. IMO if the revolution didn't spread to Europe and the mass working classes it was doomed to failure/degeneration.

And this is where I ask you again - what counts as counter-revolutionary, and who gets to decide?

The government that is made up/representative of soviets.

But this is where we came in. If a soviet elects one group of people can the government declare them 'counter-revolutionary' and overthrow the election? Is that not a case of the government overruling the will of the workers?

No, not if the government represents the majority of the workers. If a minority becomes counter-revolutionary or refuses to go along with the majority and it is a matter of crisis they should be forced to go along with the majority IMO.

As for the weakness of 10,000s of federations, as said the Bolsheviks at least managed to overthrow a workers state. If the lessons are learned and with a mass working class I think that method means that you can stop degeneration. What evidence is there that anarchists can survive a revolutionary situation? History doesn't seem to do it.

At what point do you think the state was overthrown? Was it the storming of the Winter Palace, for example? Can you prove that the Bolsheviks were in a uniquely persuasive position at that point, and that the critical act, whatever that was, would not have happened without them?

I can't prove it, but it was under the Bolsheviks leadership, with mass support, that the revolution happened. They called for all power to the soviets and spearheaded the revolution.

When the Bolsheviks took over the army they reinstuted differential pay and treatment, abandoned the democratic principle, and brought back the death penalty for desertion. How can you possibly describe that as militias taking the place of the army? The only difference was in the command. Or can you point to anything else?

For a start I think having to set up the Red Army was a revolutionary defeat. I would want to have militias. However the militias in Russia were falling apart.

As for the death penalty, well it seems the FOD agree with it, and many anarchists carried out executions in Spain. And all officers in the army had to be accompanied by a political comissar, but I would personally only want it in extreme circumstances, hopefully it could be avoided. In terms of differential pay, you wouldn't want it, but if that was the only way you could buy military expertise I wouldn't be against it.

I would be against paying differential wages to appointed experts, introducing one-man management in the face of factory committees and unions, and appointing White generals to command revolutionary militias, yes. Because all of these 'short-term measures' do the same thing - take the power out of the hands of the workers and soldiers, and put it into the hands of the state bodies who make the appointments.

We can agree to disagree on what might be necessary for short term reasons. I think it is utopian to say we would always have to stay "pure". It's like if you needed the expertise of workers who were still pro-capitalists. If you needed their services badly in the short term compromises might have to be made. As for one-man management, it's not something you'd strive for!

This is why I ask about the classless society. If you think autonomous federaions, working collectively through delegate meetings, are impossible, then doesn't that mean you think the classless society is impossible? Are you waiting for a New Soviet Man?

The workers in Russia weren't waiting. They were forming factory committees, and federating these committees to coordinate production. But they were shut down by the Bolsheviks. The workers in Spain managed to coordinate massive industrial (and agricultural) production through their unions, without the need for the reintroduction of one-man management.

I think it is impossible under the conditions of war and counter-revolution. Decisions will have to be instant at times, both in production and in the military. But the government would be made out of delegates, but would have centralised power. Without it quick collective decision making is impossible as far as I can see.

As for Spain the working class was much bigger and social conditions much better. But as it goes there were severe shortages. Also the government was never removed and didn't the CNT did operate centrally?

What do you think is so impossible about a worker-run airforce? I can't answer unless you tell me what the enormous obstacles are.

An airforce would have to be run centrally to work. I think you'd agree that you couldn't give each federation one plane. So who would decide how the airforce would be used and when? Surely that would have to be a centralised body that could make instant decisions.

So you disagree with Marx, then? You don't think the state will wither away? You think there will always need to be a workers' state overseeing society?(Its a perfectly coherent position, but one that few socialists feel comfortable actually expressing.)

Where did I say that?! See Nigel's post for my answer on that, because I'd say the same thing....

Why do you think federations and majorities are so oppposed? Why do you think coordination has to be from the top down, and not the bottom up? Have you heard of delegates?

But what happens if a minority of federations won't agree to something and it is a crucial matter for production/the military. Do you just say every federation should do as they please, whatever the cost? That's the problem I have with anarchism along with the point about not being able to make instant decisions....