An open question to all SWP members on u75

[newbie]

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

That's the 'who gets to play God' question. There's also the 'who gets the worms' question. If demand exceeds supply, who gets the worms, and how is this decided? doesn't matter whether were're talking about a home with a garden or a cushy job or manual labour on the line, or fresh, organic food or seats at the opera/Arsenal, or parking in the West End or foreign holidays.


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

 

[Ray]

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?

Could that one sentence from the FoD be interpreted as meaning that the CNT should be disbanded? Yeah, that's certainly a possible interpretation. Its only one sentence after all.
Did the FoD ever call for the CNT to be disbanded? No. They had plenty of chances to do so, and they never did. So that sentence was obviously either hyperbole or intended to have a different interpretation than the one you have offered.
I've said before, you should pay more attention to what people do, and less attention to what people say. If the FoD had wanted the CNT to be disbanded, it would have been demonstrated by their actions. If the Bolsheviks had been serious about soviet democracy, they would have acted differently.

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.....

Did they side with the Whites before or after the Bolsheviks declared them illegal?

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.

No, you're right, when the Bolsheviks shut the SRs out of government, attacked anarchist papers, and tried to eliminate all opposition, the opposition did not walk themselves out of town, dig their own mass graves, and then shoot themselves in the head. Bad opposition!

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.

Conditions are always awful in a revolution. Revolutions don't start when all is sweetness and light, and they don't proceed without opposition. Choices will always have to be made. The choice the Bolsheviks made was to hold on to power themselves, in the face of growing oposition from the working class. Trotsky wasn't shy about saying that the party could not be expected to go along with the 'whims' of the working class, and this is borne out by Bolshevik actions after November 1917.

The government that is made up/representative of soviets.

How can the government be described as made up of soviets while it is overturning soviet elections. At best, at the very best, you could say that the Bolshevik government represented what the soviets were, at one point in time. But after that, power was completely in the hands of the centre. Can you point to any instance, any instance at all, where the soviets overturned government policy?

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.

Two questions.
1. Would you be happy to ban strikes, declare martial law whenever necessary, if you thought this was the will of the majority? You'd be alright with a majority government setting up a secret police force to execute anybody it thought was anti-revolution, without any form of trial? You don't think a socialist society should have any checks on the power of the government?
2. What evidence is there that the Bolshevik state represented the will of the majority in 1919, 1921, or 1923? Was it the election of Stalin that transformed the Bolshevik majority into a minority dictatorship?

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.

Am I talking to a wall here? Have you actually read anything I've written in the last couple of days? Do I have to type it all out again, and hope it sinks in this time? Overthrowing a state is not a victory, unless you can replace it with something better. You don't get points for completing the first step, if you do so in a way that makes the second step impossible to accomplish. What evidence is there that Leninists can survive a revolutionary situation without turning into dictators? History doesn't seem to do it.

(Nice Freudian slip though)

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.

No, you can't prove it, can you? You can't even offer any evidence.

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.

Did Trotsky or Lenin ever describe the Red Army as a revolutionary defeat? Why not?

As for the death penalty, well it seems the FOD agree with it, and many anarchists carried out executions in Spain.

Of people on the other side. Show me an anarchist militia that introduced the death penalty for desertion.

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.

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.

You know, I don't know if there's anything you say you would be against, if someone told you it was necessary. Out of interest, have you ever read Darkness at Noon?

As for one-man management, it's not something you'd strive for!

No? Is that what Lenin thought? Your next paragraph answers me

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.

This is why one-man management was introduced and defended, you know. This is the reason why state power had to be so extremely centralised. The argument is, only dictators can respond quickly, whether that's a manager who can fire people for not working as he wishes, to a general who can shoot people for not obeying promptly enough, to a First Comrade, who can shoot as many people as he likes, for not being sufficiently enthused by his greatness.

If you think centralisation is more efficient, do you not also think that centralisation into the hands of one person is even more efficient? And if this efficiency is so good, is there anything that can outweight it, in a revolution, or in a socialist society?

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?

And in Spain the war started immediately, not a year later. The shortages didn't kick in until later, and there was nothing that anybody could have done about that, no matter who was in charge - you can't magic raw materials into existence through the miracle of one-man management, you know.

The difference between the CNT's coordination and the Bolshevik introduction of one-man management is too vast to explain here. Do you know anything about anarchism at all?

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.

Again, I'm amazed that someone so ignorant of anarchism in practice would try to argue about it... Seriously, go read the Anarchist FAQ. Its obviously all new to you, and I'm not going to bother typing it in here.

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....

Do you have any internal education in Workers Power? Did you not read up on anarchism at all before deciding it was completely unworkable?

 

[cockneyrebel]

I’ll have to brief in my answers to your points as I’m at work…..

On the FOD. I didn’t say they wanted the whole of the CNT disbanded, but surely they wanted the leadership and their supporters disbanded, they called them traitors. If that’s not working against the working class I don’t know what is.

Did they side with the Whites before or after the Bolsheviks declared them illegal?

The Mensheviks role was bad from day one. Do you know exactly when they sided with the Whites or the capitalist government? Do you not agree that the Mensheviks were counter revolutionary?

No, you're right, when the Bolsheviks shut the SRs out of government, attacked anarchist papers, and tried to eliminate all opposition, the opposition did not walk themselves out of town, dig their own mass graves, and then shoot themselves in the head. Bad opposition!

A bit of a one sided way of looking at it. Or are you saying the SRs and anarchists did nothing towards the Bolsheviks, like assassinations or bombings?

How can the government be described as made up of soviets while it is overturning soviet elections. At best, at the very best, you could say that the Bolshevik government represented what the soviets were, at one point in time. But after that, power was completely in the hands of the centre. Can you point to any instance, any instance at all, where the soviets overturned government policy?

The situation in Russia was dire and many soviets collapsed, they weren’t just all disbanded.

1. Would you be happy to ban strikes, declare martial law whenever necessary, if you thought this was the will of the majority? You'd be alright with a majority government setting up a secret police force to execute anybody it thought was anti-revolution, without any form of trial? You don't think a socialist society should have any checks on the power of the government?
2. What evidence is there that the Bolshevik state represented the will of the majority in 1919, 1921, or 1923? Was it the election of Stalin that transformed the Bolshevik majority into a minority dictatorship?

I’ve already said that the revolution had to spread to succeed because the working class was so tiny and the situation so dire. The question for the Bolsheviks was whether they gave up or whether they tried to make this happen.
As for would I do x,y or z. It’s impossible to answer, you’d have to look at the circumstances. But what I do reject is the “pure” road of anarchism that denies compromises will have to be made. Ideally I would be against executions and prisions. Will they happen in a revolutionary situation, I don’t think there is any doubt, as happened in Spain as well as Russia.
The checks on the government should come from the soviets.

Am I talking to a wall here? Have you actually read anything I've written in the last couple of days? Do I have to type it all out again, and hope it sinks in this time? Overthrowing a state is not a victory, unless you can replace it with something better. You don't get points for completing the first step, if you do so in a way that makes the second step impossible to accomplish. What evidence is there that Leninists can survive a revolutionary situation without turning into dictators? History doesn't seem to do it.

But overthrowing the state is a step that has to be taken. This was achieved, the anarchists haven’t even done that, even in better conditions in Spain, at every attempt they have failed. If there was a revolution now the social conditions would be far better and lessons from the past could be learned. The point is I can’t see anarchism ever being able to achieve even the first step or defending the revolution.

No, you can't prove it, can you? You can't even offer any evidence.

And neither can you about anarchism. Doesn’t stop you from doing it!

Of people on the other side. Show me an anarchist militia that introduced the death penalty for desertion.

But who is the other side? Many anarchists declare Bolsheviks the enemy! The Makhovists executed Bolsheviks for sure.

As for having the death penalty for desertion, that’s not something I’d want and would be against it.

If you think centralisation is more efficient, do you not also think that centralisation into the hands of one person is even more efficient? And if this efficiency is so good, is there anything that can outweight it, in a revolution, or in a socialist society?

No I think one person would be far too narrow. But sometimes decisions will have to be made instantly and acted out collectively in a revolutionary situation. 10,000s of federations would find this impossible. And as said a classless society would be totally different from a revolution.

And yeah I have educationals in WP and I’ve read a lot of the anarchist FAQ. But it hasn’t answered my Qs, and neither has your sarcy one line answers. At the end of the day we can argue about what happened in Russia until the cows come home, but how would anarchism work today?

As said how do you feel about a centralised command of the military that can make instant decisions? How would an airforce work without this? How do you feel about centralising production? If not how are disputes sorted out if a minority of federations refuse to go along with the majority? Do you think federations should have autonomy no matter how much their actions impede the actions of the majority?

Is your answer to people with these questions, you’re ignorant have a look at the FAQ?

 

[Ray]

I’ll have to brief in my answers to your points as I’m at work…..

On the FOD. I didn’t say they wanted the whole of the CNT disbanded, but surely they wanted the leadership and their supporters disbanded, they called them traitors. If that’s not working against the working class I don’t know what is.

Can you point to anything the FoD said, outside that single sentence you quoted, that suggests they wanted to treat the CNT the way the Bolsheviks treated the Mensheviks? That is the parallel you're trying to draw, isn't it, that the FoD would have done just the same things as the Bolsheviks? Well you need more than one sentence to justify that parallel.

The Mensheviks role was bad from day one. Do you know exactly when they sided with the Whites or the capitalist government? Do you not agree that the Mensheviks were counter revolutionary?

The Mensheviks didn't think the revolution was possible. If disagreeing with the Bolsheviks makes you countre-revolutionary, then they were counter-revolutionary (and so were the anarchists and SRs). The question is, how do you deal with an opposition? By declaring their ideas illegal? Or by punishing only illegal actions?

A bit of a one sided way of looking at it. Or are you saying the SRs and anarchists did nothing towards the Bolsheviks, like assassinations or bombings?

Not at all. As I said, of course they fought back. Do you think it worked out evenly?

The situation in Russia was dire and many soviets collapsed, they weren’t just all disbanded.

This is a no, then. You can't find any case where the soviets and the Bolsheviks disagreed, but the soviets got their own way. I can point to plenty of cases where the other happened. What does that tell us?

I’ve already said that the revolution had to spread to succeed because the working class was so tiny and the situation so dire. The question for the Bolsheviks was whether they gave up or whether they tried to make this happen.
As for would I do x,y or z. It’s impossible to answer, you’d have to look at the circumstances. But what I do reject is the “pure” road of anarchism that denies compromises will have to be made. Ideally I would be against executions and prisions. Will they happen in a revolutionary situation, I don’t think there is any doubt, as happened in Spain as well as Russia.
The checks on the government should come from the soviets.

But whenever the soviets tried to oppose the government, they were disbanded. How then could they be a check on the government?

But overthrowing the state is a step that has to be taken.

And you have to demolish the old house before you can build a new one. But using a nuke is a bad idea. It means the second step is impossible.
The Bolsheviks 'overthrew' the old state by creating a dictatorship. This dictatorship made socialism impossible.

This was achieved, the anarchists haven’t even done that, even in better conditions in Spain, at every attempt they have failed.

And every time the Bolshevik model has been tried it has ended up in a dictatorship.
We're going around in circles here. I said, posts and posts ago, that neither method has been successful so far. You keep saying that on one hand Stalin was not a success, and on the other hand the Bolsheviks were partially successful because they manage to replace the Tsar with Stalin. Make up your mind. Has the Bolshevik method ever succeeded in creating a socialist society, or not?

If there was a revolution now the social conditions would be far better and lessons from the past could be learned. The point is I can’t see anarchism ever being able to achieve even the first step or defending the revolution.

Given how little you seem to know about anarchism, I'm not surprised.

And neither can you about anarchism. Doesn’t stop you from doing it!

I was asking for evidence that the Russian Revolution wouldn't have happened without the Bolsheviks. What has anarchism got to do with that?

But who is the other side? Many anarchists declare Bolsheviks the enemy! The Makhovists executed Bolsheviks for sure.

After the Bolsheviks had twice broken peace agreements. You're back to the evil oppositionists again, who refuse to kill themselves when asked nicely.

As for having the death penalty for desertion, that’s not something I’d want and would be against it.

Do you know what would have happened to the Red Army, if White generals and differential treatment for officers had been reintroduced, but not the death penalty for desertion. Are you really saying you're against it, or are you only against it until you decide its necessary?

No I think one person would be far too narrow. But sometimes decisions will have to be made instantly and acted out collectively in a revolutionary situation.

So again you disagree with Lenin and Trotsky, who stressed the importance of uniting behind a single will. Are you sure, or will you change your mind when they tell you how important it is to make decisions quickly, without hesitation?

10,000s of federations would find this impossible. And as said a classless society would be totally different from a revolution.

And yeah I have educationals in WP and I’ve read a lot of the anarchist FAQ. But it hasn’t answered my Qs, and neither has your sarcy one line answers. At the end of the day we can argue about what happened in Russia until the cows come home, but how would anarchism work today?

As said how do you feel about a centralised command of the military that can make instant decisions? How would an airforce work without this? How do you feel about centralising production? If not how are disputes sorted out if a minority of federations refuse to go along with the majority? Do you think federations should have autonomy no matter how much their actions impede the actions of the majority?

Is your answer to people with these questions, you’re ignorant have a look at the FAQ?

When people tell me that they'd rather give up on class struggle than go along with anarchism, I assume they've read something about anarchism. But when they then ask how federalism works, and don't seem to know what a mandated delegate is, or how you can give someone power to make certain decisions, within limited boundaries, without accepting them as dictators for life, I infer that they must not have read anything about anarchism, because these are questions that are asked and answered all the bloody time.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secIcon.html

 

[beergut100]

My god how you people love to live in the past!

 

[Random]

 

[cockneyrebel]

Can you point to anything the FoD said, outside that single sentence you quoted, that suggests they wanted to treat the CNT the way the Bolsheviks treated the Mensheviks? That is the parallel you're trying to draw, isn't it, that the FoD would have done just the same things as the Bolsheviks? Well you need more than one sentence to justify that parallel.

Well I suppose we’ve met a dead end on this one. I think the logic of what they said would mean that, you don’t. Fair enough.

One thing though. I wouldn’t have a problem of the Stalinists being shut down in the Spanish Civil War. Would you?

As for the Mensheviks, they didn’t just say they thought the revolution wasn’t possible, they organised against it.

Not at all. As I said, of course they fought back. Do you think it worked out evenly?

Just “fought back”. The SRs and anarchists carried out bombings and assassinations. This, IMO, wasn’t just all a response to what the Bolsheviks did.

This is a no, then. You can't find any case where the soviets and the Bolsheviks disagreed, but the soviets got their own way. I can point to plenty of cases where the other happened. What does that tell us?

It’s not a no. I’ll have to look into it more, but can’t do that at work!

But whenever the soviets tried to oppose the government, they were disbanded. How then could they be a check on the government?

I said I think the soviets should be a check on the government. Because the working class was so small and workers democracy collapsed in Russia, as said the revolution had to spread....

And every time the Bolshevik model has been tried it has ended up in a dictatorship.

Well it’s only been tried once! But at least the state was overthrown. As said I don’t think the subsequent degeneration is inevitable, and far better social conditions would make this far less likely IMO.

After the Bolsheviks had twice broken peace agreements. You're back to the evil oppositionists again, who refuse to kill themselves when asked nicely.

Do you know that the Makhovists only ever attacked Bolsheviks as a retaliation? Makhno himself executed a guy in the middle of a meeting. Hardly a liberal when it came to those things!

As for the death penalty for desertion, I would be against it, yes. Don’t know what more to say on that one!

So again you disagree with Lenin and Trotsky, who stressed the importance of uniting behind a single will. Are you sure, or will you change your mind when they tell you how important it is to make decisions quickly, without hesitation?

Where did Trotsky say that there should be one person in charge of everything? Could I see that, because that’s not what single will means. As said I don’t think a single person should be in charge. Can’t say more than that!

When people tell me that they'd rather give up on class struggle than go along with anarchism, I assume they've read something about anarchism. But when they then ask how federalism works, and don't seem to know what a mandated delegate is, or how you can give someone power to make certain decisions, within limited boundaries, without accepting them as dictators for life, I infer that they must not have read anything about anarchism, because these are questions that are asked and answered all the bloody time.

No I have read how federalism work, your patronising assumptions aren’t right, I’ve read quite a bit about anarchism. But the questions I’ve asked still aren’t answered. I’ve seen the link you’ve put up already.

Rather than put a link can you not give me answers?

I know how a mandated delegate works. Now putting aside the past for a moment I believe democratic centralism should be recallable leaders based on soviets.

So anarchists would accept a centralised power that could instruct the federations what to do in terms of overall military decisions and decisions about production that needed to be made quickly, even if this is a temporary arrangement? They would accept that federations couldn’t just all be autonomous? If the answer is yes we can move on to other stuff. If the answer is no then obviously very different questions arise, such as how would an airforce be run.

 

[TylerD]

My god how you people love to live in the past!

You know, I think you're right. I could have sworn I'd heard this conversation before and here it is.

 

[Idris2002]

Question for both Anarchists and Leninists:

Why do you think it will still be necessary to kill people, even in the circumstances of a revolution in the contemporary developed world?

 

[charlie mowbray]

FFS!!
Yet another clever clogs cracking this tired old joke! How clever! How original AND How man y times have similar "wits" cracked this oh so funny joke on this board!!

 

[Idris2002]

Remind me Charlie.

Is it the People's Front of Judea you're in, or the Judean People's Front?

 

[JoeBlack]

Why do you think it will still be necessary to kill people, even in the circumstances of a revolution in the contemporary developed world?

While I can't think of a revolution in which no one died I don't think you make revolutions (as opposed to counter revolutions) by killing people. From a libertarian point of view if the bosses choose the path of civil war then winning the constructive phase of the revolution (ie building a better society) becomes a lot more difficult. The reason for this is not hard to see, civil war produces people like cockneyrebel on our side who think 'victory' justifies the suppression of all democratic rights and freedoms. So while you might win the military conflict you lose the revolution.


But I'm not a pacifist because I reckon the bosses will always try and start a civil war. So to me its a question of ensuring the revolution involves the vast majority of people (the working class in the widest definition of the term plus as much as the middle and even ruling classes that can be won over) on the one hand and that right from the start it is based on an armed people. Maximising freedom right at the start is also vital, an under discussed part of the Russian failure was how the policies of the Bolsheviks created the white armies by turning the peasantry of many regions against the revolution.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can't think of a revolution in which no one died

agricultural revolution?

 

[Ray]

One thing though. I wouldn’t have a problem of the Stalinists being shut down in the Spanish Civil War. Would you?

As for the Mensheviks, they didn’t just say they thought the revolution wasn’t possible, they organised against it.

Two related things here. I would not have a problem with the (Stalinist) CP continuing to exist as a party. As far as I'm concerned, it should be allowed to contest union elections, produce propaganda, and argue for policies the same as any other party. I would only have a problem with _actions_. If the Stalinists bombed a factory, I would have a proble with that, and I wouldn't have any problem with arresting those involved. (But not going to to ban the party)

The trouble with the Bolsheviks is that they argued
Party A does not agree with us, therefore
Party A is counter-revolutionary, therefore
Party A can be repressed.

And the justification for that was not bombings, it was propaganda, and contesting elections.

Don't agree? Then explain why the Bolsheviks overturned elections where they were defeated. Clearly they thought that opposition was, in itself, counter-revolutionary.

Just “fought back”. The SRs and anarchists carried out bombings and assassinations. This, IMO, wasn’t just all a response to what the Bolsheviks did.

Are you arguing that the repression of the anarchists was an even match to anarchist attacks on the Bolsheviks?

I said I think the soviets should be a check on the government. Because the working class was so small and workers democracy collapsed in Russia, as said the revolution had to spread....

And I showed that the Bolsheviks prevented the soviets from being a check. Workers democracy didn't fall, it was pushed.

Well it’s only been tried once! But at least the state was overthrown. As said I don’t think the subsequent degeneration is inevitable, and far better social conditions would make this far less likely IMO.

Only once? There has only been one revolution based on a centrally organised party seizing control of the state to build a socialist society? There haven't been any attempts to imitate the Russian revolution, on the Bolshevik model?

Do you know that the Makhovists only ever attacked Bolsheviks as a retaliation? Makhno himself executed a guy in the middle of a meeting. Hardly a liberal when it came to those things!.

This is your argument?

As for the death penalty for desertion, I would be against it, yes. Don’t know what more to say on that one!

Would you be against it if you were told that it was the only thing holding the revolutionary army together? If you were told that it was the death penalty or White invasion and counter-revolution, which would you choose?

Where did Trotsky say that there should be one person in charge of everything? Could I see that, because that’s not what single will means.

I can do better than a quote, I can point to practice. Who controlled the Bolshevik party? Who controlled the army? When did Trotsky ever complain about over-centralisation?

So anarchists would accept a centralised power that could instruct the federations what to do in terms of overall military decisions and decisions about production that needed to be made quickly, even if this is a temporary arrangement? They would accept that federations couldn’t just all be autonomous? If the answer is yes we can move on to other stuff. If the answer is no then obviously very different questions arise, such as how would an airforce be run.

They would accept that a group of delegates can make binding decisions, but only as long as they are following mandates, which means their decisions must fall within clearly defined limits. Not "you guys were popular for a while last year, so you can do whatever you like from now on".

Enough to run an airforce, but not a gulag.

 

[kropotkin]

Question for both Anarchists and Leninists:

Why do you think it will still be necessary to kill people, even in the circumstances of a revolution in the contemporary developed world?

Because the rich and priveledged have everything at their disposal, and we have only ourselves. Power never gives itself up without a fight.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I’m gonna take a break after this to look at some articles I’ve just downloaded off angelfire (is that site shut down now? Ashame if it is)…..

Well here is the difference with you and me on Stalinists. You can have an abstract situation where a party exists in theory but that is removed from actions. The two, as far as I’m concerned are totally linked. Ok if a party is a book reading society that produces journals fair enough. The reality is not the same though is it. I think the FOD recognised this when they talked about banning parties.

And I’ve just read the beginnings of Richard Sakwa’s anti-Bolshevik document and some quotes are very interesting.

After the local Moscow security police (Cheka) were incorporated with the national body in March 1918, the first to feel the new intolerant atmosphere were the vigorous anarchist groupings, who had contributed much to the growing banditry in the city

the expulsion of the Left SRs from the soviet following their abortive “uprising” in Moscow in July, 1918

Only once? There has only been one revolution based on a centrally organised party seizing control of the state to build a socialist society? There haven't been any attempts to imitate the Russian revolution, on the Bolshevik model?

The many Stalinist attempts are not my idea of a workers revolution.

Would you be against it if you were told that it was the only thing holding the revolutionary army together? If you were told that it was the death penalty or White invasion and counter-revolution, which would you choose?

Good point! I would be very reluctant to have it. However maybe you’re right, in the circumstances of Russia it’s very hard. Do you just abandon the revolution, or implement short-term set backs and try and get the revolution to spread to save it degenerating? I take you are saying abandon it? However I think this would no be an issue in a future revolution with a mass working class.

I can do better than a quote, I can point to practice. Who controlled the Bolshevik party? Who controlled the army? When did Trotsky ever complain about over-centralisation?

Until Stalin the Bolshevik Party was never led by one person and there were huge internal debates until the big mistake of banning internal factions.

They would accept that a group of delegates can make binding decisions, but only as long as they are following mandates, which means their decisions must fall within clearly defined limits. Not "you guys were popular for a while last year, so you can do whatever you like from now on".

Enough to run an airforce, but not a gulag.

Doesn’t really answer my questions does it. Not by a mile. Do you think that all federations should be bound by the decisions of the groups of delegates whether they agree or not i.e. the federations will not be autonomous and you agree with a the centralisation of power, even if for the short term?

Some more quick quotes from the article before I take a break. You said it was the Bolsheviks fault the economy was collapsing yes?

From late 1917 the energy crisis was compounded by intensified food shortages that brought the city to the verge of starvation…..even in the areas closest to Moscow the peasants were reluctant to give up their grain….

Productivity fell dramatically….nearly halved…..

The decline of the industrial working class ….fell by nearly a quarter…..

A 01 August 1918 resolution of the Guzhon metallurgical plant said that…..the best comrades have either died….or gone to the front

So the production crisis, according to this source, was right from the beginning, as was the grain crisis. How would the anarchists have reacted to this crisis, what would they have done? And for Joe to say that the Bolsheviks pushed the peasants into the White Armies. Do you really think that there weren’t big layers of reactionary peasants?

One last thing….

In an important declaration of 28 April 1918, the Mensheviks denounced (whose press was free to operate at this stage by the way, contrary to what you seemed to suggest)Bolshevik chicanery in the recent elections to the Moscow Soviet. The Bolsheviks had returned 56.5% of the deputies, compared to 32.8% in June 1917

So not only were the Mensheviks allowed to operate during this time, Bolshevik support in the elections had gone up in Moscow…..

 

[kropotkin]

CockneyRebel, you have come across very, very badly in this debate. You seem to be unwilling to engage critically and maturely, and seem to ignore inconvenient facts and questions.

You aren't doing yourself, or Bolshevism, and favours here.

 

[butchersapron]

Which article is this you're quoting from CR?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Maybe, maybe not! It's only U75 and you're an anarchist!

How am I not being mature. Is it me who has been throwing around the petty insults? No.

As for ignoring things, where am I doing that? I might not just accept things that are said, that is very different....

 

[cockneyrebel]

The Commune State in Moscow in 1918 by Richard Sakwa....although I have only just started it and have many other articles to read that I've just come across....

 

[kropotkin]

I'm saying this for your benefit CR. Think about it.

 

[Pickman's model]

As for ignoring things, where am I doing that?

all over the gaff...

 

[cockneyrebel]

Fair enough kropotkin, but if you don’t show me where I’m doing it then how can I learn from what you’re saying? And as said it’s definitely not me throwing about the petty insults.

The reason for this is not hard to see, civil war produces people like cockneyrebel on our side who think 'victory' justifies the suppression of all democratic rights and freedoms. So while you might win the military conflict you lose the revolution.

Weren’t the executions by the anarchists in the civil war a suppression of democratic rights and freedom? Did that mean the revolution was inevitably lost?

You aren't doing yourself, or Bolshevism, and favours here.

Surely you should be pleased then

 

[Random]

agricultural revolution?

You should know better than that, PM!
Kett's Rebellion, 1549, for starters, plus all the other blood neccessary to safeguard Enclosure.

 

[Pickman's model]

the sexual revolution?

 

[kropotkin]

Won't somebody think of the [unborn] children?!
next, pickman's?

 

[Pickman's model]

i don't think anyone's yet died on the london eye while it performs a revolution. not as a direct result of being on the london eye, anyway.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The one thing that is ashame on here is it is me vs several anarchists.

It would be good to see what other people on here from the trotskyist tradition think. Are there many left on here nowadays?

Otherwise it’s a very one sided debate and probably doesn’t do it justice…..

Also kropotkin I think you’re being a bit harsh. I’m reading links given and have found more, that’s hardly ignoring it! And why don’t you say anything to the people throwing around petty insults?

 

[kropotkin]

I think that they would all resort to the same evasions and tactics you have used here, because, at the end of the day, they and you are wrong.

 

[kropotkin]

I'm not interested in the insults. I never have been- I just skim past them.

What does interest me, and is the primary reason for me being here, is debate and argument.

When people resort to the tactics you have used on this thread (and don't feign ignorance- they have been pointed out here by some extrmely rigorous and polite debaters) I lose respect for their positions.

For example, I have been here for three or four years now, and have seen you trot (ha) out the junta and other FoD lines many times before. Yet each time you bring them up as if you had never been shown the truth. Do you think this makes you look good?

If you are serious about revolutionary politics, and not just a cheerleader for a dead man and his defunct ideology, then you will learn from the past, and not seek to repeat it's mistakes.

There are plenty of us here who are serious revolutionaries. We don't hold these positions for fun.