An open question to all SWP members on u75

[Pickman's model]

Contrary as me?

Have you been to any political meetings, you can’t even get 30 people in a room to agree. Anarchists, when they are as tiny as you could be without not existing can’t agree in meetings and you think 10,000s of delegates in a revolutionary situation will all agree?

Butchers you say you have answered these questions but you blatantly haven’t. Whenever this bit of the debate comes up you always say you’ve already answered it, but where are the answers? These are basic questions about organisational matter and no anarchists seems to be able to provide an answer…..anarchists on here say talk about not getting answers but can’t even answer these questions……

And we can’t even seem to know whether people on here agree with Ray that federations will be bound, under certain conditions, with the decisions of the delegate meeting. And if they refuse to agree, what happens then?

It’s just utter utopianism…..

you seem to oppose debate in these mass meetings. yr defeatism with regard to people being able to reach decisions about their lives in meetings disappoints me. what would you have people do, continue in this crap society with no ambition to change it simply because the discussions might go on a while in meetings?

 

[cockneyrebel]

But you have shown that you're willing to take someone else's word on what they think is likely to happen as justification for torture, shooting deserters, and fuck knows what else. (Except banning factions. You are quite clear that there are no circumstances under which you could possibly allow factions to be banned).

No I haven’t. I’ve said I agree with what groucho has said, I’ve never said I’d just take someones word for something with questions. I take it you don’t want children to be killed in war? Does that mean that you would never bomb positions with an airforce because there is always that risk? You’re just setting up ridiculous straw men.

First, I didn't say that, at any point. Second, I _did_ say that were was a vast difference between shooting someone in the kneecaps when you have no other options, and having a policy of shooting deserters. A policy that you started by condemning, before changing your mind.

If you can start setting up ridiculous scenarios I’ll do the same. You say you’d knee cap someone and let them bleed to death. What a nice guy!

When Joe Black pointed out that soviets had been shut down you said you didn't know about that, and asked for sources. When sources were presented, you said they weren't good enough. At no point have you agreed that soviets were shut down.

Of course soviets were shut down! My point is why and how many. And of course I’ll question sources. How terrible of me!

Jesus wept. Two posters have pointed out that in similar situations, peasants _did give grain to the cities

So because they did in these two situations, they always will, great logic! You can’t even answer what you’d do if they won’t……

Not really. He said that cooperation must be voluntary. I said cooperation can't be coerced at gunpoint. I'm sure we'd come up with pretty much the same range of solutions to bridge the gap between 'complete independence' and 'slave labour'. Funny how you're more concerned with justifying slave labour, isn't it?

More strawmen about slave labour. You clearly said that federations would have to go along with what the delegates said under certain circumstances? How would you make sure they went along with it, and if they didn’t what action would be taken, or would every federation do what they like?

Yes, the delegate structure would have to cover quite a wide area. Military and production questions would have to be handled by delegates. Though there's no reason why the same set of delegates would have to make decisions on every question. And there's no reason why those delegates can't be mandated and recallable, and no reason why the delegates should have a secret police force.

But you accept that they would have to cover a wide area of decisions. Will those decisions be binding on the federations? If not, as said, will everyone do as they please regardless of what the majority want?

You removed the context where I said that there were limits you could use to change the mind of the member federations. That context makes it clear that I don't actually disagree with Gurrier, so its clearly dishonest to pretend that I do.

No your logic is flawed. How on one hand can you say they would have to do what the delegates say, and on the other hand say this is voluntary?! Otherwise the statement about being bound by it is utterly meaningless….

Not so limited that Lenin couldn't buy his Rolls Royces, or that party members couldn't receive privileged treatment. Nor were things so tight that the state couldn't afford to supply commisaars and control detachments. Nor were things so tight that the Bolsheviks couldn't make things worse, by encouraging under-production.

As aw go on and others have pointed out there weren’t an abundance of car manufacturers at the time. I’m not car expert but others seem to be suggesting that these were the best motors in winter conditions. And these are tiny expenses in the context of millions starving. You still can’t even say what you’d do if peasants refused to help out and give the cities grain…..

No butchers you always say you gave answers, but they were just waffle, like now. These are very basic questions and don’t require complicated answers and the anarchists on here can’t even answer them in any coherent way. This isn’t “a little game” it’s the basics of your ideology.

It wasn’t just me who said it in the last debate, belboid also picked up on the lack of answers…..

you seem to oppose debate in these mass meetings. yr defeatism with regard to people being able to reach decisions about their lives in meetings disappoints me. what would you have people do, continue in this crap society with no ambition to change it simply because the discussions might go on a while in meetings?

I don’t oppose debate, I just know that 10,000s of delegates aren’t all gonna agree. In the middle of a civil war decisions will need to be made quickly and anarchists on here can’t even tell me if federations will be bound by decisions on the delegate committees….you can't get more all over the place than that Idris.....

 

[Ray]

Despite what people have said about being off topic this is what interests me about anarchism, and how I can’t see it working.

What if delegates to this confederal meeting are mandated to do different things? Will there then be a vote? Are federations that disagree with this vote bound by it? Ray seems to suggest, at least under certain circumstances, that they would be i.e. they’re not totally autonomous.

Do you really see no middle ground between 'completely autonomous' and 'must obey at gunpoint'? Because that's the impression you're giving.

A simple example. Suppose there is a factory that would like to make fridges, when the delegate congress would rather it made guns. These are three (out of the many) ways of dealing with this.
1. You send a delegation to the factory, and ask them to change their mind, stressing the urgent need for guns at this point in time.
2. You work out a compromise, where you agree to increase the overall level of fridge production in that or other factories, in return for an increase in the level of gun production.
3. You say "Right, you guys want to make fridges. But the steel factory wants you to make guns, the power plant wants you to make guns, and the plastics supplier wants you to make guns. And they're not going to supply you with any more materials, until you start making guns"

Notice the lack of soldiers in these solutions? A certain scarcity of workers being sent to the gulag, or dragged out and shot?

Also would you require this process every time a collective decision was made? How would collective decisions be made quickly?
Or don’t you think this matters? Surely decisions around the war and around stuff like the how the airforce operates will have to be made all the time on an almost instant basis, and these are very important decisions and those who decide them will have a lot of power….

Yeah, you've read up on your anarchism all right. Because its not like these are the kinds of questions that have been answered a million times before, in a thousand other places...

This is what a mandate is for. A mandate tells someone that they have the power to make certain decisions, within defined limits. That mandatecould be anything as trivial as 'open each day's letters, and respond to them according to these instructions' to something as wide-ranging as 'keep the railways running, prioritising these services, and using only these methods.' So you don't need to hold a general meeting every time a letter arrives, and there's nothing stopping changes to the railway services being made quickly.

Anarchists also stress the importance of being able to recall delegates, if those who appointed them feel they are breaking their mandate, or just bad at their jobs. They also point out the need for regular rotation, particularly in jobs that have the potential to accumulate power. But I don't know why I'm repeating all this, because you obviously know it from your readings of the FAQ, right?

And if there are 10,000s of federations how big will this federal meeting be? Will you have 10,000s of delegates?!

Holy cow! I hadn't thought of that one. In fact, no anarchist in the last 200 years has ever considered the possibility that a federation might have a lot of members! (Just as well there have never been large anarchist organisations - they might have run into this problem and immediately ceased to exist!)

You say that people aren’t answering this or that about the Bolsheviks, but anarchists seem unable to answer the simplest questions about how organisational stuff would work in reality….

You haven't answered _anything_ about the Bolsheviks. All your replies are either
1. Hmm, I'm not so sure. Could you provide some sources for me to ignore
2. That certainly seems bad, but... it must have been for the good of the revolution
3. If you anarchists are so smart, what would you have done, huh?

 

[Pickman's model]

I don’t oppose debate, I just know that 10,000s of delegates aren’t all gonna agree. In the middle of a civil war decisions will need to be made quickly and anarchists on here can’t even tell me if federations will be bound by decisions on the delegate committees….you can't get more all over the place than that Idris.....

how would you have us act, determine here and now and in front of the entire english-speaking world how the revolution will be run? if nothing else, it would remove much of the element of surprise!

you seem to think, for some reason best known to yrself, that there would be tens of thousands of delegates at these meetings. you throw up all manner of logistical problems, giving no thought to the way the real world works. why do you think all anarchists are devoid of discipline and so need to debate everything to reach consensus on every single topic with everyone being involved at every stage of the rather tortuous process?

the reason you aren't getting the responses you so clearly desire might have something to do with the fact that you posit an unlikely situation.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Do you really see no middle ground between 'completely autonomous' and 'must obey at gunpoint'? Because that's the impression you're giving.

Even your example doesn’t add up. What if the production was crucial and none of your methods work, and you needed those guns there and then. What would you do? You say they are bound by the decision but can’t even tell me how they would be bound by it…..

And even the measures of co-ersion/persuasion you talk about mean you recognise that it might not be voluntary….making someone change their minds by not giving them any materials is not them doing it by voluntary consent.

You keep saying I want people to be shot etc. Of course I don’t but you can’t even answer these basic questions….

This is what a mandate is for. A mandate tells someone that they have the power to make certain decisions, within defined limits. That mandate could be anything as trivial as 'open each day's letters, and respond to them according to these instructions' to something as wide-ranging as 'keep the railways running, prioritising these services, and using only these methods.' So you don't need to hold a general meeting every time a letter arrives, and there's nothing stopping changes to the railway services being made quickly.

So if people have wide ranging powers, you must accept that there will probably be lots of disputes and you don’t seem to be able to show how things would be settled if a quick decision was needed if people refused to go along with what the delegates decided.
As for recallable delegates I totally agree.

Holy cow! I hadn't thought of that one. In fact, no anarchist in the last 200 years has ever considered the possibility that a federation might have a lot of members! (Just as well there have never been large anarchist organisations - they might have run into this problem and immediately ceased to exist!)

But how many anarchists have faced a revolutionary situation? Not many and in Spain did the CNT leadership operate on the lines you are talking about? Did they when they were in the Stalinist government?

you seem to think, for some reason best known to yrself, that there would be tens of thousands of delegates at these meetings. you throw up all manner of logistical problems, giving no thought to the way the real world works. why do you think all anarchists are devoid of discipline and so need to debate everything to reach consensus on every single topic with everyone being involved at every stage of the rather tortuous process?

the reason you aren't getting the responses you so clearly desire might have something to do with the fact that you posit an unlikely situation.

Unlikely! For decisions to be made locally, with a population of millions then there would have to be 1000s or 10,000s of federation depending on the size of the country…..it’s not about not having discipline but how disagreements that couldn’t sorted out amicably would be sorted out.

Would it be made clear to federations that they had to carry out the collective will? If so the autonomous bit is clearly not true…..

As for the anarchist FAQ at the very beginning it says anarchism is against hierarchy and authority. But even your limited answers show this is not true and you admit you'd use co-ersive measures....

 

[Pickman's model]

Unlikely! For decisions to be made locally, with a population of millions then there would have to be 1000s or 10,000s of federation depending on the size of the country…..it’s not about not having discipline but how disagreements that couldn’t sorted out amicably would be sorted out.

Would it be made clear to federations that they had to carry out the collective will? If so the autonomous bit is clearly not true…..

ok.

i. you are clearly assuming this scenario occurs at the end of a successful inter/national uprising. taking the early days of the "troubles" in the six counties as a model, it is likely that people will react spontaneously to armed incursions by state forces. when one area (eg derry) is under great pressure, other areas (eg belfast) took to the streets to stretch the government forces. you don't need a delegate meeting to decide things like that!

ii. as i've said, the logistics of a big mass meeting involving delegates from up and down the country would need (a) a reasonably settled situation, so people could get there; (b) somewhere large enough to hold it; and (c) agreed rules for the conduct of the meeting. i'd expect that in the course of any revolutionary conflict decisions would be made and acted on on a local basis, and in isolation from a larger regional or national "executive council". with communications largely down, these decisions could only affect small areas, for obvious reasons. to me it's obvious that the minute something moved from being a riot to being an insurrection the state would use the power it has over phones and the internet to create a news blackout. it would be like the problems with phones on sept 11, only longer.

agreeing the rules for large meetings would probably take some time: but since previous revolutions have worked ok in the early stages with gatherings in the low thousands (eg french and russian revolutions) as national bodies, i see no reason to suppose that the same can't be done again.

iii. the administrative districts i would expect to be used in at least the early stages of a revolution would be the wards and constituencies which already exist. the mechanisms already in place for elections could easily be turned to revolutionary use to elect (and recall) delegates, and in the latter stages when greater control had been achieved other means of determining people's views outside meetings could be considered, eg using the internet perhaps.

if you want to impose yr own rather blinkered and derogatory views of humanity on yr view of the revolution, go ahead. but i believe that the blank canvas of the revolution will be filled with imaginative ways of moving things forward which neither anarchists nor socialists have yet necessarily considered. my musings above are what might happen, though i'd never seek to restrict the creative nature of the revolution by imposing them on a set of events as yet hypothetical.

 

[Pickman's model]

As for the anarchist FAQ at the very beginning it says anarchism is against hierarchy and authority. But even your limited answers show this is not true and you admit you'd use co-ersive measures....

killing people is the ultimate coercion but i suspect that few anarchists or other revolutionaries expect a bloodless revolution. out of curiousity, where have i suggested i would use coercive methods in the decision-making process?

 

[Ray]

No I haven’t. I’ve said I agree with what groucho has said, I’ve never said I’d just take someones word for something with questions. I take it you don’t want children to be killed in war? Does that mean that you would never bomb positions with an airforce because there is always that risk? You’re just setting up ridiculous straw men...If you can start setting up ridiculous scenarios I’ll do the same. You say you’d knee cap someone and let them bleed to death. What a nice guy!

At this point, I'm happy enough that anyone reading this thread (including you) is well aware of what I've said, and what my position is. They're also aware of what you're said (and not said) and what your position must be. So there's no need for me to actually argue with this bit...

Of course soviets were shut down! My point is why and how many. And of course I’ll question sources. How terrible of me!

You'll question sources without actually bringing any evidence against them, or calling on other sources. You've been told many times that soviets were shut down for electing the wrong people, and have yet to defend that. And what point is there in someone doing some research and coming up with an exact figure, when your response will be "Oh, I don't know about _that_ source, those figures are probably way off". Besides, you haven't explained why shutting down even a single soviet would be justified.

So because they did in these two situations, they always will, great logic! You can’t even answer what you’d do if they won’t……

Joe has already addressed this, and you know it. When the revolution started, it was supported by the peasants, as can be seen in the election results, and deduced from the obvious fact that they weren't paying rent anymore. The goodwill was there. As the two examples show, given that goodwill, there's no reason to think that something can't be worked out.

Your arguments, about peasants and federations, only make sense if you start from the position "What if everyone hates the revolutionaries?" Which, I suppose, is a fair starting point when you decide to model yourself on the Bolsheviks...

 

[charlie mowbray]

I've got to say, as a non-anarchist, they're the ones who are winning this debate, cockney.

Whatever the flaws in their model, it's a damn sight more attractive than the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save it' attitude of you Leninists.

Yeah, but at the end of this debate he'll say he won, like he did with me and Butchers on the Makhnovist movementwhen it was clear that his positions had all been rubbished!!

 

[Ray]

Even your example doesn’t add up. What if the production was crucial and none of your methods work, and you needed those guns there and then. What would you do?

What evidence is there that the Bolsheviks even tried any of my methods? You're just assuming they'll fail, so that you can send in the Cheka. Guess what? At that point, _you_ have failed.

making someone change their minds by not giving them any materials is not them doing it by voluntary consent.

I don't have any response to this, I just want to marvel at it some more.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Pickmans it’s not about how a meeting would work, what I am saying is that a delegate conference of 1000s could not meet on a very regular basis, therefore, I think we’re agreed that a smaller body would be needed to make decisions quickly on a national/international basis for certain things.

Now if some federations just won’t go along with what has been said by that committee what happens? Your answer seems be that you hope it won’t happen, and me saying it may well happen is being negative. Not very convincing.

Ray talks about limited co-ersion which firstly seems to go against the FAQ he talks about and secondly he can’t say what would happen if that doesn’t work. Now I’m not saying storm in and shoot everyone, but wouldn’t you say that you might have to take forced control of factories in a federation for instance if you needed the guns to be produced?

You'll question sources without actually bringing any evidence against them, or calling on other sources.

So the links I gave about anarchist bandits in moscows and attacks from the SRs weren’t sources?
Anarchists on here have accepted that the FOD would have shut down the Stalinists, so is this not justifying shutting down pro-stalinist soviets?!

Joe has already addressed this, and you know it. When the revolution started, it was supported by the peasants, as can be seen in the election results, and deduced from the obvious fact that they weren't paying rent anymore. The goodwill was there. As the two examples show, given that goodwill, there's no reason to think that something can't be worked out.

But the sources I gave show the shortages were there from the very beginning and in early 1918, three or four months after the revolution, the peasants wouldn’t give the starving cities grain. And what is your answer to that? You don’t have one, other than hoping they’ll be nice about it? When they’re not what do you do?

The same goes for you example about a gun factory. You talk about people being bound by stuff, you then talk about voluntarily doing stuff and then you can't say how you'd get the guns if your limited co-ersion didn't work. All over the place and this is just on paper not in a revolutionary situation....

And no I don’t think all workers and peasants will be pro the revolution, there will probably be sections that aren’t…….I also think, as history shows, that peoples consciousness changes, both in progressive and reactionary way as aw go on pointed out about Russia.

Charles, this isn’t about winning and losing, it’s a debate. And it wasn’t just me who found your previous answer unconvincing. Did people like belboid accept your answers?

 

[butchersapron]

The horror! The horror!

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[gurrier]

But that’s not what Ray said, was it? He said that federations could be told what to do against their wished. He gave the example of “fridges and guns”. So do you disagree with Ray, because if you do then obviously that sets the same questions again.

Again, you are going to great lengths to mis-understand everything that has been written here - you do have quite a talent for that, you know. You have repeatedly claimed that we are either proposing a completely unstructured 'do what you want-ism' or else we're just unconscious bolsheviks proposing central commands and that we are disagreeing with each other. It is actually quite interesting that there are virtually no disagreements whatsoever between the conceptions of federal delegate democracy put forward by any of the anarchists here. I'd find it difficult to disagree with a single sentence that any of them have written! We all appear to have a very close common understanding of what it would entail and you have a completely different one - so either all the anarchists are just too dumb to understand that they are talking about wildly different things, or you are completely missing the point. Now I know where my money's going on that one.

The thing about fridges and guns is really quite easy. For a start, there is nothing stopping the constituent parts of federations from agreeing to abide by the majority opinion of the federation in certain areas. In fact this is exactly what the FoD were proposing, a democratic decision making process where all of the anti-fascist working class forces would agree to follow majority decisions in certain areas even when various parts of the federation disagreed with them. As long as the constituents are free to leave the agreement when they want to, there is absolutely no contradiction with anarchist principles.

If you think about it (some chance!) you would quickly realise that all anarchist organisations practice this to some degree or other. For example, different members will have different opinions about what issues should be highlighted in the organisations publication. There will be some sort of decision making process to decide which of the various possibilties will actually be used and the members will still pay their dues to produce the paper and spend their time distributing it even when their favourite issue is not the one that ends up being used. If they think the decision is beyond the pale, they are free to leave the organisation and join another one or set up a new one.

Similarly, in the context of Spain, the FoD were proposing a federal arrangement where the members would agree to abide by the majority decisions of a council of delegates in certain key areas. You see, most people have no problem in seeing the logic of this type of voluntary agreement. I doubt it would be too difficult to persuade the revolutionary workers of a metal goods factory that their production should be tailored to the overall needs of the revolutionary effort and in practice this was borne out. Do you have any historical examples of factories refusing to play ball for the war effort in Spain or Russia and insisting on producing consumer goods? If not, then why are you coming up with these ridiculous scenarios that are based on the premise that workers are so dumb and irresponsible that they can't possibly be allowed to make decisions over production? You seem to have a very low opinion of the working class comrade.

But even if we accept your silly scenarios, as Ray has illustrated, there are various mechanisms available within anarchist principles - without employing coercion - to allow workers to deal with these possibilities. The idea that a decision not to send the output of your plastics factory to a particular fridge factory is coercion again shows your tenuous grasp of all of the concepts being discussed here. A basic principle of anarchism is that workers should have a say in how their work is used. There is nothing that binds me to send the output of my work to a particular factory. If I feel that the output would be better employed elsewhere, I can of course decide to send it there. The bizzarely and unrealistically egotistical workers of the fridge factory are still free to find other suppliers, join other federations or establish their own supply chains. To label the practice of deciding not to send your output to a rogue factory that does not respect collective agreements as 'coercion' is just too silly to take seriously and it reveals an alarming incapacity to understand basic libertarian socialist principles on your part.

 

[Ray]

Um ref? Time to ask this guy what day of the week it is...

Ray talks about limited co-ersion which firstly seems to go against the FAQ he talks about

Yeah, says you.

and secondly he can’t say what would happen if that doesn’t work.

Sure I can. I can tell you that if the only way to save the revolution is to shoot strikers, imprison workers, overthrow elections, and do everything that would be necessary to force production in a factory to go the way you want it... then there is no way to save the revolution. At that point, there are just two different ways of losing.

(Thing is, revolutions don't start at that point. You can only get there by repeatedly fucking things up in earlier stages. The fact that the Bolsheviks got to that point tells you all you need to know about Leninism)

Now I’m not saying storm in and shoot everyone, but wouldn’t you say that you might have to take forced control of factories in a federation for instance if you needed the guns to be produced?

If the workers in the factory occupy it in protest, what do you do? If other workers refuse to cross this de facto picket line, what do you do? Oh sorry, I forgot - when I come up with examples like this, its 'making up ridiculous scenarios'.

So the links I gave about anarchist bandits in moscows and attacks from the SRs weren’t sources?

They weren't sources that cast doubt on the sources that other people quoted. They weren't even sources that had anything to do with the question of soviets being shut down. I'm sure we all know the difference.

But the sources I gave show the shortages were there from the very beginning and in early 1918, three or four months after the revolution, the peasants wouldn’t give the starving cities grain. And what is your answer to that? You don’t have one, other than hoping they’ll be nice about it? When they’re not what do you do?

No, sorry, I doubt those sources. Come up with some more, that say exactly how short grain was at the time, and exactly what the levels of production were in the factories in 1918. Its the only way I'll be able to evaluate your claims properly.

 

[kropotkin]

CR, everyone who has read this thread apart from you and your fellow cultists can see that you have been comprehensively trounced.

 

[charlie mowbray]

Yes, but he never really comprehends the texts we send him. Example - re.the FOD having 5,000 members- I'm sure that in previous debates I put stuff on the boards about this. But then he repeats the same old statements over and over like a mantra. And that wasn't an isolated incident, either.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The thing about fridges and guns is really quite easy. For a start, there is nothing stopping the constituent parts of federations from agreeing to abide by the majority opinion of the federation in certain areas. In fact this is exactly what the FoD were proposing, a democratic decision making process where all of the anti-fascist working class forces would agree to follow majority decisions in certain areas even when various parts of the federation disagreed with them. As long as the constituents are free to leave the agreement when they want to, there is absolutely no contradiction with anarchist principles.

But Ray was saying that the other federations should implement measures to coerce them into following what the delegate body said. Do you agree with this? Or is taking away resources from someone not co-ersive? Are economic blocades or refusing to trade with people not co-ersive?

Also if you needed the guns and federation said, right we’re leaving this agreement, would you just say fair enough, even if the need for those guns was vital for the majority of the federations?

Similarly, in the context of Spain, the FoD were proposing a federal arrangement where the members would agree to abide by the majority decisions of a council of delegates in certain key areas. You see, most people have no problem in seeing the logic of this type of voluntary agreement. I doubt it would be too difficult to persuade the revolutionary workers of a metal goods factory that their production should be tailored to the overall needs of the revolutionary effort and in practice this was borne out. Do you have any historical examples of factories refusing to play ball for the war effort in Spain or Russia and insisting on producing consumer goods? If not, then why are you coming up with these ridiculous scenarios that are based on the premise that workers are so dumb and irresponsible that they can't possibly be allowed to make decisions over production? You seem to have a very low opinion of the working class comrade.

Not at all, I just recognise that people will have disagreements, that doesn’t make them dumb. Ray brought up the simplistic issue of guns and fridges. But there may well be genunine disagreements where a minority won’t go along with the majority, these may lead to fallings out. What I’m saying is how would anarchists react to this? Would you just allow federations to do what they please? Because your only answer seems to be that everyone WOULD get along and this wouldn’t be an issue. If you’re right then there would be problems, but I think you’re being utterly utopian. For instance the FOD called the CNT leaders traitors. Would they have been so wrong, if they had more forces, if they had taken up arms against them for betraying the revolution and aligning themselves with Stalinists. Do you think this kinda thing couldn’t happen again? Do you think that every section will just be perfect revolutionaries and no-one will sell out like the CNT leadership did?

Sure I can. I can tell you that if the only way to save the revolution is to shoot strikers, imprison workers, overthrow elections, and do everything that would be necessary to force production in a factory to go the way you want it... then there is no way to save the revolution. At that point, there are just two different ways of losing.

Again, strawmen. You don’t have to take it to this extreme. For instance would you never say it was ok for different federations to forcibly take control of factories who were undermining the majority? You haven’t given an answer to this, just posed another scenario…..

Or farms who refused to give their food to people who were starving?

They weren't sources that cast doubt on the sources that other people quoted. They weren't even sources that had anything to do with the question of soviets being shut down. I'm sure we all know the difference.

Of course they were! They showed that the Bolsheviks allowed a free press in Moscow but then closed down the anarchists as they were bandits and the SRs because they attacked them. And that’s not relevant?!

No, sorry, I doubt those sources. Come up with some more, that say exactly how short grain was at the time, and exactly what the levels of production were in the factories in 1918. Its the only way I'll be able to evaluate your claims properly.

Very funny. But it’s convenient for you to do this now there are other sources…..


Kropotkin, what a contribution. But there is only me, a couple of other trotkskyists, seven or so anarchists and Idris……mind you that’s nearly a fifth of the biggest anarchist organisation in the UK put together!

The anarchists on here seem to live in a world where they think come the revolution all will be sweetness and light on the side of the revolutionaries and any suggestion of serious disagreement or that sections of the class may become reactionary is saying the working class is dumb! It’s utter utopian logic and good way of not providing solutions.....

 

[kropotkin]

More ad populum fallacies there I notice. I don't know why you think that would piss anyoe off. Just makes you look even more desperate: another evasive tactic to add to the growing list.

 

[butchersapron]

But there is only me, a couple of other trotkskyists, seven or so anarchists and Idris??

As has been pointed out before in threads of this type, given that the anarchists are aguing essentially the same case, then one telling blow would effectively land on them all - the numbers don't matter. You can hold your own against overwhelming numbers if you argue coherently and try to make a real effort to understand and then seriously respond to others arguments.

 

[cockneyrebel]

If you say so butchers. I get five or six posts thrown at, while I’m at work, and you think this debate is balanced!! Is debate about “one telling blow”……It's hilarious how serious you think U75 is.....do you think your "telling blows" will swell the anarchist ranks to 80 or so?

What does “ad populum” mean prince kropotkin?

As for being evasive anarchists on here can’t even work answers to basic questions!

As for digs about anarchists sides, oh I’m sorry, the anarchists on here haven’t been the ones making snidey comment have they? Oh no…..

 

[butchersapron]

Alright - one telling 'point'. That's all you need.

 

[cockneyrebel]

One telling point? Like the waffle that is espoused about how to deal with differences or questions like when peasants won't hand over grain....

Utter utopianism.....

 

[Pickman's model]

One telling point? Like the waffle that is espoused about how to deal with differences or questions like when peasants won't hand over grain....

Utter utopianism.....

i don't think that peasants refusing to hand over grain would be a particular problem after a revolution in this country.

 

[Ray]

But Ray was saying that the other federations should implement measures to coerce them into following what the delegate body said. Do you agree with this? Or is taking away resources from someone not co-ersive? Are economic blocades or refusing to trade with people not co-ersive?

Have you any shame at all? Any concept of intellectual honesty? You don't perhaps think that its important to argue honestly with people when you're trying to convince them of something? You don't have enough confidence that your argument, such as it is, will be proven right?

Gurrier answered all of those questions in the post you are replying to. He answered them at length, and there is no way you could have missed them. He said (as I have said earlier) that there is no difference between our positions. He specifically addressed the argument that redirecting resources is coercive.

The funny thing is, that was only a couple of posts ago. Everybody reading your reply has seen Gurrier's post. They all know that he has just answered your questions. This is the most ham-fisted attempt at deceitful argument I've seen in a long time.

Really, mate, time to stop digging...

 

[kropotkin]

This is what i don't get...

Evryone can see what has been written, so why the attempts at misrepresentation and evasion?

 

[Pickman's model]

This is what i don't get...

Evryone can see what has been written, so why the attempts at misrepresentation and evasion?

the trotskyist school of falsification?

 

[Ray]

I'm tempted to say 'force of habit', but that would be wrong of me.

 

[cockneyrebel]

It's not "falsification", I just might disagree, or not get what you're saying. Why the dramatics? It's so over the top. Why would I wanna deliberately lie. This is a thread on U75 that has absolutely no relevance to real life (the vast majority who have no time for what either of us think, let alone the differences), and I only go on it because I'm at work and have an interest in what people are saying. Even if you totally disagree with what I'm saying can we stop the ridiculous dramatics, like this is some important event! The anarchoids on here have been totally abusive, it's just stupid for U75!

How is me saying I think "re-directing" resources (is this not another way of saying sanctions? If not what's the difference?) is co-ercive. I think it is, why don't you?

I suppose the real difference between us, leaving history aside, is that I don't see:

1) How 1000s of federations can work in reality, how the disagreements won't paralyse the working class in a revolutionary situations.

2) Your solutions to this. How you think disagreements can be dealt with if there are disagreements like between the CNT and FOD when the FOD ends up calling them traitors. How in these circumstances you think it would be wrong to take up arms if the FOD was strong enough. Why not if sections, federations or organisations are selling out the revolution like the Mensheviks or Stalinists?

Because of this, whatever the mistakes of the Bolsheviks, I think anarchism will never be anything other than on paper or a failure.....

 

[kropotkin]

But all of those points have already been addressed, and you have failed to come back on them!