Okay, here's something that has been nagging me for a while.

What are the reasons why Bakunin anarchism is insufficient, or wrong, in the eyes of Karl Marx or those who have fidelity to Marx's views?

If there are lots of reasons, can someone give me a brief laundry list of them? Something to get me started?

Statism..yadda yadda..economic determinism..yadda yadda..authoritarianism..yadda yadda..dictatorial yadda yadda..

EDIT: the above mantra is all that your friendly neighborhood anarchist/libertarian can muster..he just sets the recorder on repeat and lets the record play..if you think its a caricature you should talk to one of these jokers sometime

As M&E said, all of those terms they throw around basically end up being applied to anything Bakunin (or your typical anarchist/libertarian) didn't like. They don't mean anything.

Futher, Bakunin in real life was conspiratorial, manipulative,sectarian, violent..he was sort of a mini-Machiavelli

Think through Bakunin's view on "authority" which is simply authority=bad, and follow it through to its logical conclusion. One possibility is that some tiny clique (ie Bakunin and his ilk) become the arbiters of what is and is not authoritarian and thereby BECOME the authorities, albeit in a somewhat reverse manner. The second is the crazy libertarian fantasy of total "freedom" of markets

Both are childish to the extreme, just as Bakunin was

Debate? There ain't no debate, its a one-sided blowout

Hmmm.

So Bakunin would be the ideological godfather of Ludwig von Mises and the libertarians who profess minarchism?

If that's true, what distinguishes von Mises minarchism from anarchism?

And what's M&E? I missed that abbreviation.

Marxs&Engels

and I was thinking it was something like Monsters & Egomaniacs!

kidding.

I get most confused when it comes to the question of power. What prevents the centralization of power in a socialist revolution? Or in a communist system?

In the USSR, a bureaucracy developed that mirrored the oppressive, dull and arbitrary exercises of power we now find in the USA. Why did that happen? Did they depart from M&E? If so, how? And why?

Was Bakunin wrong in saying that revolution does not have to be violent?

Hmmm.

So Bakunin would be the ideological godfather of Ludwig von Mises and the libertarians who profess minarchism?

If that's true, what distinguishes von Mises minarchism from anarchism?

And what's M&E? I missed that abbreviation.


You'll have to ask Anax how much debt they owe Bakunin directly, but yes "minarchism" is prototypical Bakunin bullshit.

Actually, I think in one sense the opposite is true -- Anarchism, dating back to Bakunin himself, has always opposed itself to "theory" and focused on "action". I think its because of the idea that theory=oppression..sounds very Foucalt-ian lol

So basically they end up presenting a hodgepodge of "issues" and topiccs and a tangled skein of thinking plucked from every "left" source available, which includes every dubious brand of libertarianism.

Part of this is their natural wariness towards organization of any kind (including their own, ironically) and their focus on "action". So its no surprise that they borrow from Marxism heavily while simultaneously being anti-Marxist and the entirety of their theory is given in the liturgy written in my first sentence above.

Their anti-Marxism goes a little like this by the way:

Anarchist: I hate that movie
Sane Person: what didn't you like about it specifically
Anarchist: I haven't seen it because I hate it

The closest equivalent I can come up with that captures their juvenalia is Music Scenesters. Y'know the ones who slash the tires of their favorite band after the band "sells out" by appearing on MTV or signing to a major..

Well, given my preference for action over theory, and my wariness of authority and power, I'm not surprised that I got drawn to minarchism and libertarianism for a brief while. But close analysis showed they're not different from what we now have -- they just want to swap out the ruling class for a different one... themselves! So I understand what you're saying about becoming the authority on what is authoritarian.

I have also argued with libertarians about how their dream of everyone being equal and happy plays out when laws and regulations are diminished or eliminated. My experience as a lawyer has shown me that people do whatever they can get away with, and that a select group of people will always place their own interests ahead of what is collectively preferable. Thus I've seen first-hand how making regulatory enforcement more business-friendly has countered the point of regulation, and how relaxing laws tends to further social friction.

When libertarians criticize the excesses of government and bureaucracy, I often find them agreeable. Where they are lacking is the explanation on how shrinking government yields an improvement, because every one I've read has urged that the government be shrunk by two methods -- (1) putting a certain authority in power, and (2) privatizing the existing government services. Both methods seem to confirm a desire to be dictatorial. The privatization contracts are given to the friends of the person put in authority, yielding a system that doesn't really change much. It only changes who reaps the financial profits. The structure remains substantively the same, even if superficially it changes.

and I was thinking it was something like Monsters & Egomaniacs!

kidding.

I get most confused when it comes to the question of power. What prevents the centralization of power in a socialist revolution? Or in a communist system?

In the USSR, a bureaucracy developed that mirrored the oppressive, dull and arbitrary exercises of power we now find in the USA. Why did that happen? Did they depart from M&E? If so, how? And why?

Was Bakunin wrong in saying that revolution does not have to be violent?


The violence I was talking about was more of the wanton variety, not necessarily in pursuit of revolution.

Your questions are legit, and this has come up before on Pop Indy. Before adding anything else, I'm going to go look for some of that material.


A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon - authoritarian means, if such there be at all.
-Friedrich Engels

oh, you're a LAWYER??

;)

m pyre, you are asking some very, very good questions about the soviet bureaucracy that need to be answered. in the meantime, you should read "On Khrushchev's phony communism and its historical lessons for the world" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm), an essay which, in my impoverished opinion (imio) speaks to some of your concerns about the necessity of sustained class struggle after communists seize power.

oh, you're a LAWYER??

;)

m pyre, you are asking some very, very good questions about the soviet bureaucracy that need to be answered. in the meantime, you should read "On Khrushchev's phony communism and its historical lessons for the world" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm), an essay which, in my impoverished opinion (imio) speaks to some of your concerns about the necessity of sustained class struggle after communists seize power.


Yeah, I'm one of those. :o

I thought my hellish status as a lawyer was already raked over the coals. TBF gave me a few earfuls in a different thread!

I have been open about my concerns. Anax & Kid have helped me on the ones I raised before, but the lingering questions continue to be those about power and its exercise.

I'll be honest -- I am more in favor of small socialist communities than I am in favor of a big socialist nation made out of the USA. I think small-scale is better than large-scale. Large-scale tends to attract the grandiose dictatorial types, they salivate after the reins of power over many. They are supported by those who aim toward personal wealth or power accumulation. Hence my criticism of von Mises and the libertarians -- for them, a change in power means a Trojan Horse for a new sect of authorities and new group of those who profit from the system.

What frightens me from the bits I know on socialist and communist countries/systems (and admittedly I am very naive on global political history) is the purgative nature of the desire to change the populace. Frankly, I don't see how the USSR was in any way preferable to the present USA.

But maybe that's because Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita had too profound an influence on me.

Thanks for the link to the essay, I'll read that later today. Appreciate it.

I thought my hellish status as a lawyer was already raked over the coals. TBF gave me a few earfuls in a different thread!

Are you a lawyer, m pyre? Because I hadn't noticed you mentioning that in nearly every post you write.

I thought my hellish status as a lawyer was already raked over the coals. TBF gave me a few earfuls in a different thread!

Are you a lawyer, m pyre? Because I hadn't noticed you mentioning that in nearly every post you write.


See, you are almost funny here. Almost. I should ask if you're an arrogant asshole, because your every post reflects such a perspective.

But I'd only be joking. Like you are here.

Maybe you could explain what is a shorthand for saying

"I used to be a corporate litigator, got disgusted by what I saw, learned that there were better options, and after a few years, came upon socialism and found it interesting, but I'm still hounded by what I learned, saw, heard, and experienced as a lawyer."

If you have a good shorthand for that, consisting of something other than saying I used to be a lawyer, please share it. Otherwise, please get a new joke book!

I mean, it's not like a socialist revolution would have to try to convert OTHERS JUST LIKE ME, or anything. Is it?

Well, maybe not. Maybe TBF would be the American Socialist Revolution's equivalent of the Schutzstapfel, and TBF would order the murder of all lawyers. Wouldn't that leave TBF spouseless, though?

Crumbs for thought, anyway.

Lets keep this argument fun guys. Every post should be dedicated to making me laugh

TBF 1, m pyre 0

Lets keep this argument fun guys. Every post should be dedicated to making me laugh

TBF 1, m pyre 0


Dang, that's cold! I get no points for my reply? Dang! I'm trying to make you laugh, and make TBF laugh as well. It's not working?

No wonder nobody laughs at my "jokes" in person.

Ive long been an admirer of Bakunin but it seems to me that the commies are much more practical and realistic. Life can be a bitch and they look it in the eye.

i agree with blindpig. revolution isn't a dinner party. dinner parties are the domain of anarchists.

Dinner party? I got lost in the middle of that metaphor, sorry.

I read the essay on Krushchev. I didn't find it too persuasive, but maybe that's because the Chinese communicate in a different manner than I'm used to. I read the essay as saying, essentially,

Marxism = Good

Communism = Good

USSR = Bad

without much in the way of concrete example or explanation as to how the good vs bad was determined. The several examples of corruption in the USSR do not prove that Marxism is good. They don't prove that Communism is good. They only show that when large social systems are created, the greedy and selfish will always take advantage of the reins of power. Nothing in the essay explains how the reins of power will not be taken up by greedy selfish people under socialism or communism.

Where do we find such an analysis?

Dinner party? I got lost in the middle of that metaphor, sorry.

I read the essay on Krushchev. I didn't find it too persuasive, but maybe that's because the Chinese communicate in a different manner than I'm used to. I read the essay as saying, essentially,

Marxism = Good

Communism = Good

USSR = Bad

without much in the way of concrete example or explanation as to how the good vs bad was determined. The several examples of corruption in the USSR do not prove that Marxism is good. They don't prove that Communism is good. They only show that when large social systems are created, the greedy and selfish will always take advantage of the reins of power. Nothing in the essay explains how the reins of power will not be taken up by greedy selfish people under socialism or communism.

Where do we find such an analysis?


M Pyre, its time that you stop throwing every canard in the book at us, asking us to patiently answer each as though it is posed without the slightest bit of guile. Maybe they all are guileless on your part.

Doesn't matter because its time you answered some questions, namely:

1. Define "good" and "bad" in your lexicon, since they seem to come up all the damn time

2. What do you think the platform of socialists IS? Reconcile this with your definitions provided in #1, if that is possible

3. If authoritarianism and power grabs are "bad" per the above, walk us through a feasible path that does NOT involve these things as you define them

4. Why is it the responsibility of socialists to defend or else denounce every single issue relating to communism on which you are hesitant, uncertain, confused or whatever other state of discontent you may presently be in?

If you are weak-kneed or squeamish about communism, that's fine but your position so far has amounted to "I will read Marx and talk about socialism once you defend every action of the Soviet Union from 1917-1989 AND apologize for all of the unnecessary "atrocities" and explain how you will do better in the future "

I have no doubt that you legitimately want to "know" the answers to all you questions, but its time for a little reciprocity. Half the time it feels like you want us to break down the barriers of your entrenched cynicism guarded by outer walls of suspicion and mistrust, . If you think that you can't trust "people" or that "People Suck", you should just have out with it.

Kid, there is no guile at work here.

I ask Qs about socialism because I don't know much about it other than general ideas surrounding criticisms of capitalism, and those I know, I agree with.

I can't define "good" and "bad" for anyone but me. I have no interest in telling others that my "good" must be their "good." I would prefer to show them information, and let them arrive at the "good" and "bad" on their own. I would debate "good" with someone, I would debate "bad" with someone, but I have no bright line tests for those words. In my view, for my purposes, they depend on the situation under discussion.

I don't know why you have always been defensive about my questions, Kid. If you can't deal with my style of questioning, tell me. But tell me why. Don't go around harboring suspicions. We've never met. You don't know anything about me. You can assume I'm bad, or deceptive, or some sort of surrogate for someone else. I can't make you NOT assume those things. I can only answer questions you pose, questions which lend themselves to concrete answers.

If you press me for "good" I would say, what would improve life for most people.

If you press me for "bad" I would say, what would make life worse for most people.

I see no options for a social system that pleases everyone.

I see plenty of options for systems which please only a select few.

If you want to know why I ask for explanations on communism, it is because Marx himself says that the end goal is communism, with socialism being a transitional stage.

If you want to know why I ask questions generally, regarding socialism, it is because I'm not going to devote my time to supporting just another form of authoritarian bullshit masquerading as an optimal system for all involved. I want to know where socialism can stop the negative human endeavors which flourish under almost every social system I've ever known, or read about, or heard about.

This should not be inexplicable to you. The idea of considering socialism, after growing up and being indoctrinated in a capitalist system, indicates that there is general skepticism of social / governmental theories experienced. Why wouldn't that skepticism be applicable to socialism? I can't imagine you want mindless robots who merely hang on your words, and never question things. But I don't know you, so I don't know whether that's what you want. I can only ask questions which take me down the road toward the answer.

My impression is that you find me an upstart, and you dislike my failure to treat Marx as a god. He's no god. I'm still not even sure he was as brilliant as everyone says. Probably that's because I haven't read him yet, other than what Anax has posted. What I've read so far is turgid prose that has its own lingo and its own assumptions, and that sort of thing is an obstacle. If his ideas are so grand, why do they require interpretation by someone like yourself or Anax?

All theories must be subjected to rigorous skepticism. If you're saying that I need to drop the skepticism and just get on board, I'm sure we'll disagree on the viability of Marxism in that case.

It would be impossible for me to be running a psy-op here. I don't have any systemic/philosophic allegiance at this point. I couldn't even begin to identify someone I'd be "working for," other than my own needs and curiosity.

You and everyone else will have to decide for yourselves, to either take me at my word, or to assume I'm a ghost psy-operative of some competing philosophic view.

I'm not going to file a legal brief with you buddy and I wouldn't hold my breath on anyone else submitting one for your perusal/approval either

I don't know about this shit of making life better for most people. I think the best judge of most peoples quality of life would be "most people" not you or me.

Economic communism is a pretty simple idea -- all of the basic provisions of life, which are socially defined and not delimited to food/water, shelter, sustenance -- are available to everyone. It says nothing about whether there is or is not a bureaucracy, who is in "charge", petty favoritism/nepotism, or any of those things that most concern you. They are not necessarily incidental or irrelevant, but they are beside the point at hand.

What economic communism DOES entail is overturning a system that by its nature expels people from the system, expels them into the most abject and miserable conditions imaginable without any sentimentality, pity or remorse. A system that dictatorially operates under its own set of Iron Laws and answers to literally no one. Nothing could be more authoritarian, despite any pretensions you may try to cast.

You want to hash this out with me by the way, because by comparison I'm easy. If Chlamor gets into this he will rip you a new one

If you think Marx is impenetrable, Communism is totalitarian, and would rather cook up some mushy brand of milquetoast "socialism", that is cool. But everyone can smell what you've got cooking, and it smells like shit because it really is

If you think Marx is impenetrable, Communism is totalitarian, and would rather cook up some mushy brand of milquetoast "socialism", that is cool. But everyone can smell what you've got cooking, and it smells like shit because it really is


Give the guy a fucking break, kid. Geez.

Only a couple of years ago, I had all the same reservations. It's hard to undo the brainwashing we get growing up in this time and place, particularly for folks who are such good students that they can be immersed entirely and not just brainwashed. The dude's a lawyer. THAT is a lot to try and push out of mind while attempting to see things with fresh eyes.

You should offer him up the David Harvey gig (which I am enjoying immensely, thanks).

The real danger of thinking like m pyres is that he'll wind up as one of them lefties who is all for leftism except when it has ever been attempted. The way out of that danger is not dismiss everything he asks, but rather to make just the point you made above - sans the reaming.

I was very much affected by you once making a similar point to ME. Something along the lines of "There will never be 'You didn't work enough so no food for you.'" along with some really beautiful sentiments about what kind of world it could be and what is worth pursuing.

And it is abundantly clear I have deserved getting wailed on much more and many more times than our participant who is addled by his education and working hard to see through the fog.

I see that the manifesto thread seems to keep petering out. I am sad for that, but I am also not terribly interested in keeping it alive by any effort of mine either.

We need to - YOU yourself admitted this - do Capital. The first three chapters. Line by fucking line.

Anax - as usual - was fucking right.

I think m pyre would benefit from this as well. What Marx did is a far cry from all the blather we all have fallen into at one time or another about hierarchy and authoritarianism blah blah blah.

Hey Rusty,

Agree that we should work on Capital, but it may be an independent project not something everyone does at the same time. If we can't get through the Manifesto, how in the world will we get through boring-ass Chapter 2 ;)?

M Pyre is fine, and he is wrong that I am "suspicious" of him. But he keeps trying to steer the discussion back to Sovietism or a proxy thereof. There is not much to say about that topic to me because for most of the people here it is obscure, contentious, and reading intensive (and much of the reading is more like propaganda than actual materials)

I think what I wrote above sets out my answers to almost all of his questions as best I am able:


Economic communism is a pretty simple idea -- all of the basic provisions of life, which are socially defined and not delimited to food/water, shelter, sustenance -- are available to everyone. It says nothing about whether there is or is not a bureaucracy, who is in "charge", petty favoritism/nepotism, or any of those things that most concern you. They are not necessarily incidental or irrelevant, but they are beside the point at hand.

What economic communism DOES entail is overturning a system that by its nature expels people from the system, expels them into the most abject and miserable conditions imaginable without any sentimentality, pity or remorse. A system that dictatorially operates under its own set of Iron Laws and answers to literally no one. Nothing could be more authoritarian, despite any pretensions you may try to cast.

Keep in mind that M Pyre's objections are only one step away from those of Political Hypocrite (Heretic): "Sure I want to overthrow the system, but only if the alternative/replacement is acceptable to my sensibilities". Begging the question -- is the current system untenable or not?

PS as you correctly note, I have not at all addressed M Pyre's "personal journey" which occupies a fair bit of his posts. Mike is much, much better at walking through it with someone than I am, and he has a far better feel for it and knows the right "touch" to apply.

If he will just put the $10 questions on hold and start with the basics, so will I. Because that's where I am too -- the basics. I'm no expert.

PS as you correctly note, I have not at all addressed M Pyre's "personal journey" which occupies a fair bit of his posts. Mike is much, much better at walking through it with someone than I am, and he has a far better feel for it and knows the right "touch" to apply.

When "personal journey" is the part that is highlighted for emphasis (gotta love those litigators) it's hard not to address it. But agreed that Mike is much better at welcome-wagon and we maybe need a thread for that. I like both PH and m pyre for the same reason. I believe both are sincere behind the layers. And both are much smarter than I, which means it will be harder work for them to push those layers inside. The indoctrination in this country is overwhelming, and it's worse the longer you stay in school and the more "successful" you are.

I would say I've lost myself, found myself, lost it all again..many times over. I stopped thinking it carried any great significance. I think personal journeys and quests into your own umbral existence shoul be reserved for Shamans and d-bags like Dennis Kucinich. To me Zazen is just staring at a wall..I'd rather fling shit against it and see what sticks (but as I've been told many times, thats my personal failing)

PS Like I said above M Pyre is fine but I don't like PH..but then, I always hate the Pastor so..

PPS the stuff about Bakunin and the criticisms of anarchism we've posted is truly just a recapsule of how the historical argument evolved. But it isn't a stereotype that can be applied to all people or all times and places.

The Haymarket Martyrs were anarchists and they are some of the most important organizers of the late 1800s: George Engel, Augustus Spiers, the husband of Lucy Parsons, etc.

All 7 of them were later exonerated by the governor btw

PPS the stuff about Bakunin and the criticisms of anarchism we've posted is truly just a recapsule of how the historical argument evolved. But it isn't a stereotype that can be applied to all people or all times and places.

The Haymarket Martyrs were anarchists and they are some of the most important organizers of the late 1800s: George Engel, Augustus Spiers, the husband of Lucy Parsons, etc.

All 7 of them were later exonerated by the governor btw


Yeah that crowd at Seattle weren't bullshitters either. Mr pyre was a bit broadbrush, some of these folks are serious and not just keyboard warriors. They may not have thought out the mid-term implications of revolution thouroughly but it's always good to have shock troops on your side.

Edit: Not to mention those fiesty Greeks..

By and by, there need be a new International, where a tactical agreement with Anarchists is reached. They are too much an asset to revolution to ignore.

Those that are worth a damnn, anyway.

PPS the stuff about Bakunin and the criticisms of anarchism we've posted is truly just a recapsule of how the historical argument evolved. But it isn't a stereotype that can be applied to all people or all times and places.

The Haymarket Martyrs were anarchists and they are some of the most important organizers of the late 1800s: George Engel, Augustus Spiers, the husband of Lucy Parsons, etc.

All 7 of them were later exonerated by the governor btw


It doesn't help that there are 4 or 5 separate debates here that are interlocked together.

1) The original anarchists were rural socialists whose "ideology" was very loose. Their origins were partly in Proudhon, partly in the Utopians and partly in the radical democracy of the "Great Revolution"... all of it "pre-Marxian". In those countries in which their ideas (such as they were) took hold, the reasons were so obvious as to fade into the background. In Russia, the weakness of the contending classes led to the extraordinary strengthening of the absolute monarchy, of the Tsar's autocracy or the ever present "State". Not only did this "state" exert total political authority but also become a direct intermediary in economic relations. After the abolition of serfdom, it was the government which held the debt papers of the newly freed serfs and the same government which enforced mortgages, direct expropriation, and the rest. In contrast, the rural commune remained, not just in memory but in fact. The slow destruction of the Mir became the actual objective of the autocracy in the late half of the 19th century.

Given the above, what is hard to understand? Everyone in Russia was an anarchist at one point and, certainly, the great populist movement of the 19th century, the Narodniks, were "anarchist" through and through. Every single one of the original Russian Marxists, without exception, started out as anarchists. What changed to undermine this common ideology was not so much the ideas but the social conditions from which that ideology sprang. Capital came to Russia. Large scale factories sprang up overnight, the industrial proletariat, which had grown up in the countryside, immediately adopted the urban militancy which has always been the leading trait of that class, and all of this occurred as the capitalist estates, and the new "hierarchy" of rural classes - rich and poor but both producing commodities for the first time - completely displaced both feudal and communal Russia. Russian anarchism died because the soil in which it grew became barren. What survived was increasingly reactionary "Social Revolutionaries", thoroughly compromised by the Russian bourgeoisie and nearly identical in their bankruptcy to their brethren of European Social Democracy, though they might feel an occasional pang of nostalgia for the old "combat".

In turn, what survived of the old Russian anarchists was not their ideology but their organization. It is an irony of the present day that the current "anarchist critique" of "Marxist authoritarianism" is almost entirely of their own creation. It is long forgotten that Lenin, in particular, was once exclusively criticized for his whole scale adoption of the organizational principles and methods of not only the old Narodnik "combat organizations" but also those of the later, "People's Will". The real innovation of Russian anarchism was in the methods needed to survive (and in their Bolshevik incarnation, to win) in the world's prototype police state.

2) None of the above bears on Bakunin. The proper segue for him rests at the point at which we said that in Russia, "everyone was an Anarchist". In fact, Bakunin was an emigre, had little to do (practically or ideologically) with these Russian movements and was of a different stripe. Prince Bakunin had much more in common with Prince Kropotkin, Count Tolstoy, and Count Dostoevsky. The four varied radically in their professed "ideology" but had a nearly identical "cultural viewpoint". In any case, it may be possible for a materialist to ignore one or two lofty aristocratic titles but, all four? This group as a whole is best understood in the context of Marx's "Reactionary Socialists" at the end of the Manifesto. Personally, I am a great fan of Tolstoy and Kropotkin, but I would sooner take political advice from Hillary Clinton.

3) If there is a gulf between Bakunin and Russian Anarchism, there is an ocean between the old and "modern" Anarchism. If the old anarchism was rooted in the old social conditions, if emigre anarchism was once or twice removed from those, the modern variant seems entirely without roots of any kind. The two main trends seem to be: First, a form of "left communism" encompassing not just "anarchists" but also "council communists" and "Democratic Socialists" and a host of others (including most Trotskyists, IMO) intent on teaching "working-class democracy" and the proper conduct of revolutionary affairs to real communists. That these movements arise almost exclusively in the richest of the home countries of Imperialism makes such teaching akin to the lessons on Democracy that George Bush was intent on teaching Iraq, or Lebanon or the Palestinians, minus the Army with which such miserable "teaching" can be enforced. "Thank you so very much for your most useful advice."

The other kind of modern "anarchism" seems to be a very loose association of "anti-authoritarians" of every stripe, including those who are opposed to marijuana laws, modern proponents of communal living, radical libertarians against "big government", eco-anarchists, advocates of "democracy" who don't like the present course of state capitalism, primitivists, and conspiracy theorists who see an undermining of the individual in every "large organization". The appeal to this last is very obvious. Anarchism offers a very loose "ideological framework" for social criticism and radical - even "revolutionary" - thoughts while complying fully with the modern American catechism of "democracy", "liberty", "the individual", "freedom". No actual fealty to any real movement of real people is required and no difficult understanding of the real foundations of the current society is demanded.

Of course the actual Anarchists were the exact opposite of this. Though the highest level slogans may be shared, they stand in relation to the old criticisms in the same way that the Libertarian and neo-con slogans for Freedom and Liberty stand in relation to the ideas of Mirabeau or Jefferson - they are similar only to the depth of a single word alone.

For those who are "serious", this kind of "anarchism" is nothing but a very short-term way station.

4) Of course, all of this brings up the actual conditions created by real Socialism, above all in the Soviet Union. The "failure of Soviet Communism" may be the best known thing in American political culture. It is so well known that anyone who would challenge that common knowledge is immediately sent to political purgatory. Better to have a different Socialism than to have to deal with this can of worms even if the suspicion is that the common knowledge is a tad exaggerated. Better to claim a new improved socialism, consistent with the known "good" in present society and stripped of the baggage of long dead political disputes.

The problem is that perhaps th

e only "advantage" of the dissolution of the Soviet Union is that all of the old theories may be tested. Despite the greatest treasure hunt in history, not much has been found. The pile of bodies turns out to have been much much smaller than what had been previously "documented". No remnant of a "new class" has been found to have existed: none of the ruble millionaires came from the hallowed halls of the "Party elite" but came instead from those in the cracks of the Soviet society or, as often, from within the prison system. Huge ruble fortunes squirreled away by apparatchik have proven to be as elusive as Fidel's "billions", despite the fact that the latter has been reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, without irony, every 4 or 5 years. Nowhere has appeared the photographs of the palatial dachas of Soviet bureaucrats, any one of which even come close to matching the minor McMansions of any American suburb. What then is a materialism to do with a "new social class" without objective material? And, if the discussion is supposed to be about "ideas", how do "revisionist" ideas exist without a material basis for their existence... and this not for a short time but for decades?

The truth is that Marxists have no alternative but to reconcile themselves to the truth of all this, no matter how difficult it may be, and, if reconciliation is possible, then the above tends to be immediately propelled into oblivion.

It has always fascinated me that the first thing most people recognize in Marx is the quote that it is not the ideas of people which create their conditions but the conditions which create their ideas. The very next act seems to be to forget that initial understanding and to prattle on about "ideas" as if they had fallen from the sky and as if they could have an entirely independent existence.

PPS the stuff about Bakunin and the criticisms of anarchism we've posted is truly just a recapsule of how the historical argument evolved. But it isn't a stereotype that can be applied to all people or all times and places.

The Haymarket Martyrs were anarchists and they are some of the most important organizers of the late 1800s: George Engel, Augustus Spiers, the husband of Lucy Parsons, etc.

All 7 of them were later exonerated by the governor btw


Yeah that crowd at Seattle weren't bullshitters either. Mr pyre was a bit broadbrush, some of these folks are serious and not just keyboard warriors. They may not have thought out the mid-term implications of revolution thouroughly but it's always good to have shock troops on your side.

Edit: Not to mention those fiesty Greeks..

By and by, there need be a new International, where a tactical agreement with Anarchists is reached. They are too much an asset to revolution to ignore.

Those that are worth a damnn, anyway.


When I was a street fightin' kid during Vietnam, the people who most impressed me were the Attica Brigade. They were from a different planet and the cops had to resort to trickery to sweep them up. I have to admit that I never knew who they were. A short time ago I discovered that they were the "youth group" of Avakian's RCP. Shit... fookin' cultists.

They were still good at what they did, though.

Foster was an anarchist... and Flynn, and Heywood and a shitload of others. It made sense when they were young, partly because of European immigration and partly because you couldn't start a strike in the U.S. without immediately running into the State Militia... or the Army. State capitalism got here early.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/12/18562228.php

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/01/12/oakland_010709744_1.jpg

"I'm sorry my car was burned but the issue is very upsetting."
-Ken Epstein, assistant editor of the Oakland Post, who was finishing an article about Grant's death, watched from the 12th story of his office at 14th and Franklin streets as his 2002 Honda CR-V disintegrated in a roar of flames (Oakland Tribune)

The murder of Oscar Grant by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer Johannes Mehserle early New Year's morning sent a wave of grief throughout the Bay Area and reminded all that racism and police violence continue to be endemic components of US society. During the following days, that pain transformed into overflowing anger as multiple videos of the execution recorded by witnesses emerged on the internet and in the media. One week later on January 7, over a thousand people from diverse communities across Oakland and the Bay Area gathered to show their anger and be in the presence of others feeling similar grief. This hastily planned rally shut down the Fruitvale BART station where the shooting took place as speaker after speaker addressed the crowd. Without any plan or organization, the vast majority of those who patiently listened to speakers for over two hours took the demonstration into the streets with a spirited march that made its way towards downtown as the sun set.

As the march reached the Lake Merritt BART station and headquarters of BART police downtown, clashes immediately broke out leaving one police cruiser destroyed alongside a burning dumpster. Marchers dispersed down side streets to the sounds of police weapons discharging and the sting of tear gas in the air. The following hours witnessed waves of rioting and demonstrations throughout downtown Oakland that even forced Mayor Ron Dellums to come out into the streets and promise the opening of a homicide investigation in a failed attempt to subdue the angry crowds. Hundreds of businesses and cars were damaged or destroyed and dumpsters were left burning. The next day, a BART board of directors meeting was filled beyond capacity and overwhelmed with community members expressing indignant rage, clearly feeling validated and empowered to speak up by the previous night's rebellion.

In the days since the unrest, rumors have begun to circulate that anarchists hijacked the otherwise peaceful event and were responsible for unleashing the 'violence'. A cover story in the San Francisco Chronicle two days after the rioting quoted an organizer of the Fruitvale rally as saying that he was led to tears when his work was "destroyed by a group of anarchists." This dangerous and misleading narrative obscures what actually transpired and why, on that evening, the streets of Oakland unleashed such a powerful show of resistance and solidarity that gave many an empowered glimpse of radical new possibilities.

It is true that anarchists were present from start to finish on Wednesday. Counter to some generalizations that assume all anarchists are white, those who were there on Wednesday come from diverse backgrounds. They participated in a wide variety of ways; from spreading the word about the rally beforehand in order to have a large turnout, to spending hours painting banners and signs, to engaging in militant street actions, to being rounded up and at times beaten and arrested. Anarchists are among the over 100 community members who now face charges ranging from misdemeanor rioting to different felonies.

African-American youth made up the majority of those involved in the actions along with sizable numbers of anarchists as well as other youth of color and activist folk who were all there side by side. During the rioting, there was a sense of unity in the air and a defiant mood of solidarity among all who faced off against the police. Anarchists tend to show up at all demonstrations prepared to act should the situation escalate, and this case was no different. Yet it is simply incorrect to suggest that there was some conspiracy of anarchists from the 'outside' who were able to manipulate the helpless youth of Oakland as part of their sinister agenda. This is a paternalistic and disempowering misreading of what was unquestionably a spontaneous outpouring of rage, led by youth of color, creating an extremely empowering moment for participants in the streets. There, temporary alliances were made as those who were motivated to act in the moment experienced a unique cross-pollination that cut across the inhibiting social boundaries of everyday life.

The allegations of an anarchist takeover are destructively misleading. At best they come from ignorance and at worse they represent a flawed and divisive ideology of social change which embodies paternalistic and racist assumptions about those involved in the actions. To scapegoat anarchists for what transpired, robs from marginalized and oppressed youth of color the agency they possess and the power to resist which they demonstrated that evening. It also ignores the remarkable diversity and unique solidarity in the streets that created an liberating experience far beyond any rally or march.

There were some moments during which individual anarchists attempted to influence the course of events, but these instances still do not fit into the narrative that the corporate media and some organizers have tried to tell. At one point a group of black youth smashing the windows of a locally owned business were encouraged to target large corporations and banks instead of 'mom and pop' shops. They proceeded to do just that. Anarchists also un-arrested youth, and encouraged people to push dumpsters and other objects into the streets to prevent the police from advancing, a tactic that was quickly picked up and utilized. Other examples of this type of interchange involved anarchists encouraging youth participating in the riots to wear bandanas over their faces, change clothes during calm moments and other tactics to help avoid arrest or identification. Without question, the exchange went both ways as anarchists took away valuable lessons in mobility, evasion, and more as they worked together with the youth throughout the night.

None of this, however, suggests that anarchists had some sort of control or single handedly determined the events that transpired. The rage and energy that transformed downtown Oakland into a momentary battlefield came from those who are most directly affected by the racist police state regime. No one group had any control over what unfolded. It was a spontaneous rebellion that sprang organically from the streets of Oakland and in retrospect anarchists played an important yet relatively minor role.

The property destruction and rage that burned throughout downtown Oakland was at times undirected and ended up damaging many small businesses and cars along with corporate targets such as Sears and McDonald's. However, some of the most powerful moments that parralled the destruction were confrontations with police and sponatenous high energy gatherings of people in the street who refused to be dispersed. It was during these moments that chanting would again erupt from the crowd reminding all who were present that the direct political demands of justice for Oscar Grant and active resistance to the racist police state system in the United States were the motivations of all who took to the streets that evening.

It's important to also remember that not one person was assaulted during the actions and there were no reports of fights or scuffles amongst the groups of youth who resisted police and destroyed property into the night. In this sense, the rebellion was not violent. It is disturbing to watch as fellow organizers and members of our communities

have uncritically adopted the rhetoric of the right in their confused denunciation of mass property destruction as 'violence'.

On the other hand the Oakland Police Department, who everyday harass, intimidate and beat Oakland's youth, was unleashing its very real violence that night. Police opened fire on crowds with different types of less lethal projectiles and in some cases shot tear gas canisters directly into people's bodies. A Berkeley High teacher had his face bashed during arrest and spent the night in the hospital before being taken back downtown for booking. A man taking pictures was attacked by police and his bike helmet was cracked as he was beaten. During the mass arrest at the end of the night, 80 people were forced by police to lay on their stomachs at 20th and Broadway, including a very pregnant woman who was screaming in pain.

What manifested during the Oakland rebellion was a moment of interchange and revolutionary transformation that rarely happens within the rituals of left organizing in the Bay Area. Between white "community organizers" overtaken by guilt into an impotent politics of servitude, professional activists worried about annual reports and grant cycles, and vanguardist marxist sects continually looking to use the next demonstration as a recruiting drive, many radicals find themselves in a desert devoid of revolutionary activity and thought. Within this barren landscape, it is rare to find new possibilities for radical social change while combatting racism and the constant oppression of capitalism. Resisting the police shoulder to shoulder, destroying property (albeit with different emphasis), helping one another evade arrest, exchanging tactics and gestures of solidarity across racial barriers pushes the desire for a multi-racial revolutionary movement years ahead, more than any speaker at a rally ever could.

Anarchists are very accustomed to accusations of spoiling carefully managed demonstrations, and in some cases this is true and necessary. The Oakland rebellion was a different story. Those who are truly committed to revolutionary change in this country need to appreciate the significance of what unfolded in the streets that night and move forward without falling into the usual sectarian traps.

---------------------------------

This analysis was written collaboratively by a group of anarchists based out of Oakland who together were present at all moments during the rebellion.

The other kind of modern "anarchism" seems to be a very loose association of "anti-authoritarians" of every stripe, including those who are opposed to marijuana laws, modern proponents of communal living, radical libertarians against "big government", eco-anarchists, advocates of "democracy" who don't like the present course of state capitalism, primitivists, and conspiracy theorists who see an undermining of the individual in every "large organization". The appeal to this last is very obvious. Anarchism offers a very loose "ideological framework" for social criticism and radical - even "revolutionary" - thoughts while complying fully with the modern American catechism of "democracy", "liberty", "the individual", "freedom". No actual fealty to any real movement of real people is required and no difficult understanding of the real foundations of the current society is demanded.

Of course the actual Anarchists were the exact opposite of this. Though the highest level slogans may be shared, they stand in relation to the old criticisms in the same way that the Libertarian and neo-con slogans for Freedom and Liberty stand in relation to the ideas of Mirabeau or Jefferson - they are similar only to the depth of a single word alone.

For those who are "serious", this kind of "anarchism" is nothing but a very short-term way station.

Aren't these guys the most obvious and direct descendants of Bakunin of all the different groups you mention? I mean ideologically as much as anything..

Aren't these guys the most obvious and direct descendants of Bakunin of all the different groups you mention? I mean ideologically as much as anything..


Sure... different class, different circumstances, different words (mostly) with entirely different meanings. Other than that, just alike... like peas in a fuckin' pod.

I don't think that they would recognize Bakunin if he sat across from them in the subway. They certainly wouldn't talk to him.

Bakunin, for his part, always hit me as a Feudal or Reactionary Socialist, regardless of what he said. I know the passage below was written about others but it applies:

"Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe.

In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.

The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter."

Aren't these guys the most obvious and direct descendants of Bakunin of all the different groups you mention? I mean ideologically as much as anything..


Sure... different class, different circumstances, different words (mostly) with entirely different meanings. Other than that, just alike... like peas in a fuckin' pod.

I don't think that they would recognize Bakunin if he sat across from them in the subway. They certainly wouldn't talk to him.

Bakunin, for his part, always hit me as a Feudal or Reactionary Socialist, regardless of what he said. I know the passage below was written about others but it applies:

"Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe.

In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.

The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter."



That's harsh, Anax. Of course, some anarchists have argued that Marx's petite bourgeoisie origins are the source of his 'authoritarianism', not that I would. Though the decline of the order to which he was born was the result of the rise of new ruling class I find it hard to attribute Bakunin's life and work to the vengeances of the feudal aristocracy. Bakunin certainly lacked rigor but I find it hard to see him as so base.

The problem is that perhaps the only "advantage" of the dissolution of the Soviet Union is that all of the old theories may be tested.

I understand this to be disdainfully sardonic (from you? never!) but..

1. The people advancing these "old theories" were always pretty dodgy from Mao and Sweezy to all of the bougeoisie prevaricators.

If Machiavellian machinations -- political oppression, ruthlessness, intrigue, and double dealing are decisive, then the motive engine of history is..cruel and aleatory vicissitude? (I choose the term intentionally since it invokes Althusser which seems a fitting "tribute")

1a. If a "new" explotiing class arose -- or even if it was simply the restored bourgeoisie rebranded (a staple of capitalist marketing to be sure) -- then the question is on what basis this class arose, just as you say. There is no valdi way to make the claim without breaking with the tenet that (human) history is driven by class sturggle. For the march of the productive forces we are effectively asked to substitute random chance.

1b. These "old theories" are demonstrably made up on the spot by the bourgeoisie apologists as they come to the realization that history has left them in the dirt. They perceive Darwin has passed them over; far from being found fit to rule Clotho has spun her judgement and they are deemed wanting. So of course they try to change the rules and return to the vagaries of politicking and "cunning" to justify their own wretched continuation.

1c. Soviet interventions (ie Prague Spring) did not really constitute the break that spawned these new "old theories". No one suddenly became weak-kneed over "social imperialism" without some ulterior motive considering that Soviet interventions were present from the outset (Georgia in the '20s..). Some PB radicals lost their nerve..my heart, it is breaking..

2. Lets imagine the worst that petty bureaucratic favoritism ran rampant, and bureaucratic misappropriation was widespread and went virtually unchecked.

So what? Property was still nationalized, the means of production still lay in the public not private sphere, production and allocation still occured in a planned fashion. The bureaucracy did not and could not overthrow any of these fundamentals w/o negating themselves in the process, which seems to be exactly what happened.

The problem is that perhaps the only "advantage" of the dissolution of the Soviet Union is that all of the old theories may be tested.

I understand this to be disdainfully sardonic (from you? never!) but..

1. The people advancing these "old theories" were always pretty dodgy from Mao and Sweezy to all of the bougeoisie prevaricators.

If Machiavellian machinations -- political oppression, ruthlessness, intrigue, and double dealing are decisive, then the motive engine of history is..cruel and aleatory vicissitude? (I choose the term intentionally since it invokes Althusser which seems a fitting "tribute")

1a. If a "new" explotiing class arose -- or even if it was simply the restored bourgeoisie rebranded (a staple of capitalist marketing to be sure) -- then the question is on what basis this class arose, just as you say. There is no valdi way to make the claim without breaking with the tenet that (human) history is driven by class sturggle. For the march of the productive forces we are effectively asked to substitute random chance.

1b. These "old theories" are demonstrably made up on the spot by the bourgeoisie apologists as they come to the realization that history has left them in the dirt. They perceive Darwin has passed them over; far from being found fit to rule Clotho has spun her judgement and they are deemed wanting. So of course they try to change the rules and return to the vagaries of politicking and "cunning" to justify their own wretched continuation.

1c. Soviet interventions (ie Prague Spring) did not really constitute the break that spawned these new "old theories". No one suddenly became weak-kneed over "social imperialism" without some ulterior motive considering that Soviet interventions were present from the outset (Georgia in the '20s..). Some PB radicals lost their nerve..my heart, it is breaking..

2. Lets imagine the worst that petty bureaucratic favoritism ran rampant, and bureaucratic misappropriation was widespread and went virtually unchecked.

So what? Property was still nationalized, the means of production still lay in the public not private sphere, production and allocation still occured in a planned fashion. The bureaucracy did not and could not overthrow any of these fundamentals w/o negating themselves in the process, which seems to be exactly what happened.


And there was no fuckin' Stock Exchange. Exactly right. You said clearly what I was trying to say in a loving, sensitive, caring way...

Sardonic? Moi?

1a. If a "new" explotiing class arose -- or even if it was simply the restored bourgeoisie rebranded (a staple of capitalist marketing to be sure) -- then the question is on what basis this class arose, just as you say. There is no valdi way to make the claim without breaking with the tenet that (human) history is driven by class sturggle. For the march of the productive forces we are effectively asked to substitute random chance.
kid, maybe i'm just thickheaded but it sounds like you've got things backwards maybe? i mean, how could capitalism have been restored in the USSR in the absence of a functional bourgeoisie?

how would it have been possible for this functional bourgeoisie to emerge to the extent that it finally did, without a lapse in the class struggle, as implied by khrushchev's declaring the USSR "a state of the whole people" as opposed to a state of the workers?

maybe somebody can explain to me what destalinization entailed besides emptying the gulag camps...

edit: let me be clear i'm not saying the CPSU acted monolithically, or that the party taken as a whole was a new ruling class. but i think it's reasonable to assume that it housed its share of [edit 2] counter-revolutionary elements, the proponents of "normalcy" and peaceful coexistence

VS, capitalists dismantled the Soviet Union almost brick by fucking brick post-89, 91, in Russia and of course in Eastern Europe. They did this as a pre-requisite to install their new brand of "globalized" (neo-liberal) capitalism. Chlamor has an article detailing, I think, Lawrence Summers heinous role in this. Wish I had bookmarked that one.

My understanding is that a great internal battle WAS waged within the SU in defense of the SU, but obviously they lost. I have not read enough about thoise events to try to say anything authoritatively.

Of course there were reactionary elements, wasn't Gorbachev really the direct descendant of '68? This begs all sorts of questions about "social imperialism" of course -- like what exactly IS social imperialism if it is in defense of the revolution?

But the bottom line is how could the bureaucracy arbitrarily undo the property relations of the Soviet Union without being a class unto themselves? They couldn't and they didn't because they weren't. For socialism to cease to exist the bureaucracy/Party -- however corrupt, "politically reactionary" or whatever other accusations -- also had to cease to exist as the latter was only an extension of the former. And fold up shop is exactly what Gorbachev did. Then, the jackals..

History is not driven by conspiracy stories, and that is textbook to-the-letter what underlies the "lapse in the class struggle" theory.

1a. If a "new" explotiing class arose -- or even if it was simply the restored bourgeoisie rebranded (a staple of capitalist marketing to be sure) -- then the question is on what basis this class arose, just as you say. There is no valdi way to make the claim without breaking with the tenet that (human) history is driven by class sturggle. For the march of the productive forces we are effectively asked to substitute random chance.
kid, maybe i'm just thickheaded but it sounds like you've got things backwards maybe? i mean, how could capitalism have been restored in the USSR in the absence of a functional bourgeoisie?

how would it have been possible for this functional bourgeoisie to emerge to the extent that it finally did, without a lapse in the class struggle, as implied by khrushchev's declaring the USSR "a state of the whole people" as opposed to a state of the workers?

maybe somebody can explain to me what destalinization entailed besides emptying the gulag camps...

edit: let me be clear i'm not saying the CPSU acted monolithically, or that the party taken as a whole was a new ruling class. but i think it's reasonable to assume that it housed its share of [edit 2] counter-revolutionary elements, the proponents of "normalcy" and peaceful coexistence


It takes more than words...

"De-Stalinization" was about "Excesses". War Communism essentially extended from the early 1930s to the early 1950s - too long. Arguably, it really lasted from the October Revolution onward with only a few, short, breaks. Besides, some of the worst excesses were considered criminal. That's how Beria got shot (I think he was the only one). There were also some long overdue "reforms" (eliminating the Cult-of-Personality being only the most famous one).

Policy wise, what really changed? We are talking about internal economic policy here. Was there a new NEP? Were private banks chartered? In truth, the practical issues were around reconstruction (for the third time since the First World War) and still nothing really changed - though it could easily have been justified.

That's how Beria got shot (I think he was the only one).

Now that is sardonic, no matter how you meant it ;)

That's how Beria got shot (I think he was the only one).

Now that is sardonic, no matter how you meant it ;)


Talôs was a statue, a man of brass made by Hephaestus. He was given to Minos by Zeus or Hephaestus, and watched the island of Crete by walking round the island thrice every day. Whenever he saw strangers approaching, he made himself red-hot in fire, and then embraced the strangers when they landed. This is what happened to the Sardinians (Sardanios). According to the poet Simonides, when they refused their homage to Minos, they were hugged by Talôs. The Sardinians died with their mouths open... Sardanios gelos or Sardonic laugh (Sardinian laugh), meaning those who laugh at their own death, or laugh as they die.

Personally, I would prefer to be Talosic...

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/qa/talos4.jpg

I ask Qs about socialism because I don't know much about it other than general ideas surrounding criticisms of capitalism, and those I know, I agree with.


Say Monsieur Pyre, if I may jump in here I think I can shed some light on your question.

Criticisms of capitalism and socialism are the same thing. They aren't two choices on the buffet table. "Hmmmm, let's see. Should I have the capitalist cake, or the socialist sorbet...or just play it safe and take the liberal lime jello? I read that the capitalist cake has glass shards in it, but didn't I hear that the socialist sorbet has that stalinism in it, or high fructose corn syrup or something, and is not good for you? I just want to make an informed choice."

You see, it is as though the house is on fire and burning down, and arsonists are on the prowl, and you say that until and unless someone will show you the blueprint for the new house you won't help put the fire out or put the arsonists out of business, or even admit that the house in on fire and that the arsonists are responsible for that.

Many say this - "show me the alternative concrete plan, or I am not buying." But that is not genuine, although the person saying that may themselves be fooled about that and not intentionally being insincere.

The notion of there being alternative plans, or "systems," that we merely select from off of some ideological buffet table, is itself a false construct that is the product of capitalist propaganda. It is not real, it bears no resemblance to anything in the real world. So it is not a question that anyone can answer, because it is not really a question.

You are missing some fundamental understanding here. It is a struggle, has always been a struggle, and it goes on. It doesn't stop while we mull over our "choices." We are not reposing in some neutral territory, safely bobbing along as we weigh the options at our leisure. There are two choices - fight or surrender. Understanding socialism assist us in the struggle. It is not an alternative choice for a different system, as though we were tired of Chevies and were going to trade our Chevy in for a Ford.

I mean, it's not like a socialist revolution would have to try to convert OTHERS JUST LIKE ME, or anything. Is it?


It may not require that at all. The few may never be convinced, and do not need to be convinced. Don't assume you are representative of any significant number of people. The only question is whether or not you continue to identify with the ruling class, as all white collar professionals are intensively trained to do, or take a stand with the working class. Many professionals never will stand with the working class. So be it. Some will, and that is enough.

Many white collar educated professionals enjoy playing a game of "I dare you to try to convince me, and if you can't you fail. You need to be able to convince accomplished intelligent educated people such as myself, if you expect to get anywhere."

Here is one example of those sort of discussions:


We sallied out into the town. Just at the door of the station stood two soldiers with rifles and bayonets fixed. They were surrounded by about a hundred business men, Government officials and students, who attacked them with passionate argument and epithet. The soldiers were uncomfortable and hurt, like children unjustly scolded.

A tall young man with a supercilious expression, dressed in the uniform of a student, was leading the attack.

"You realise, I presume," he said insolently, "that by taking up arms against your brothers you are making your-selves the tools of murderers and traitors?"

"Now brother,"answered the soldier earnestly, "you don't understand. There are two classes, don't you see, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We--"

"Oh, I know that silly talk!" broke in the student rudely. "A bunch of ignorant peasants like you hear somebody bawling a few catch-words. You don't understand what they mean. You just echo them like a lot of parrots." The crowd laughed. "I'm a Marxian student. And I tell you that this isn't Socialism you are fighting for. It's just plain pro-German anarchy!"

"Oh, yes, I know," answered the soldier, with sweat dripping from his brow. "You are an educated man, that is easy to see, and I am only a simple man. But it seems to me--"

"I suppose," interrupted the other contemptuously, "that you believe Lenin is a real friend of the proletariat?"

"Yes, I do," answered the soldier, suffering.

"Well, my friend, do you know that Lenin was sent through Germany in a closed car? Do you know that Lenin took money from the Germans?"

"Well, I don't know much about that," answered the soldier stubbornly, "but it seems to me that what he says is what I want to hear, and all the simple men like me. Now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat--"

"You are a fool! Why, my friend, I spent two years in Schl?sselburg for revolutionary activity, when you were still shooting down revolutionists and singing 'God Save the Tsar!' My name is Vasili Georgevitch Panyin. Didn't you ever hear of me?"

"I'm sorry to say I never did," answered the soldier with humility. "But then, I am not an educated man. You are probably a great hero."

"I am," said the student with conviction. "And I am opposed to the Bolsheviki, who are destroying our Russia, our free Revolution. Now how do you account for that?"

The soldier scratched his head. "I can't account for it at all," he said, grimacing with the pain of his intellectual processes. "To me it seems perfectly simple-but then, I'm not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie--"

"There you go again with your silly formula!" cried the student.

"--only two classes," went on the soldier, doggedly. "And whoever isn't on one side is on the other..."

Ten Days That Shook the World (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext02/10daz10.txt), by John Reed

Policy wise, what really changed?

how reliable is bill bland's book "the restoration of capitalism in the soviet union"?

From one point of view the Khrushchev regime must be seen as an intermediate between the socialist society which existed in the Soviet Union prior to this period and the "economic reforms" introduced under the later Brezhnev regime. Thus it was responsible for a series of preparatory measures which were politically necessary before these "economic reforms" could be initiated. These were:

1) the denigration of Stalin, which allowed measures to be taken, in the name of "creative Marxism-Leninism", which were in direct conflict with Stalin's expressed political positions;

2) the removal from positions of influence -- or, in the case of Lavrenti Beria, the physical elimination -- of Stalin's remaining political allies: Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Lavrenti Beria;

3) the introduction of a degree of liberalism, associated with the attacks on the "dictatorship of Stalin", permitting Evsei Liberman and other economists to organise a campaign for "economic reforms" which received official endorsement in 1962; and

4) the introduction in 1964 of a pilot scheme for the "experimental" application of the economic reform in limited fields.

That the Khrushchev regime was not merely a preparation for the Brezhnev regime, however, is demonstrated by the fact that Khrushchev's successors were compelled to wage a fierce political struggle against him and his supporters and, when this had been victorious, make him an "unperson".

This conflict of interest was basically between two groups of embryonic capitalists: one group, centred mainly in the Russian Republic and composed mainly of high managerial personnel involved in heavy industry, was represented politically by the faction around Brezhnev; the other group, composed mainly of high managerial personnel involved in light industry, was represented politically by the faction around Krushchev.

The policy differences on the degree to which resources should be directed respectively to the heavy goods industries and the consumer goods industries, were accompanied by foreign policy differences. The Khrushchev faction, representing the economically less powerful embryonic capitalists involved in light industry, felt it necessary for the Soviet Union to follow a foreign policy which amounted in fact to subservience to the United States, while the Brezhnev faction stood for an "independent" foreign policy.

In October 1964 the embryonic capitalists involved in heavy industry in alliance with the military felt their position strong enough to jettison the internal and foreign policies of the Khrushchev regime, together with their author.

Many white collar educated professionals enjoy playing a game of "I dare you to try to convince me, and if you can't you fail. You need to be able to convince accomplished intelligent educated people such as myself, if you expect to get anywhere."

Other factor is that socialism is not simply a set of ideas or beliefs for us proselytize. Thats the definition of liberalism. I mentioned this to M Pyre once before but I think he took offense without taking the point.

Who cares what "socialists" do independent of the motion and action of the working class? In fact its a contradiction in terms, but our sideline socialists are better at talking about contradictions than spotting them

VS that reads like a bad Shakespeare knock-off. I am not a scholar of the SU, so I can't tell you much about light vs heavy industry in the 60s or whatever.

But nothing in your quote is concrete whatsoever. Its just a lot of ideological assertions.

And here's the funny part..this guy calls Beria Stalins "ally" whereas at least half of the sources you've cited claim Beria poisoned Stalin. It borders on incoherence much like the position of labeling the SU "enemies of the working class" while supporting their action around the globe post-WWII

I am also assuming that the threat of thermo-nuclear war was taken very seriously by both sides and that this had some impact on the "peaceful coexistence" platform. Not saying there were no accomodationists but it sure ain't black and white IMO

I think that Stalin's metal (heh, get it?) was tested in a way that few others ever were, but Bill Bland, with his love notes to Uncle Joe and his charges of "revisionsm", should save himself and kill the drama.

But then he'd be tabula rasa and "Bland" would be apt rather than Insipid

I am not a scholar of the SU
that's cool, neither am i.

this guy calls Beria Stalins "ally" whereas at least half of the sources you've cited claim Beria poisoned Stalin.
except i haven't cited any sources except that peking review article from earlier in the thread, which makes no mention of beria? and that last thing from the "purging stalin" thread that still casts beria as an ally of stalin.

at this point, to say my position is "incoherent" would be unfair, when it's obviously just undeveloped.

I am not a scholar of the SU
that's cool, neither am i.

this guy calls Beria Stalins "ally" whereas at least half of the sources you've cited claim Beria poisoned Stalin.
except i haven't cited any sources except that peking review article from earlier in the thread, which makes no mention of beria? and that last thing from the "purging stalin" thread that still casts beria as an ally of stalin.

at this point, to say my position is "incoherent" would be unfair, when it's obviously just undeveloped.


Oh my bad, I thought I read it in one of your links. Regardless, its a pretty common claim.

Wasn't calling your position incoherent, I meant the whole line of argument that everything after Stalin was "revisionist". It seems like a common warpath refrain replete with broken drums among "Marxist-Leninists"..I think they all used to be Maoists but I guess they broke with him somewhere down the line as well..

Speaking of which, I personally think China is a more confusing or at least complicated case than the USSR, but you only have to open up the Red Book once to see that Mao lost his marbles somewhere in there. It may simply be because the story is not as well chronicled in the West

PS I put up an article on Picasso once at Pop Indy..it was a history of his involvement with the CPSU and the PCF which went through multiple phases but always with Picasso being one of the few who stuck to his guns in spite of "everything".

His quote when asked why was (paraphrase) "Do the workers still control the factories? Do the peasants still hold the land? All that matters is the Revolution"

In other news, his drawing of Stalin sucked ;)

PS found the thread

http://www.populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=11627&highlight=picasso#11627

Policy wise, what really changed?

how reliable is bill bland's book "the restoration of capitalism in the soviet union"?

From one point of view the Khrushchev regime must be seen as an intermediate between the socialist society which existed in the Soviet Union prior to this period and the "economic reforms" introduced under the later Brezhnev regime. Thus it was responsible for a series of preparatory measures which were politically necessary before these "economic reforms" could be initiated. These were:

1) the denigration of Stalin, which allowed measures to be taken, in the name of "creative Marxism-Leninism", which were in direct conflict with Stalin's expressed political positions;

2) the removal from positions of influence -- or, in the case of Lavrenti Beria, the physical elimination -- of Stalin's remaining political allies: Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Lavrenti Beria;

3) the introduction of a degree of liberalism, associated with the attacks on the "dictatorship of Stalin", permitting Evsei Liberman and other economists to organise a campaign for "economic reforms" which received official endorsement in 1962; and

4) the introduction in 1964 of a pilot scheme for the "experimental" application of the economic reform in limited fields.

That the Khrushchev regime was not merely a preparation for the Brezhnev regime, however, is demonstrated by the fact that Khrushchev's successors were compelled to wage a fierce political struggle against him and his supporters and, when this had been victorious, make him an "unperson".

This conflict of interest was basically between two groups of embryonic capitalists: one group, centred mainly in the Russian Republic and composed mainly of high managerial personnel involved in heavy industry, was represented politically by the faction around Brezhnev; the other group, composed mainly of high managerial personnel involved in light industry, was represented politically by the faction around Krushchev.

The policy differences on the degree to which resources should be directed respectively to the heavy goods industries and the consumer goods industries, were accompanied by foreign policy differences. The Khrushchev faction, representing the economically less powerful embryonic capitalists involved in light industry, felt it necessary for the Soviet Union to follow a foreign policy which amounted in fact to subservience to the United States, while the Brezhnev faction stood for an "independent" foreign policy.

In October 1964 the embryonic capitalists involved in heavy industry in alliance with the military felt their position strong enough to jettison the internal and foreign policies of the Khrushchev regime, together with their author.


I think it is not the reliability of the book that is at issue. It is that it asserts what needs to be proven and then reinterprets history based on those simple assertions - a conclusion looking for evidence. The kid is on the right track here, although I wouldn't have addressed the "concreteness" of the points. The issue is this: if we could absolutely prove that Khrushchev (or anybody else) was not a good Marxist or any kind of Marxist, if we could even prove that he dreamed nothing but capitalist daydreams, what would that have to do with the state of class relations in the Soviet Union? Bland approaches the issue as if it where a faction fight between sects on issues of theoretical purity. But the subject is much more fundamental. It is as if, through the discovery of lost letters, we suddenly discovered that John Quincy Adams was a secret monarchist and hated Jefferson and Washington. What relevance would that have to the question of whether the U.S. was a capitalist country before, during, or after Adams' presidency?

Of Bland's points, only the one about light and heavy industry even approaches a question of practical policy. This debate did occur but compared to the scale of the issues we purport to be discussing here, it is downright trivial. The issue was initially one of emphasis, part of what I called "war communism" which went on for too long, above. It is less than an atom compared to the debates at the time of the initiation of the NEP and at its termination, and at several other times in Soviet history. Yet these were debates which did effect the creation and destruction of classes in the Soviet Union, with Communists on both sides of the questions. Not so with "Heavy and light industry".

What makes this unusually offbeat is that real "reforms" meant to undermine Socialism were actual features of several regimes in Eastern Europe - in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s, in Hungary in the 1970s and 80s and in Poland in the 80s. In each and every case, they involved sector privatization, changes in property law, legalization of "grey market enterprises", the chartering of Banks and sometimes enterprises outside of the 5 year plan, and the "relaxation" of the rules for external investment (and these "measures" pale in comparison to what has actually been done in China, to name one later example). Nothing even remotely approaching any of this was ever even proposed, by any "faction", in the Soviet Union... not even at the very end by Yeltsin.

This idea of "classes" based on "ideas" alone or on "ideas" plus privileges is thoroughly anti-Marxist and anti-materialist. Yes, I know that Mao talked this jive and I think he was completely full-of-shit. Yet, I don't think that Mao being full of shit had any bearing on whether the China of Mao was Socialist. It clearly was. Even the Soviets said so.

This particular debate goes far deeper than this, into questions on the role of "ideology" after the revolution, into issues of state planning, into the problems of "socialism in one country" and into the relationship between defending "liberated territory" versus a "Socialist Foreign Policy", but I'm gonna leave those alone for the time being.

Hmmm.

So Bakunin would be the ideological godfather of Ludwig von Mises and the libertarians who profess minarchism?

If that's true, what distinguishes von Mises minarchism from anarchism?

And what's M&E? I missed that abbreviation.




Anarchism & Individualism The anarchist core beliefs of rejection of state power andemphasis on free association were developed at the time of theInternational and have characterised anarchism since. As a result,opponents have claimed that anarchism is nothing more than aradical form of liberal individualism, which places individual libertybefore the needs of society as a whole. This misrepresents the anarchist arguments.The anarchist notion of individual liberty was based on ideas put forward during the 1848 revolution in France, the rallying cry of whichwas ‘the slavery of the least of men is the slavery of all’. They arguedthat individual liberty was based on collective liberty; because human beings can only confirm their humanity within society, so the freedom of others is merely a reflection of one’s own freedom. In short, it is impossible to be free unless all others around you are free. In Bakunin’s words:“I am truly free only when all human beings are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary condition and confirmation.”The anarchists dismissed the liberal notion of the individual,which, they argued, was rooted in the Christian idea that people were not created by society, but by God, outside of and apart from it.Accordingly, liberal social democratic thinking saw humans as pre-dating society: it was not society who created humans, but humanswho created society. Within this thinking, society is merely a loose collection of individuals who come together to perform specific functions, such as work, etc. The most important function of societyfor the liberal is to limit the freedom of the individual. This is because our free will, motivated by pure self-interest, would lead us to attack others to meet our immediate needs. To ensure this, a ‘social contract’ between humans was observed and enforced, and so thestate was created as an outside’ authority to regulate human relations. Should this authority be taken away, so the theory goes,then we would return to our natural state and chaos would ensue.Thus, liberal social democratic thinking based on individualism viewed society as a contract not to rip each other apart.The anarchists, however, put forward a very different view of human development. They saw humans as a product of society,without which they could not exist. They argued that humans only10emerged from a state of brutality through collective organisation and labour, through which they were able to create the conditions that allowed their mutual emancipation. In other words, humans were only humanised and emancipated by forming a society. Humanity was therefore created by society and it is only in society that we become human. Placed outside of society we would not be human - alone,able to speak and think, but conscious only of (one)self. Bakunin summed up human development as follows:“Man becomes conscious of himself and his humanity only in societyand only by the collective action of the whole of society. He freed himself from the yoke of external nature only by collective and social labour, which alone can transform the Earth into an abode favourable to the development of humanity. Without such material emancipation the intellectual and moral emancipation of the individual is impossible.He can emancipate himself from the yoke of his own nature, i.e.subordinate his instincts and movements of his body to the conscious direction of his mind, the development of which is fostered only by education and training. But education and training are pre-eminently and exclusively social, hence isolated individuals cannot possibly become conscious of their freedom.”For the anarchists then, all human development, intellectual,moral and material, was the product of human society. As such,progress was based on co-operation within society. It was logical and natural for humans to come together in a free federation of common interests, aspirations and tendencies; indeed, this is the only way to create a society capable of collectively providing the education,training and material prosperity to ensure that each individual developed their faculties and powers to the full.

http://www.selfed.org.uk/units/2001/pdfs/binder.pdf