OscailtIs It a State?Anarchists Are Really Against the State: A Response to Marxists2013-05-10T13:39:13+08:00Anarkismoanarkismoeditors@lists.riseup.nethttp://www.anarkismo.net/atomfullposts?story_id=25430http://www.anarkismo.net/graphics/feedlogo.gifSemi-State?http://www.anarkismo.net/article/25430#comment148552013-05-10T13:39:13+08:00the red star twinkles mischeviouslyGood analysis. Personally, I've never been much of a fan of the term 'workers' s...Good analysis. Personally, I've never been much of a fan of the term 'workers' state' much preferring the term commune, direct democracy, self-managed society. What about the term 'semi-state' however? Is that not somewhat more applicable, in that a radically democratic council system, possibly in its intial phases or after a period of time, may develop a layer of bureaucracy, or by taking over certain 'state-like' functions on its own behalf, it may, consciously or unconsciously, copy some of the top down and authoritarian measures similar to how the state carries out, say, social welfare, possibly because people don't have a clear idea or ideal for how an alternative, better system of social welfare coud be implemented? Or people could have a fine ideal for an alternative and better system of social welfare, and get bogged down or face problems on an organisational level - thus making it more likely that people would revert to old methods, feeling that perhaps 'there is no alternative' to the existing system of social welfare. Also...http://www.anarkismo.net/article/25430#comment148562013-05-10T16:12:56+08:00the red star twinkles mischievouslyChomsky has previously called for a vote for the Green Party- does this mean he ...Chomsky has previously called for a vote for the Green Party- does this mean he has abandoned or watered down his anarchism? Or does it just mean that he does not consistently hold to an anti-electoralist position? I think the latter is correct. I don't think the ISO (for example) have abandoned one of their fundamental basis to their politics ('needing to overthrow the bourgeois state') just because they have previously recommended voting for the Green Party. If that was true, then Chomsky is also guilty of that. One can disagree with voting for the Green Party in a particular scenario (or any scenario) but I don't think you can say on the basis of this one decision they took that the ISO, and those of their kind, have all become opportunist sell outs.Though personally speaking, I think electoralism as a tactic, even just as a way of rallying people and bringing them together, is not really much of an option in the US, for reasons you are all too familiar with. Also, historically speaking, from what I understand, even many CNT members, perhaps most influenced by anarchist anti-electoralism anywhere in the world, voted for the Popular Front in 1936- because they thought a Popular Front victory, with all its substantial limitations, would still be better than a victory for the Right. I could be wrong about that, but I seem to remember reading that somewhere. That does not mean that it was neccesarily the right decision for those CNT members to make, but it happened all the same, and it didn't make those CNT members opportunist sell outs. chomskyhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/25430#comment148572013-05-10T20:18:41+08:00meI'm sorry but who gives a shit about Chomsky and how is his calling for a vote f...I'm sorry but who gives a shit about Chomsky and how is his calling for a vote for the Green party related to the article in any way at all?Withering Away; Chomsky; and the ISOhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/25430#comment148592013-05-13T10:15:53+08:00WayneR.S.T.M. raises the question of whether an anarchist council-federation might no...R.S.T.M. raises the question of whether an anarchist council-federation might not degenerate. Yes it might. There are no guarantees. This is why I wrote, above, “the centralized and repressive aspects of political organization should actively “be withered” by the working population.” That is, the liberated producers will have to think about how to prevent necessary centralization and repression from metastasizing into bureaucracy and a specialized repressive apparatus. And then work at making the commune as decentralized, democratic, and consensual as possible. I counterpose this to the Marxist and Leninist idea that the state will automatically “wither away” by itself.<br />
<br />
To Me: R.S.T.M.’s point about Chomsky, I think, is that if Chomsky the anarchist can vote for the Green Party, then I should not condemn the ISO for doing the same, saying, as I do, that this means rejecting the need to overturn the capitalist state. To which I reply:<br />
<br />
Chomsky not only votes for the Greens but is also for voting for the Democrats (in swing states) to defeat the right . Now, I respect Chomsky greatly for his work in exposing the evils of capitalism and the state. And I am not in the business of saying who is and who is not an “anarchist.” I am sure he is sincere when he describes himself that way. But what he is not is a *revolutionary* anarchist. <br />
<br />
As for the ISO, you (R.S.T.M.) don’t know much of its history and theory if you think that its support for Nader was merely “one decision.” On the contrary, a major part of its strategy is to build a third-party, beginning at least with a middle class base and a reformist program. I know, since I was a member of its precursor the I.S., when it worked to create the Peace and Freedom Party in 1968. (You can read the original statements in M. Friedman, ed., The New Left of the Sixties; Independent Socialist Press, 1972.) <br />
<br />
And they do this without educating people that elections cannot fundamentally change capitalism (not even the election of a revolutionary socialist party, let alone a liberal third capitalist party), and that socialists need to declare that a social revolution is needed (which was, I pointed out, Lenin’s approach to electoralism). This does not mean that ISOers are personally "sell-outs;" it means they are politically mistaken.<br />
Third Partyhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/25430#comment148612013-05-13T12:57:04+08:00the red star twinkles mischievouslyYes, I'm not greatly familiar with the history and theory of the precursor of th...Yes, I'm not greatly familiar with the history and theory of the precursor of the ISO, the I.S., only in a cursory way, and wasn't aware that they worked to create the Peace and Freedom Party. If you can point me in the direction of a history of the I.S., I'd be interested to read it. I agree on the third party-point- It's not much of a way forward to spend time and effort trying to build a third party, particularly if it has a rather weak program, rather than trying to advance the struggle through independent, democratic, mass movements influenced by radical ideas. Electionshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/25430#comment148642013-05-14T04:39:44+08:00WayneTo RSTM, I am sorry but I cannot think of a history of the IS movement. This tre...To RSTM, I am sorry but I cannot think of a history of the IS movement. This trend followed from Hal Draper's rejection of Shachtman's swing to the far right and Harrington's development of a more moderate social-democratic trend. Its current incarnation is in the ISO and Solidarity, and also the journal New Politics. From Draper to now they have advocated third-party development as the strategy for changing society. You can find the material in the ISO's and Solidarity's publications and journals and in NP around election times. Note that this is a distinctive aspect of Trotskyism as opposed to Stalinism in the area of elections, namely that the organizations derived from Trotskyism will not cross the line to support of the Democratic Party, while the groups derived from Stalinism will.The legacy of the Cold War persistshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/25430#comment148692013-05-23T18:26:05+08:00Chevy Phillips"Other Leninists exist, such as Communists in the tradition of the old pro-Mosco..."Other Leninists exist, such as Communists in the tradition of the old pro-Moscow parties, Maoists, and some others... They support the monstrous one-party tyrannies of Stalin or Mao....<br />
<br />
Does it have to be this way? Is it absolutely necessary for non-communists/non-Marxists to lazily repeat the clichés and propaganda of fascism and the ultra right?<br />
<br />
.... But they often follow a reformist approach, that is, try to change society through the existing state rather than by seeking to overturn it and create something new"<br />
<br />
Right.... that explains the countless revolutionary armed struggles that have existed (with varying degrees of success) that take the line of the "old pro-Moscow" or Maoist tradition. While these people were fighting and dying in the mud, anarchists all over the world were sipping tea in North American and European boutiques.<br />
<br />
An example of "communist" ignorancehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/25430#comment148722013-05-26T01:10:48+08:00WayneChevy Phillip’s level of ignorance about the history of Leninism, Stalinism, Mao...Chevy Phillip’s level of ignorance about the history of Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and anarchism is remarkable except that it is not so rare. For the sake of the exercise:<br />
<br />
(1) Am I a bad “non-communist/non-Marxist”? Actually I am an anarchist-communist who is greatly influenced by Marxism (especially autonomous Marxism).<br />
<br />
(2) Am I “lazily” repeating “clichés and propaganda” of the imperialists? Actually I am repeating what anarchists have said from their own experience in the Soviet Union and China, since Emma Goldman. And what Khruschov admitted in 1956. (Has Chevy ever spoken to refugees from China? I have.) But Maoists and/or Stalinists have the moral equivalent of “Holocaust denial” in their denial of the true horrors of Stalinist and Maoist oppression. <br />
<br />
(3) Of course, the US imperialists will use the real evils of the former Soviet Union and Maoist China in order to attack their enemies. Similarly, the US imperialists used the real evils of Nazism and Fascism in order to attack their enemies in WWII. What else do you expect? And the Soviet Union used real evils of the US capitalists in order to justify their rulership (a method Chevy Phillips is imitating).<br />
<br />
(4) Chevy Phillips seems to be unaware of the history of Communist Party opportunism and reformism, in Europe and throughout the world, ever since 1935. (The Maoists used to condemn this as “revisionism.”) In the US, they have consistently orientated to the “left” wing of the Democratic Party. <br />
<br />
(5) He also seems to be unaware that most of those engaging in “revolutionary armed struggles” these days are the “non-communist/non-Marxist” religious jihadis, and not Marxists. Why? Because Marxist “communism” has been discredited in much of the world, due to its own failures.<br />
<br />
(6) But the funniest comment of all is his last reference to those “anarchists sipping tea in boutiques” in Europe and the US. (Presumably Marxist intellectuals do not sit around in coffeehouses and sip beverages.) As has been shown by van der Walt, Schmidt, and others, anarchists have been active in the struggles of every oppressed people around the globe. See <a href="http://anarkismo.net/article/19702?search_text=Wayne+Price" title="http://anarkismo.net/article/19702?search_text=Wayne+Price">http://anarkismo.net/article/19702?search_text=Wayne+Price</a> <br />
<br />
Also see my discussion of the French anarchists’ support for the Algerian revolution.<br />
<a href="http://anarkismo.net/article/24619?search_text=Wayne+Price" title="http://anarkismo.net/article/24619?search_text=Wayne+Price">http://anarkismo.net/article/24619?search_text=Wayne+Price</a>