[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / bleached / choroy / dempart / doomer / truebrit / vg / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: e788240a017a2fe⋯.jpg (177.68 KB, 600x600, 1:1, AnarchistLogo.jpg)

File: 1e184e7d8b6df6b⋯.jpg (16.78 KB, 188x255, 188:255, AnimeSocialism.jpg)

File: c067e27b63d0488⋯.gif (25.1 KB, 533x799, 533:799, AnarchistKid.gif)

 No.2864150

So I've been reading this board for a while now, and you've all become a lot more critical of anarchism recently.

I understand that a lot of you are state-socialists (Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, e.c.t), which I don't have anything against necessarily.

Despite my anarchism I am more than willing to cooperate with a state-socialist, and would even be willing to temporarily drop my anarchism if a socialist state was proven to be efficient and not corrupt like all off the capitalist states, knowing that the end goal of state socialism is communism, which is anarchistic anyway.

So, I would like to ask a few questions to you guys.

And I know that this is 8chan, so I should prepare myself for getting burned to at least some degree, but it would be cool if you could respond to this thread respectfully (in the words of Sasha Baron Cohen) as to prevent the discord from becoming confused by stupid rivalry bullshit.

So anyways, here are my questions:

When the revolution occurs, instead of going after each individual capitalist organization, why don't you just go for the state?

The state's powers is the main thing which allows private-property rights to stay intact.

Would it not simply be more efficient to destroy the main headquarters of the state government and simply fall back on the organized working class to form their own anarchist delegates and then establish federations for the delegates to communicate with each-other (I suppose this would assume that the working class was organized anarchically before this take-over occurs)?

Fighting back against the police and the military in this process wouldn't be as hard as you think. The police and the military will always be a minority in society.

The police for example could easily be destroyed by an organized working class as the proles will always outnumber them.

This is because the state relies more on the fear of a Hobbes style state of nature emerging if the state were to loose its control, rather than its armed forces, which is only really designed to beat down the minority of law-breakers.

As far as the military is concerned, their artillery could easily be taken care off through some home made explosives (you'd be surprised by what you can make with just the stuff in your home) and some well planned guerilla warfare tactics.

And again, the proles will always outnumber them, this time because most of the population needs to be entirely focused on production so most people can not be made to become soldiers.

And lastly, it is the state which provides the armed forced their legal authority to act in society anyway. That in itself would servery weaken them.

Not to mention how dis-coordinated this minority of state-agents would be after their centralized bases of communication has been destroyed. An organized working class would destroy these confused people with guns, stumbling about for someone to give them orders.

How do you Plan to Prevent your Socialist Government From Becoming Corrupt?

While I empathize with and agree that some level of authoritarianism and militarism would be needed after a socialist revolution (whether through the state or through anarchism), how would you safeguard against your socialist state from abusing it's newly found level of authority and militaristic power (even the most authoritarian of socialists can't deny that this screwed up socialist states like the USSR, Cuba and socialist China to at least some degree)?

And once the material conditions have been met in order to implement full communism how can you be sure that this state which you have granted so much power over everyone else will be willing to have itself wither away and bring about communism?

How Would A Fully Communist Society Politically Function Once Achieved?

A fully communist society is classless, moneyless and stateless.

How would this society politically function?

And why could these political methods not be applied now in the form of anarchism?

So that's all my questions.

I won't be able to respond immediately because I have stuff to do, but I will get back to this thread as soon as possible.

And sorry for any spelling mistakes

Thanks

 No.2864169

File: 68b359c4b034238⋯.jpg (56.45 KB, 720x473, 720:473, 1404562487576.jpg)

>When the revolution occurs, instead of going after each individual capitalist organization, why don't you just go for the state?

What communist revolution does not other through the government?

What do you think communists actually want to do in revolution?

>How do you Plan to Prevent your Socialist Government From Becoming Corrupt?

A vangard party of dedicated communists

>How Would A Fully Communist Society Politically Function Once Achieved?

there would be no need for politics

>And why could these political methods not be applied now in the form of anarchism?

because anarchism has a huge fail rate in comparison to Marxist Leninism.

The real question should be how can these political methods be applied now in the form of anarchism?


 No.2864181

File: 7ce1f2ac284727b⋯.pdf (3.36 MB, Lenin - State and Revoluti….pdf)

>>2864150

>When the revolution occurs, instead of going after each individual capitalist organization, why don't you just go for the state?

Eh? The first order of business is the smashing of the bourgeois state and its replacement with the proletarian state. The state is, more or less, a tool wielded by one class for the suppression of another; for as long as class antagonisms exist, one of those classes will be compelled to capture state power in order to safeguard its own interests. Thus, states have a distinct class character based on the class that wields state power; the proletarian state will function to protect socialist property and the working class while repressing and expropriating the bourgeoisie. To simply smash the state and replace it with nothing would still lead to the reformation of a state - whether by the revolutionaries or the reactionaries, whether or not those in power called it a state - since simply smashing the state does nothing to actually get rid of these class antagonisms. If you haven't read it yet, .pdf related is probably the best work out there on the Marxist theory of the state, and I recommend it highly. It's what moved me away from anarchism and towards Marxism-Leninism.

>As far as the military is concerned, their artillery could easily be taken care off through some home made explosives (you'd be surprised by what you can make with just the stuff in your home) and some well planned guerilla warfare tactics.

Assuming that winning a civil war is going to be easy is very, very silly, given basically the entirety of history. For example, Russia was invaded by fourteen different countries, as well as having its own reactionary White army to contend with - an army that, bear in mind, continued to fight on for years even after the Bolsheviks conquered state power - and saw millions killed in the fighting alone, to say nothing of the deaths after the war due to its lingering effects - famine, disease etc.. Now, unless revolution happens everywhere at once, and each revolutionary war is a truly "civil" war with no outside intervention, the revolutionary proletariat will likely have to contend with not only its "own" military, but those of outside powers, too.

>And once the material conditions have been met in order to implement full communism how can you be sure that this state which you have granted so much power over everyone else will be willing to have itself wither away and bring about communism?

The state does not wither away instantly by conscious decision, in some sort of binary "now you see it, now you don't" sleight of hand, but rather organically and gradually, as more and more functions that were formerly the preserve of the state pass into the realm of everyday life and those that are no longer needed are abandoned.

>How do you Plan to Prevent your Socialist Government From Becoming Corrupt?

On this, answers may vary. I tend to favour Cockshott's proposal of electronic sortition and direct democracy as a solid barrier to the rise of any kind of self-interested bureaucratic strata.

>How Would A Fully Communist Society Politically Function Once Achieved?

What need is there for politics - the vying for control of the means of life by one class or another - in a classless society? There would simply be the administration of things.

>And why could these political methods not be applied now in the form of anarchism?

See above, and also in .pdf related. Simply smashing the state does not communism make.


 No.2864185

>>2864150

>How do you Plan to Prevent your Socialist Government From Becoming Corrupt?

My autistic idea is to have a People's Assembly seperate from the government, to which people are chosen at random for 4 years, maybe less. The Assembly's main task would be to oversee the Party and the Government to make sure it doesn't succumb to revisionism. Ther would be quotas for areas of expertise which each assembly would set for the next term, but ordinary proles and peasants should always comprise no less than at least 50% of the body.

The exact details of the relationship of the Party and the Assembly would have to be negotiated and adaptable to the situation. But at the very least, the Assembly should have the right to oversee stuff like five-year-plans, demand the Party explain positions the Assembly doesn't agree with and veto Party policies that are found revisionist or violating the interests of the people, or put them to general vote (and there would ofc. be legal standards that would have to be met for this). Additionally the Assembly should have the right to vote from tgeir ranks persons of trust who could attend party meetings. The Assembly would also share equal legistlative power with the Party in matters that have to do with it's power and relationship between the Assembly and the Party.

The Assembly should have the police force under their command to make sure it's not used against the people, and an internal intelligence service to check the backgrounds of candidates to make sure no revisionists or foreign influence get in.

For the members, the assembly would be like jury duty, but longer. Conducting some other form of critical service, like fighting in a war, could entitle a person to opt out of Assembly service, but in general it would be a matter of duty that a person can only be relieved from by health reasons. Students and soldiers in conscription would be exempted from elections until graduation or the end of conscription. There could also be a set number of years during which a person is exempted, from the end of studies/conscription so people can get their lives rolling.


 No.2864224

File: b619a6288c2e063⋯.jpg (21.86 KB, 430x440, 43:44, AnarchistPepe.jpg)

>> because anarchism has a huge fail rate in comparison to Marxist Leninism.

Id say its not that anarchism has a higher fail-rate, rather that it has been attempted much less than Marxist revolutions have.

Most revolutions don't come directly from the working class a lot of the time. They're usually lead by political parties or generals who keep the power they've obtained instead of devolving it into anarchism.

>> Assuming that winning a civil war is going to be easy is very, very silly

I know. I wasn't trying to say that it would be easy, but that the proletariat would likely win. Even if other countries were to get involved, which I'm sure they would, state militaries tend to have numbers ranging in the hundreds of thousands, where as the US for example has a working class population ranging into the millions.

You know, on reflection this "question" I was asking was more of a general point I was trying to make that I think Marxists and Anarchists agree on already, so it was kind of stupid.

>>2864185

I like this idea. It's autisticness seems to have helped it more than anything.

You know, on reflection, all of the questions I was asking were stupid, and I certainly haven't done anarchism any favors by asking them. It was a lot of common-sense stuff really.

I think what I was actually doing when writing my original post on a sub-conscious level was that I basically already knew the answers to my questions, and I just wanted to start a conversation in order to analyses state-socialism as to test my own beliefs, but because of the nature of my questioning I made myself look very stupid in the process.

Still, these responses so far have been good, especially for how stupid my questions were.

I'd say I'm still incredibly doubtful of any state government overall, and that the best people to administer production should be the working class themselves.

I also think that the anarcho-syndicalist model of using delegates which communicate via federations from the ground up would also be the most efficient form of governance.

You also prevent the "Animal Farm effect" where the state ends up replacing the bourgeoisie as a type of state-capitalism, which has undeniably been a problem in a lot of socialist states.

Still, even the worst socialist state pails in comparison to capitalism as a whole, which results in 10 million deaths a year, needless poverty where you have five empty houses for every homeless person in America, enough food to feed 12 Billion people while millions go hungry, e.c.t.


 No.2864228

>>2864150

based brother. solidarity forever!


 No.2864232

>>2864150

capital runs on profit and can go bad much more easily than a state, it is only in the failure of capitalist organizations that the flames of defection will emerge in the state, which will allow for a state overthrow alot more easier.

A cop is less likely to protect the rich if the rich run themselves into the ground. (unable to pay for his services)

Corruption is not something that any idealogy can 'prevent', even under anarchy where mutual aid is the foundation, people could easily still act as functioning anarchists while relaying information to reactionaries etc.

Ideally, it would be a society where governance is done by transparent algorithms agreed upon by all through understanding, that will then determine how to use/distribute the resources gained through the labour of communists.


 No.2864241

>>2864150

>why don't you just go for the state?

Revolutions don't occur in a vacuum. If the state were to be smashed immediately, neighboring powers would take advantage of this disorganization, rolling in and crushing whatever prole resistance meant to take its place.

Look at what happened with France during its revolution: half a dozen countries began literally marching towards it and sending in saboteurs and counter-revolutionaries to gain the upper hand in the chaos. Without a state of some sort, secret police, and terror, France would have been partitioned into 4 different land masses, probably to this day.


 No.2864249

>>2864233

I meant to say state-socialists.

Although that correction could just be you taking shots at the groups I was describing, I can't tell.

>>The real question should be how can these political methods be applied now in the form of anarchism?

Here's an over-simplified explanation of how this would work, at least as it applies to anarchy-syndicalism.

At the lowest level you have the delegates, which is made up of groups of people who take turns in governing things within the area which they occupy.

People take turns in administration for a given period of time, with the ability to withdraw that person from governance if they screw up consistently or turn out to be incompetent, as decided through a vote.

In production, administrators are chosen based on their intellectual authority, not on any violence based authority stemming from private property ownership or a state.

Basically on the level of delegates you have a bundle of democratic tools and protocols which keep things running smoothly.

Delegates can be formed for factory production, villages, towns, e.c.t.

Delegates can group up and sort things out when they come into decisions which span across them.

Then one level up you have the federations

The federations act less like parliaments or congresses, and more like central hubs where the delegates communicate with each-other. They do also hold votes when necessary.

They would encompass as many or as little delegates as necessary.

It is important to empathize that what differentiates all this from our current governing bodies is that there is not authority-backed violence within this system. There are no prime-ministers or presidents, no leaders who must reign for a fixed set of time, e.c.t.

It is completely horizontal.

When administrators are selected in the delegates they are "obeyed" or followed only on the basis of their expertise, not because someone will shoot you if you don't.

Lastly, this entire explanation is very rushed, so I probably have got some things wrong. Take it with a grain of salt.

>>Corruption is not something that any idealogy can 'prevent', even under anarchy where mutual aid is the foundation, people could easily still act as functioning anarchists while relaying information to reactionaries etc.

Of course, I don't think that corruption can ever be 100% prevented.

But corruption becomes much less of an issue under anarchism.

If a few delegates try to take over or something, it's much easier to deal with than if a few generals or politicians in the state become corrupt and try to take over the one or few main institutions which control everything.


 No.2864254

File: 32a87e0ba8388b3⋯.jpg (23.05 KB, 474x355, 474:355, AnarchismRally.jpg)

I'll link to some videos of people explaining anarchist organization in more detail.

<Workers Self Organization

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNwAZSBMb0

<Anarcho-Syndicalist Principles of Governance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RwlaNva_4g

<And lastly, just because it's fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI


 No.2864255

File: c76a9d72edce6ba⋯.jpeg (72.72 KB, 310x589, 10:19, E9250B2E-5684-4FF6-BBA9-3….jpeg)

>>2864150

This question was dealt with very well by Engels many years ago.

>Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and communism. The chief point concerning the former is that he does not regard capital, i.e. the class antagonism between capitalists and wage workers which has arisen through social development, but the state as the main evil to be abolished. While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that state power is nothing more than the organization which the ruling classes-landowners and capitalists-have provided for themselves in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself [fällt von selbst]. The difference is an essential one: Without a previous social revolution the abolition [Abschaffung] of the state is nonsense; the abolition of capital is precisely the social revolution and involves a change in the whole mode of production. Now then, inasmuch as to Bakunin the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can keep the state-that is, any state, whether it be a republic, a monarchy or anything else-alive. Hence complete abstention from all politics. To commit a political act, especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayal of principal.

In other words, anarchists confuse cause and effect, they reverse the relationship between base and superstructure. Class society does not exist because of the state, the state exists because of class society. The state is nothing more than a mechanism that one class uses to suppress another. Because class society cannot be abolished overnight, there is necessary an interim period between a proletarian revolution and the establishment of a communist society. During this interim period, class society still exists, and so the state exists as well. Because of this, the proletariat must conquer state power and wield it for the purpose of destroying the ruling class during this period. Through this, class society will disappear, and since class society is the basis of the state, the state will disappear as well.


 No.2864256

>How do you Plan to Prevent your Socialist Government From Becoming Corrupt?

I remember asking this to Ismail and he only wrote me a Lenin quote about how it would take a lot to get ride of the evils of bureocracy, i hope you guys can come up with better answers.


 No.2864257

File: df79063d3984e90⋯.png (47.59 KB, 652x501, 652:501, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 651bf2d44d870bd⋯.png (23.1 KB, 567x306, 63:34, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 78cd38b757149e6⋯.pdf (914.25 KB, Cockshott, Cottrell - Towa….pdf)

>>2864224

>Most revolutions don't come directly from the working class a lot of the time.

U wot. The Bolsheviks literally could not have won the civil war without the mass support of the workers and peasants.

>They're usually lead by political parties or generals who keep the power they've obtained

These parties themselves - are they not made up of proletarians? Do they not seek to incorporate the widest possible section of the class-conscious proletariat into their ranks? This argument that a proletarian party is not a genuine expression of the working class is a curious one.

>instead of devolving it into anarchism.

As above. One cannot instantly "step into" anarchism; the abolition of the conditions that give rise to the state will naturally be a relatively long process, and even then, existing socialist projects have hardly been in any position to get rid of or not seize the state, and those that attempted to do so either perished or were forced to adopt the state by any other name [1, 2].

>I'd say I'm still incredibly doubtful of any state government overall, and that the best people to administer production should be the working class themselves.

When the working class holds state power, this is exactly what happens. Let me put it this way - are the administrators of the bourgeois state any less bourgeois for being administrators?

>a type of state-capitalism

Citation very much needed. For it to be state capitalism, you would have to give evidence for the rise of a new exploiting class, i.e. a class that exercised ownership over means of production and lived solely by the surplus labour of workers employed to work those means of production. For example, the Soviet bureaucracy did not exercise direct ownership over the MoP that they administered - rather, those MoP belonged to the state as a whole - they could neither sell them nor buy more, and MoP could not be inherited. Production was carried out according to a socially-determined plan - sure, the planning process could've stood to be more democratic depending on who you ask (I'd agree), but it was still a socially-determined plan. Pics related are from Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism, which is well worth reading in its own right; I'll stick it up too.

1: https://isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

2: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm


 No.2864258

>>2864224

>I like this idea

Thanks, comrade. I should say I got the idea of randomly selected Assembly from some Cockshott talk I heard, but I still believe we need a strata of non-electional bureaucrats and experts to even make planned economy possible. I haven't had the time to give Cockshott a thorough reading, so I might just be coming up with an idea he's already come up with, I don't know.

>My questions are stupid, I suck

Your questions are not stupid, everyone on this board is just a hyper-autist.

>The best people to administrate production should be the working class themselves.

But different areas have different rates of development and differening productive forces available to them, while none of them has the understanding of what's needed in each area/community. Some form of federation with sufficient authority would of course mitigate this, but each delegation is prone to emphasize the needs of the community they represent.

I'm sympathetic to Anarchism for the trust it places on the people. Every capitalist restoration was brought to us top-down and opposed by the masses. I'm opposed to it based on practical matters. Just to survive the initial foreign assault, a socialist state needs an incredibly strong degree of organization and a sufficiently narrow, sufficiently authorative body of leadership that can make BIG and difficult decisions FAST.

Anarchism always strikes me as a good-hearted but misguided attempt at going straight for full communism, while misunderstanding the reasons why us Marxist-Leninist-Statists think a state-socialist phase is required in the first place.


 No.2864317

File: 7c708ddd2745aa8⋯.png (209.36 KB, 498x750, 83:125, SyndicalistPepe.png)

File: 9757324682687ee⋯.png (7.74 KB, 275x183, 275:183, DontTreadonUs.png)

>> Your questions are not stupid, everyone on this board is just a hyper-autist.

Awe, thanks.

I always feel nervous whenever I post on this board, because despite this being definitely the most civil board on 8chan, it still has the same sort of reactionary insulting of people and emotive bullshit which makes me scared that I'll piss everyone off.

It's good to hear that I'm not at fault here, thanks


 No.2864319

>> Some form of federation with sufficient authority would of course mitigate this, but each delegation is prone to emphasize the needs of the community they represent.

The main purpose of the federations as far as the economy is concerned is that they will allow for a sort of transparency between the delegates where every delegate will be able to see the overall picture of the economy as a whole, leading to smarter decision making.

While it's easy to imagine that the delegates will try to steer things only towards the needs of their individual community above all else, it will become very apparent that what is ultimately in everyone's best interests would be to organize things fairly as to keep the economy under control.

Historically during the time of primitive communism, before enclosure happened and feudalism took its toll, peasants who communally owned the land were very intelligent in deciding how to work it, which areas should get how much food, preparing for drought, division of labor e.c.t.

It's reasonable to assume that the delegates would act in the same way.

Especially with how we already have an abundance of all essential material resources, so the delegates can sleep sound that they will get what they need if they cooperate to help all of the other delegates. It would be in their best interest to do so seeing as no single individual or group in an economy can just survive by themselves.

>>I'm opposed to it based on practical matters. Just to survive the initial foreign assault

An anarchist society would most likely be much harder to invade than with a state society.

With a state society there is one point of attack in which all political action is processed.

If you can hijack the government in a state-society you've essentially taken over everything, whereas with an anarchist society everyone is already organized in a way where the decentralized nature of it all means that there will never be any single point of attack.

You can't overthrow leaders or governments which weren't there to begin with, and even if you tried to establish them the anarchical society is designed to function without them, so they can simply be ignored in order to stop them from overthrowing.

These governments have power because they hold a monopoly over political decision making and the legitimate use of force and violence, but if this has all been spread out to the anarchist society then these monopolies which are the basis of the state's power won't be there to prop it up.

Even if you somehow "invade a federation", all that would probably mean would be that you've hijacked the building where people were grouping up in the federation.

At worse the current selected administrators for the delegates if they are in the building may be killed or kidnapped, which in that case new administrators would be selected and the federation would be moved elsewhere.

The federation isn't a government, it's just a mode of communication which need not be fixed to any particular area. It can have its location changed very easily if necessary.

>>A socialist state needs an incredibly strong degree of organization and a sufficiently narrow, sufficiently authoritative body of leadership that can make BIG and difficult decisions FAST.

In order to make sure that the big and difficult decisions can be dealt with quickly (e.g. how do we regulate the nuclear bombs, provide food and power for everyone, set up transport) these sort of decisions can be decided pre-emtively before the state is overthrown.

The organizations previously responsible for running these services would have to have a large part of them taken over, and the federations and delegates should be planned pre-emtively as-well and then once the state has been destroyed then these new organizations would spread like a virus across the whole society when the armed forces have been disorganized and the private property rights loose their legitimacy.

I think that one of the big misconceptions about anarchism which can be seen in this guy's post…

>>2864255

…is the idea that anarchist think that if the state-government just disappeared overnight then it would work as a shortcut to anarchist-socialism.

No smart anarchist thinks this at least.

An anarchist revolution would probably involve a gradual takeover where people would organize in different areas and build up the structure for a new society while fighting against the current one.

Plans for how to manage big decisions would have to be decided pre-emptively through the already existing delegates and federations, and would be acted on immediately.


 No.2864320

I had to split my above post up because it was too long.

The images on the second-to last post I sent should be on the last post


 No.2864350

>>2864319

>If you can hijack the government in a state-society you've essentially taken over everything, whereas with an anarchist society everyone is already organized in a way where the decentralized nature of it all means that there will never be any single point of attack.

You seem to be conflating "state" and "centralised government" here. The state is the sum total of the apparatus that one class employs to defend its interests - the army, police, militias, prisons, the judicial system, etc.. Decentralise all you want, horizontalise as much as you can; as long as it proves necessary for one class to organise to suppress the activities of another class - state power is in play.

>Even if you somehow "invade a federation", all that would probably mean would be that you've hijacked the building where people were grouping up in the federation.

Or that counter-revolutionary troops are sweeping through your territory on a wave of white terror.

>I think that one of the big misconceptions about anarchism which can be seen in this guy's post…

All he's doing is outlining the fact that the state is an unavoidable consequence of a society where class antagonisms still exist and that the anarchist focus on the abolition of the state misses this. The economic base of society must be changed to nullify the antagonisms that give rise to the state before the state can wither away; attempting to "abolish" the state while the conditions that give rise to it still exist will only result in the state being re-established by the class that is willing to wield state power.

>Plans for how to manage big decisions would have to be decided pre-emptively through the already existing delegates and federations, and would be acted on immediately.

Granted, this is an argument on centralisation rather than the state itself, but I believe that the decisions in question are more along the lines of "we're being invaded on two fronts, we need to commit our reserves to one of those fronts right now" or "there is a food shortage in x region and people are starving as we speak, do we forcibly requisition food from uncollectivised businesses or not" - immediate emergencies that cannot reasonably be pre-empted.


 No.2864360

File: 0e7971f06d282c1⋯.png (44.7 KB, 640x372, 160:93, StalinvsHitler.png)

I know this derails the thread but how would the revolution actually be like? It seems to me like fighting the military and police is near impossible. I think we could get on our side but that still would be hard. I don't think they are exactly against us, some of them, at least. I kinda have problems imagining I'll cope with the suffering during and after the revolution. Of course don't forget we have the godamn US's state if anything, anywhere happens.


 No.2864363

>>2864360

How many proles can a bourgeois state kill in a revolution, without unintentionally strengthening support for the revolution? Remember they need us, we do not need the them. Read this rundown on the Maoist Protracted People's War, it addresses your concerns: https://theimmortalscience.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/revolution-is-protracted-peoples-war-is-revolution

Also, the next revolution will not occur in the US. This is not to say that there exists revolutionary potential in many groups in the US, but overall the proletariat in the US is still way better off than the proletariat and peasants in the third-world due to imperialism.


 No.2864365

>>2864363

Correction: …this is not to say that there *doesn't* exist revolutionary potential…


 No.2864371

>> You seem to be conflating "state" and "centralized government" here. The state is the sum total of the apparatus that one class employs to defend its interests - the army, police, militias, prisons, the judicial system, etc

Yeah sorry, it's easy to get the terms accidentally confused because the state and the centralized-government are both used interchangeably.

>> >Even if you somehow "invade a federation", all that would probably mean would be that you've hijacked the building where people were grouping up in the federation.

>> Or that counter-revolutionary troops are sweeping through your territory on a wave of white terror.

I know it wouldn't be impossible to invade or take over anarchist society.

It would just be more difficult as you wouldn't be able to just go up to the government and conduct a takeover or a coup.

You could do it if you were able to flood the streets with enough counter-revolutionary soldiers, but if the working class is militant enough then that would be difficult as the solders would be outnumbered.

>> Attempting to "abolish" the state while the conditions that give rise to it still exist will only result in the state being re-established by the class that is willing to wield state power.

If the new anarchist structure for society takes over (changing the conditions which gave rise to the state) then re-establishing the previous state power will be near impossible.

For them to re-establish the previous state they would somehow need to get people to follow them in an anarchical society where everyone has learned how to function without having to follow anything as a permanent executive power.

And as the bourgeois class fades away when its wealth and means of production is seized from it, there will be no one with enough financial leverage to re-establish the state power again.

>> Granted, this is an argument on centralisation rather than the state itself, but I believe that the decisions in question are more along the lines of "we're being invaded on two fronts, we need to commit our reserves to one of those fronts right now" or "there is a food shortage in x region and people are starving as we speak, do we forcibly requisition food from uncollectivised businesses or not" - immediate emergencies that cannot reasonably be pre-empted.

I suspect that it will be down to the selected administrators for the delegates at the fronts and the delegates at region x to decide this as quickly as possible amongst themselves.

Keep in mind that quick decisions made by the delegates like this do not necessarily require a vote as this is not always possible or practical.

Still, this decision may take longer than that of a centralized socialist government, but I'd personally argue that discussion and debate about these decisions at least to the level of the selected administrators would lead to an overall better outcome, even if these sort of matters which will come up are urgent and need to be addressed immediately.


 No.2864381

>>2864363

I know the next revolution will not be in US. But we both know how much US likes to "influence" countries abroad.


 No.2864385

>>2864181

Good post anon


 No.2864387

>>2864381

Oh yes we do. I just wanted to tell that I think there is a limit to which the US can interfere. If the movement is reformist, the US can do everything to stop them. But if it is not, look at the ongoing revolution in India and the Philippines, they are still very much alive and thriving despite many setbacks and the fact that these countries are supported by the US. Plus we have to see if China counters US hegemony as a genuine socialist state or not. What do you think?


 No.2864400

>>2864387

I don't know. I sure hope China can somehow counter the US. Don't dengoids say that China will have universal healthcare next year? I'm guessing in the coming years we will get to know how socialist China is. Of course we shouldn't expect help. The USSR likewise didn't give it to the Greeks after the war; Although they had a very good reason.


 No.2864402

I talked to Ismail about "decentralization" and shit on /marx/


 No.2864407

>>2864400

Check out the Quality Post flair on r/communism, there are three (iirc) posts on China and whether or not they are socialist. Two of them are pro-China.


 No.2864921

Whassup with the obsession with immediate open borders?


 No.2865480

File: 53ac9837b8e3208⋯.png (28.83 KB, 528x435, 176:145, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2864371

>Yeah sorry, it's easy to get the terms accidentally confused because the state and the centralized-government are both used interchangeably.

Just understand that even the most decentralised and horizontally-organised revolution will still be required to monopolise force against the remnants of the bourgeoisie, will still be required to take on basically every function of a state; they will still de facto be utilising state power, i.e. organising as a class in order to repress another, hostile class. Calls for the immediate abolition of "the state" in general, rather than for the smashing of the bourgeois state and the formation of the proletarian state in its stead, are tantamount to calls for the revolutionary class to lay down its arms.

>It would just be more difficult as you wouldn't be able to just go up to the government and conduct a takeover or a coup.

This ignores the fact that the institutions of a given state exist to protect a given form of property - in a socialist society, where all property is socially-held and private ownership is nonexistant or an insignificant minority, simply capturing the government is no more a sure route to capitalist restoration than a Communist coup in, say, the USA would lead to the establishment of a Communist society.

>And as the bourgeois class fades away when its wealth and means of production is seized from it, there will be no one with enough financial leverage to re-establish the state power again.

More or less, yes; the nonexistence of bourgeois property makes the re-establishment of the bourgeois state impossible, just as the conditions do not exist today for the re-establishment of the feudal state. However, the fact that the working class is organising to expropriate and suppress the bourgeoisie, to defend socialist property, means that the working class has seized state power, whether or not they call their organisations a state. The difference is the specific class character of this state - while the bourgeois state defends bourgeois property and suppresses the proletariat, the proletarian state instead defends socialist property and suppresses the bourgeoisie. Only once the need for the defence of socialist property, both from without and within, is no longer present can the state wither away.

I'd really recommend at least skimming State and Revolution, to be honest. The existence of a central government in no way precludes local self-government; what else did you think the function of Soviets was, or earlier, as Lenin was writing State and Revolution, the Communes?


 No.2865489

do you have the "communists dunking on anarchists" meme with a guy in an elmo suit ? I lost it a couple of days ago


 No.2865698

>>2864363

>How many proles can a bourgeois state kill in a revolution, without unintentionally strengthening support for the revolution?

All of them, Nazi Germany ran a train over the USSR and if it wasn't for Hitlers autistic land grabs the Western powers would of supported him and Poland against the Soviets. They were also plenty fine to intervene in the Civil war and they almost nuked everything from Korea to China.


 No.2865877

>>2865489

the first panel is "communists dunking on anarchists" and it's hannibal burress saying "why are you booing? I'm not wrong" the second panel is "communist overhearing anyone else dunking on anarchists" and it's a guy in an elmo costume body-slamming someone in wrestling ring


 No.2865884

File: 2d52f3228ea29d7⋯.jpg (79.15 KB, 720x744, 30:31, Screenshot_20190403_211934.jpg)

Will there be lots of cool graffiti under anachism ?


 No.2866700

>>2865884

every wall will have a mural

and every mural will be defaced


 No.2867269

>>2865698

>Nazi Germany ran a train over the USSR and if it wasn't for Hitlers autistic land grabs the Western powers would of supported him and Poland against the Soviets.

Nonsense the Nazis only had initial impressive victories until the Blitzkrieg tactic was countered. And even if the Nazis had more allies, they wouldn't have gotten no further than the Ural mountain range, behind which the Soviets had an entire back up war economy. They never had a chance. Not even close.

Besides UK and US would have never supported Hitler because their main goal was Europe beating the crap out of each other. If Supporting Hitler meant the third Reich could have gotten a hold of central europe and western Russia , it would have created a extremely powerful empire, nobody else could have competed against.

>They were also plenty fine to intervene in the Civil war and they almost nuked everything from Korea to China.

Spam nukes, unite the world against you.


 No.2867450

>>2865877

maybe what is needed is a lost meme thread/sauce thread


 No.2870587

there's a meme with professor farnsworth in the "hall of heads" only instead of us presidents they are old anarchist thinkers, anyone have it?


 No.2873452


 No.2885959

File: e3f2df454bafda6⋯.png (585.32 KB, 480x960, 1:2, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2865877

One down one to go




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / bleached / choroy / dempart / doomer / truebrit / vg / vichan ]