|
|||||||||||||
Anarcho-Syndicalism versus Vol. 1: On Creating the
Post #01
I think that there can be some thing that should be taken from the Anarchist as well as Leninist Movements. I think that Anarchist have put a lot of their emphasis on the stopping of bureaucracy which can be a good thing, but as Tell no Lies puts it "the anarchist movement bears another legacy,that of heroic uprisings ending not in 'workers liberty' but in bloody defeats." Yet we must also take a very critical look at our own history as Leninist and Maoist, our attempts at socialism have also fell apart, though we may all argue different reasons to why it is that this has occurred (I would like to hear peoples perspectives on that). We do have a bloody history which needs to be examined. I think that Zizek puts it the best way in the first page of his "Presents Mao on Practice and Contradiction" We as Communist look for the "moment of the Fall", we basically look at are history and then cut it off at the point in which we no longer agree. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, even picking at Marx himself. We need to look at our history as Communist and take away from it but we can not be so dogmatic as to not even look for anything positive out of other Radical and Revolution movements, including Anarchist. The other day there was an article post on this site called Lessons of SLAM a Culture of Resistance (Article Page) where this discussion of Anarchism and Communism being to work together is brought up.
Post #02
Greetings,
There is a significance that needs to be examined behind all of this, though. Whether you are looking at the Free Territory of the Ukraine in 1920, [*1] the Paris Commune in 1871, [*2] the Autonomous Shinmin Region in 1930, [*3] or Anarchist Catalonia in 1936 [*4] -- these were tremendously egalitarian and free social experiments. The Utopian dream of socialists and anarchists alike. High class restaurants were turned into working class hospitals, [*5] factories and fields were seized spontaneously by thousands of united workers, [*6] and food was always provided for the people. In one famous incident, we see exactly how different Anarchist-Socialist and State-Socialist ideas work in practice. Quoting from "Workers Power and the Spanish Revolution," by Tom Wetzel…
Marxists believe that the workers are smart enough to know they're being exploited, but not smart enough to organize society according to their needs? I do not understand this. Workers know their terms of work better than anyone else, and I can't imagine a top-down form of Socialism ever liberating them. Andy Carloff, Resources *1. "Russian Anarchists and the Civil War," by Paul Avrich, from Russian Review, Volume 27, Issue 3 (Jul., 1968), 296-306.
Post #03
Andy, While its great that the Anarchist had the ability to organize these hair cutting places there is a question did the hair cutters just say one day that they should organize like that or was there a group of people a vanguard that helped them to make that choice, to help them organize in that manner. I don't think that unions are the way in which to organize a revolution, no A-S revolution has ever worked out. I would like your take on why "the anarchist movement bears another legacy,that of heroic uprisings ending not in 'workers liberty' but in bloody defeats."
I don't see it as that the masses aren't smart enough to organize society I think that the role of the party is make sure that the masses aren't crushed in counter-revolution or from the inside by hidden Capitalist. The workers are great at organizing the work place but not so much at being able to organize the whole of the masses into a force that cannot be messed with. This is why Marx talks about the withering away of the state after the success of the peoples revolution this is why he criticized the Anarchist, because there needs to be some form of state to fight the Capitalist and only afterward as it is needed less and less does it wither.
Post #04
Greetings,
Since you're been thoroughly following the conversation (and I know you have), I already responded to this comment. I posted a list of ten to fifteen General Strikes, dating from several thousand years ago to just this year, that have overthrown governments, gained concessions from capitalists for the workers, and created liberty for the people. I could just as easily scroll up, copy, and paste it here, but I'm sure you'll just now remember that you've already read it. You should also be aware that the Anarchist-Syndicalist Revolution of Spain was a success, until it was literally taken over by a Leninist coup. [*1] This was the key event, workers being governed by themselves changed to workers being governed by a state, that caused the Spanish Revolution to fail. Please check the annotated essay that I mentioned earlier, "Workers' Power and the Spanish Revolution," by Tom Wetzel, or even the Wikipedia page on it. Naturally, judging from this, our conclusion ought to be: Anarchism succeeded, until it changed to Marxism. "The workers are great at organizing the work place but not so much at being able to organize the whole of the masses into a force that cannot be messed with." Please at least read the list of General Strikes that have overthrown governments and abolished Capitalism. You'll see easily that the workers, as a resistant force against Capitalism and the state, are the natural form of Revolution. Look a the Lenin's coup over a worker's revolution! The workers had already organized, had already started seizing industries, [*2] convinced the military to overthrow the Tzar, [*3] and now were building the revolution. When Lenin saw this, he wrote "no great political change had taken place. It was a Capitalist upheaval, the bourgeoisie had simply taken over the power it already possessed." [*4] Was Lenin's finger on the pulse of revolution? Because it sounds like he couldn't have been any further off. The workers overthrew the Tzar and claimed society for themselves -- Lenin's Communist Party overthrew them and seized industries into a state-monopoly. The force that "cannot be messed with" was the workers, as these were the ones to overthrew monarchy, and began the destruction of Capitalism. Lenin's Revolution was against them!! All he was able to do was manipulate a bunch of events, like Kerensky's response to Kornilov, [*5] in order to throw himself into the seat of power. The Bolshevik Revolution did not overthrow the Tzar -- it overthrew the workers who overthrew the Tzar!!
Sounds like the common workers were doing fine in overthrowing Monarchy and establishing a worker-managed society. And historically, Lenin's coup destroyed their social base of power. Decentralized unions overthrow the Tzar, and the Communist Party destroys them? Like I said earlier, the Anarchist and the Marxist are definitely working in opposite directions. Andy Carloff, Resources *1. Burnett Bolloten The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution UNC Press, 1991 ISBN 0807819069, 9780807819067. Chapter 64 "Segismundo Casado, Cipriano Mera and the Libertarians.
|
