Epoch of the Marxist Youth

For aspiring and studying marxist youth to come together and discuss the true way forward
 
HomeHome  PortalPortal  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Prolemic
Leftist


Posts : 3
Join date : 2008-07-06

PostSubject: Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.   Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:06 am

Being a recent Trotskyist, myself, my newly-found politics have inspired me to observe history as a process. Dialectical materialism, is at the heart of Marxism, and by observing the conditions of exploitation and oppression in their development, I, like the greatest leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, can diagnose the problems and attempt to formulate ways in which to correct these problems. Thinking dialectically has opened my eyes to ways in which to correct the abuse and corruption of power in the minority, the privileged class, the bourgeoisie. However, being that I have examined the past and its relationship to the present in its development, has led me to conclude that nothing short of proletarian revolution led by a workers' vanguard party will change the fundamental conditions for workers in society.

Marxists and Anarchists both agree (post-revolution)that when classes disappear, the state will also disappear, however, Marxists believe that in order to suppress bourgeois counter-revolution, one must lay their hands on the ready-made state machinery. Why should workers deny themselves the organized use of force and arms? One cannot abolish the state over night, this is an openly radical and ridiculous belief. What Anarchists refuse to acknowledge is that the proletariat needs the state for a short period of time, in order to prevent the bourgeoisie from retaliating. Temporary use must be made of the state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the destruction of all classes.

Anarchists argue that the first act of the social revolution should be the abolition of authority. But in contrast, a revolution, in ITSELF, is incredibly authoritative. One class of people violently imposes itself upon another, and after doing so, the victorious class is inevitably forced to maintain its supremacy by suppressing counter-revolution. In doing so, the victorious class makes use of the state to protect the gains of the revolution.

The political state cannot be abolished with one simple stroke, because the social relations which it originated from remain. Marxists acknowledge and recognize the relation of the revolution to the state, where as Anarchists, do not. Anarchists pose no qualitative answers for solutions to question such as, "Must the old state machinery be shattered?" and " What shall be put in its place?" < State and Revolution (Lenin). IMO Anarchists are purely reactionary.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shabazz Freeman
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 373
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Bay Area

PostSubject: Re: Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.   Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:13 am

JEAH!!!!!

I am so fucking proud of you!

Tag me in if the debate gets heated but i'll let you take it him (and the other anarchists) on
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://themarxistyouth.forumotion.com
Sin
Studying Revolutionary
avatar

Posts : 136
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 108
Location : USA Illinois

PostSubject: Re: Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.   Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:45 am

Now, by replying to this, i most likely have become a big red dot with all the communists saying, hey look at him, hes talking against us, smash him! So, i guess i should state first, no im not anti-communist, i just do not beileve it is the best form of government out their.
Do your worst ShockedRolling EyesNo

Prolemic wrote:
Marxists and Anarchists both agree (post-revolution)that when classes disappear, the state will also disappear, however, Marxists believe that in order to suppress bourgeois counter-revolution, one must lay their hands on the ready-made state machinery. Why should workers deny themselves the organized use of force and arms? One cannot abolish the state over night, this is an openly radical and ridiculous belief. What Anarchists refuse to acknowledge is that the proletariat needs the state for a short period of time, in order to prevent the bourgeoisie from retaliating. Temporary use must be made of the state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the destruction of all classes.

I understand most Communists point of view, and its great, but what is going to stop the leader of this utopia from just not taking full control? Leaders aren't always as they seem, as you can see from people such as Kimjong, stalin, che etc. Also, the ending stage of communism just seems like it will never happen, when anarchists, make it happen. Well now, abolishing the state overnight cannot happen? Why not? It seems as though communists have done that, and what do you mean the bourgeoisie retailiate? Its not like US is going to come attack some place because its switching government, and after a revolution the bourgeoisie would be to screwed to get back up within a day. "temporary" is a odd word, considering that their was never has been a utopia or anything of the such! Heck, most communist countries are based off Maoism or Stalinism and stalinism is One state socialism, and maoism is to apply the needs to your country, seems like both failed in almost every area it has been put in. They even say "After the world is under socialism, the government will EVENTUALLY dissolve, what is going to stop them from bringing tyranny to ever part of the world, and with no one being able to voice your opinon, it would be a USSR utopia massacre all over again *with the perk of owning the world*!

prolemic wrote:
Anarchists argue that the first act of the social revolution should be the abolition of authority. But in contrast, a revolution, in ITSELF, is incredibly authoritative. One class of people violently imposes itself upon another, and after doing so, the victorious class is inevitably forced to maintain its supremacy by suppressing counter-revolution. In doing so, the victorious class makes use of the state to protect the gains of the revolution.

"Anarchists argue that the first act AFTER the social revolution should be the abolitionment of authority." FIXED

prolemic wrote:
The political state cannot be abolished with one simple stroke, because the social relations which it originated from remain. Marxists acknowledge and recognize the relation of the revolution to the state, where as Anarchists, do not. Anarchists pose no qualitative answers for solutions to question such as, "Must the old state machinery be shattered?" and " What shall be put in its place?" < State and Revolution (Lenin). IMO Anarchists are purely reactionary.

Not if they were destroyed during/after the revolution they don't. As for destroying the old state machinery, i do not understand what you mean.

No government work, they all have good motives, i mean look-
Fascism - To keep heritage above all else, BUT they kill everyone thats not their heritage even outside their nation
Capitalism - You got the chance to make it big BUT theirs about a one in a million chance to do this
Communism - Everyone will be equal and you will be free - BUT if one bad leader comes in somehow your fucked, and the ending stage of communism is like halloween twice a year, it just doesnt happen!

If you look in history, Communism failed because of all the deaths and killing from the leaders who were suppose to represent the people!, while Anarchy failed merely because the type put in was Anarcho-Capitalism or Anarcho-communistic synda, never have we tried the true forms. (Communitarian or Enviromentalist anarchism)

As i said before, you get one bad leader in communism, and your screwed for a lifetime!
I like the ideaology, but it doesnt seem to work, considering its failed some way or another everywhere its been put in, in anarchy you are FREE, while under socialism they say you WILL BE free.

_________________
Communitarian Anarchist
Anti-Everything
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Prolemic
Leftist


Posts : 3
Join date : 2008-07-06

PostSubject: Re: Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.   Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:35 pm

Sin wrote:
Now, by replying to this, i most likely have become a big red dot with all the communists saying, hey look at him, hes talking against us, smash him! So, i guess i should state first, no im not anti-communist, i just do not beileve it is the best form of government out their.
Do your worst ShockedRolling EyesNo


I understand most Communists point of view, and its great, but what is going to stop the leader of this utopia from just not taking full control? Leaders aren't always as they seem, as you can see from people such as Kimjong, stalin, che etc. Also, the ending stage of communism just seems like it will never happen, when anarchists, make it happen. Well now, abolishing the state overnight cannot happen? Why not? It seems as though communists have done that, and what do you mean the bourgeoisie retailiate? Its not like US is going to come attack some place because its switching government, and after a revolution the bourgeoisie would be to screwed to get back up within a day. "temporary" is a odd word, considering that their was never has been a utopia or anything of the such! Heck, most communist countries are based off Maoism or Stalinism and stalinism is One state socialism, and maoism is to apply the needs to your country, seems like both failed in almost every area it has been put in. They even say "After the world is under socialism, the government will EVENTUALLY dissolve, what is going to stop them from bringing tyranny to ever part of the world, and with no one being able to voice your opinon, it would be a USSR utopia massacre all over again *with the perk of owning the world*!


"Anarchists argue that the first act AFTER the social revolution should be the abolitionment of authority." FIXED


Not if they were destroyed during/after the revolution they don't. As for destroying the old state machinery, i do not understand what you mean.

No government work, they all have good motives, i mean look-
Fascism - To keep heritage above all else, BUT they kill everyone thats not their heritage even outside their nation
Capitalism - You got the chance to make it big BUT theirs about a one in a million chance to do this
Communism - Everyone will be equal and you will be free - BUT if one bad leader comes in somehow your fucked, and the ending stage of communism is like halloween twice a year, it just doesnt happen!

If you look in history, Communism failed because of all the deaths and killing from the leaders who were suppose to represent the people!, while Anarchy failed merely because the type put in was Anarcho-Capitalism or Anarcho-communistic synda, never have we tried the true forms. (Communitarian or Enviromentalist anarchism)

As i said before, you get one bad leader in communism, and your screwed for a lifetime!
I like the ideaology, but it doesnt seem to work, considering its failed some way or another everywhere its been put in, in anarchy you are FREE, while under socialism they say you WILL BE free.



I will attempt to respond to your second paragraph in two separate ways. First, I will answer your question in the event that a revolution just took place and the dictatorship of the proletariat assumes power. Second, I will answer your question in the event that every nation in the world has become Communist, and the each individual nation, themselves, have withered away. i.e. A Communist world.

First, in the event that a revolution just took place, and the vanguard party along with the proletariat are victorious, then the question you pose is whether or not one person will abruptly seize power. The vanguard party would be a (hopefully large) group of professional revolutionaries who would lead and educate the working masses. IF in the unlikely instance that one party member is corrupt, and plans to assume state power, he would be unable to do so. Remember we are speaking about post-revolution, so consider this... The working masses just achieved liberation, and the state enters the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, the working class runs the state because they are the only truly revolutionary class. If one man planned to seize power, he would be unable to do so because the workers are irreconcilably hostile to bourgeois rule. If one man assumes power, the workers and remainder of the vanguard party would not just sit around and once again accept subordination to what would seem to be another bourgeois ruler. He would be overthrown immediately.

In the event of a Communist world, and one man "decides" to assume power, he once again would not be able to. In this instance, the once ready-made state machinery i.e. the military and police force no longer exist. Every man is a worker, and gets paid workers wages. One man could not assume power, because he would have no means with which to do so. He would not have the military to protect his position, nor would he have any means with which to assume power in the first place. Do you see what I am trying to say? No one man could even assume any monopoly over violence if he wanted to. In addition, in a Commune, if a leader abuses his power, then he is immediately removed from his position.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the ending stage of Communism". When I speak of the bourgeoisie retaliating, I speak of the time right after the revolution. Do you not agree that the former capitalists and bourgeoisie will attempt to fight back? Why would they just accept their new subordination after being privileged by exploiting the very class that just took power from them? No, they would not stand for it. They would fight back. In this instance, the proletariat needs the state apparatus and the military to suppress bourgeois counter-revolution.

Temporary use must be made of the state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the destruction of all classes. When I say temporary use of the state power, I am referring to the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to assume state power in order to suppress the bourgeoisie. After this time, the state begins to wither away. It is for this purpose, and this purpose only, that the proletariat must assume state power.

When have I once discussed anything about a utopia?! Destroying officialdom everywhere--that is a Utopia! But breaking up the old bureaucratic machine and to start immediately with a new one which will gradually enable us to reduce all officialdom to the point where it does not exist. This is no utopia. Organizing large-scale production from what capitalism has already created.

We (Trotskyists) are not Utopians with dreams of annihilating all subordination, like Anarchists. This is an Anarchist dream based upon a lack of understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and is basically foreign to Marxism. The Anarchists serve to put off the Socialist revolution until human nature is different.

Sin wrote:
Heck, most communist countries are based off Maoism or Stalinism and stalinism is One state socialism, and maoism is to apply the needs to your country, seems like both failed in almost every area it has been put in.

Please, tell me one country where Communism has existed? Where the economy is fully collectivized. Where there are no classes, or forms of exploitation. This has never existed. Stalinist Russia was never Communist, and Stalin never intended it to be. This is a common misconception. The bureaucracy that Stalin implemented was obviously not Communist.

Sin wrote:
After the world is under socialism, the government will EVENTUALLY dissolve, what is going to stop them from bringing tyranny to ever part of the world, and with no one being able to voice your opinon, it would be a USSR utopia massacre all over again *with the perk of owning the world*!

You ask the same question again and again. What stops the misuse of power? I have thoroughly explained this. Once again, even if someone wanted to "bring tyranny to every part of the world", it wouldn't be possible. After the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat assumes power, and once the economy becomes fully collectivized and the needs of all people are met, it becomes Socialist. When this "world is under Socialism", there is no government, but rather individual Communes with democratically elected leaders, revocable at any time, and paid working man's wages. This so-called government you speak of would not exist, nor could it, and could not have a monopoly on weaponry because the workers would not allow that.

No one able to voice their opinion???? The whole point of a Marxist Commune is to engage in open debate, and vote for the WORKER who will represent that Commune. Democratic centralism, not a parliamentary body would run the Commune. I think you neglect to see that difference. This is not a parliamentary body, with someone holding executive power. Rather, it is a working body. "Instead of deciding once every three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as INDIVIDUAL suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workingmen and managers in his business." < Marx. It is a working, not a parliamentary body!! In the Commune, freedom of opinion and discussion do not degenerate into deception, for the parliamentarians must work, execute their own laws, must verify their results in actual life because THEY THEMSELVES ARE WORKERS.

You must think of democracy without parliamentarism. Parliamentarism as a special system, as a division of labor, between the legislative and executive functions, as a privileged position for the leaders WOULD NO LONGER EXIST. Read Marx.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anarchist.Dagger
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 89
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 28
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.   Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:01 pm

Prolemic wrote:
Marxists believe that in order to suppress bourgeois counter-revolution, one must lay their hands on the ready-made state machinery.

Okay, for starters, there is a difference between this and what you say next....

Quote :
Why should workers deny themselves the organized use of force and arms?

There is a distinct difference between being organized and using the state. If you're using the buildings of the state to organize the masses, that's one thing. But to perpetuate the state and its authority is very different.

Quote :
One cannot abolish the state over night, this is an openly radical and ridiculous belief.

Sure you could. And i doubt it would even be that difficult. We are not meaning to completely do away with everything the state left behind, we just want to get rid of authority. That's all it takes to abolish the state to us. We have differing definitions of "state", if you didn't know.

Quote :
What Anarchists refuse to acknowledge is that the proletariat needs the state for a short period of time, in order to prevent the bourgeoisie from retaliating.

How is this so? I don't understand how the state is the only way to defend revolution. If it is because you define the state as the suppression of one or more class by another, then we may merely be disagreeing on the definition of the state.

Quote :
Temporary use must be made of the state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the destruction of all classes.

Again, what exactly makes this true. They used the state in Russia, and that didn't end very well.

Quote :
Anarchists argue that the first act of the social revolution should be the abolition of authority. But in contrast, a revolution, in ITSELF, is incredibly authoritative. One class of people violently imposes itself upon another, and after doing so, the victorious class is inevitably forced to maintain its supremacy by suppressing counter-revolution. In doing so, the victorious class makes use of the state to protect the gains of the revolution.

That's not how we see revolution occuring. It's obviously about class, but it's also about equality, freedom. These principles must be considered. We are not trying to get on top. We are trying to form a society based on the principles of brotherhood, solidarity, equality, freedom, and peace. We do what is necessary to defend ourselves, but that does not mean that we are being authoritative. I think we can all agree that capitalism is violently oppressive, no? So we must use a similar level of violence to free ouselves. I don't see how that's authoritarian.

Quote :
The political state cannot be abolished with one simple stroke, because the social relations which it originated from remain. Marxists acknowledge and recognize the relation of the revolution to the state, where as Anarchists, do not.

We recognize this, you just fail to recognize it. When we say we want the abolishment of the state, we mean we want the abolition of the protection of privelage and injustice. We want the abolition of coercive authority and heirarchy. We would not, however, abolish those institutions that were necessary. Those such institutions that are there because of social necessity will remain, but will be reorganized in a way that is optimal for everyone.

Quote :
Anarchists pose no qualitative answers for solutions to question such as, "Must the old state machinery be shattered?" and " What shall be put in its place?" < State and Revolution (Lenin).


Actually there have been a few times when anarchists have drawn up plans for post revolutionary society. Bakunin did it pretty thoroughly, Malatesta went into some detail, and Berkman as well. Others as well, i'm sure. But anarchists tend to shy away from drawing up blue prints for revolution, cos you can't really know what's gonna happen. So anarchists tend to think about guidelines, rather than plans; hope that helps.

Quote :
We (Trotskyists) are not Utopians with dreams of annihilating all subordination, like Anarchists. This is an Anarchist dream based upon a lack of understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and is basically foreign to Marxism. The Anarchists serve to put off the Socialist revolution until human nature is different.

This brings to mind some questions. Like what makes you believe that you know what human nature is? And what makes you believe it is in our nature to rule or be ruled? And if this is true, then what's wrong with the way things are now? At least we're fulfilling our nature.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sin
Studying Revolutionary
avatar

Posts : 136
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 108
Location : USA Illinois

PostSubject: Re: Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.   Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:10 pm

You acting like the vanguard party could not possibly be corrupt, i'll put it in terms i see it, they have two choices, either they can be corrupt and rule the world, or they can become workers and have to work. This is obvious in even Capitalistic countries, if a Huge majority of members in the senate AND house can be corrupt as it is in US, a few people in a vanguard party could be JUST AS corrupt and ruthless. Not saying i would try to take over the world, but given the oppurtunity most people would take this power and say, "Hey, we can rule the world" and to your other statement about the proletariant overthrowing the government if it was corrupt, they couldn't do this, the military is too strong, as example, look at North Korea, USSR, and China. USSR, being authorian, the workers had absolutely no way to ever take over Stalin, and remember, freedom of speech is now gone also.

No, your thinking ahead, if they government was corrupted (And i stated how above) they could very, very easily just keep the military around, who is going to stop them, and for a world under Communism, some type of military is going to be needed during the Socialist ages to create it, it's not going to vanish into thin air the first day the world has become Communistic. So what's stopping them from keeping it? It would still be Socialistic, so you still can not say your opinon in public.

Let's look back in history, ever place that Anarchy has been put in, their has been no such thing as a "counter-revolution" the only thing that would counter a revolution at all would be a example of the kulaks not doing what Stalin said, and Stalin wasn't even Socialistic

Again..if the state is corrupt..it has no means to wither away. It's like giving a child a piece of candy and telling him to not eat it.

Your misunderstanding what im saying, in a Socialistic country, you can not speak out, unless you want something terrible to happen. In communism, you sure can, but when is this communism coming? We've been promised this "freedom" since it started, but has not happened.

Freedom is a fooling word, unless of course, your referring to Anarchy.

_________________
Communitarian Anarchist
Anti-Everything
Back to top Go down
View user profile
solpacvoicis
Soviet Administrator


Posts : 365
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.   Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:51 pm

An inherent and inseparable part of Socialism is Democracy, read the Communist Manifesto: towards the end, around where he lists a guideline of Socialist reforms once the Dictatorship of the Proletariat has gained power, in the few paragraphs before, he describes that the democratic nature of the government set up would only be offset by its dictatorial stance towards capitalist elements of the economy.

The steps towards establishing Socialism is to: 1. Overthrow the existing state if there is NOT widespread, inclusive, and TRUE democracy. 2. Nationalizing, now small gains, then big gains, ALL of the existing means of production. 3. Assisting (if not already) the establishment of grassroots, true democratic control. 4. ELIMINATION of inheritance 5. A steeply graduated income tax. 6. Establishment of a LIVABLE wage. 7. Jobs established as a right and duty.

NOW after this point has been reached, other intricacies of the revolution may take place - through the spread of the revolution and the spiked increase of wealth, the truly democratic body of national government becomes redundant - and so the people will stop electing people to these posts.


ALSO, the people who are elected would be from among the communities, directly. They would be able to "recalled" at any point by a simple vote of the community. They would work all days of the year except on the days of voting, and would be compensated with a livable wage per day they were unable to work.


THAT is Socialism! =D Correct me if I am wrong.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.   

Back to top Go down
 
Anarchy vs. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Bourgeois vs. Proletarian culture
» Ritual Slaughter

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Epoch of the Marxist Youth :: Critical Marxist Thinking :: Party Discussion-
Jump to: