Bakunin vs Marx

[Pinko]

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.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

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.

[TBF]

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.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

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..

[Kid of the Black Hole]

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

[blindpig]

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.

[anaxarchos]

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.

[anaxarchos]

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.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/200...2/18562228.php



"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.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

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..

[anaxarchos]

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."

[blindpig]

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.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

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.

[anaxarchos]

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?

[vampire squid]

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

[Kid of the Black Hole]

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.

[anaxarchos]

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.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

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

Now that is sardonic, no matter how you meant it

[anaxarchos]

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...

[Two Americas]

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.