RedMarx

A Forum
It is currently Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:35 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Welcome


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The pitfalls of Anarchism
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:32 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1760
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
To get right down to it, I'll open with a lengthy quote from ZeroNowhere.

ZeroNowhere wrote:
My opinion of anarchism remains essentially the same, though; we are not anarchists, because we make no pretension to support anything greater than simply working class interests, rather than any eternal moral principles (of course, a human, genuinely social morality is impossible under capitalism, but rather morality takes the form of class morality, which is itself sophism, as ultimately it finds its basis in the appetites. We're fine with that, though.) Anarchism departs from this, as it is essentially an ethical (and sectarian) doctrine, and Marxists do not hold to such. This is fairly plain in the recent thread on the subject on Revleft, where some anarchists are whining about what will happen to the peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie in a proletarian dictatorship. That's ignoring general fact that 'anarchism' as taken by McKay and folks (no proletarian dictatorship, no political struggle, etc.) is more or less akin to pacifism when it comes to moral incoherence; pacifism is incoherent insofar as it says that peace is good, as this entails that a peaceful world is good, but the pacifist will not engage in violence even to realize the good (as such, they put themselves in a special position, as private accumulators of virtue, rather than seeking to bring about the good; if there is violence, it is, in fact, fine insofar as the pacifist is not involved, as if it were not fine they would act to stop it if they could). The anarchist is essentially the same, albeit with 'anti-authoritarianism'.

To be brief, though, morality is concerned not with abstract principle or rights, but rather with concrete interests (in other words, they are not only objective, but also subjective; of course, unless God is posited, 'objective' morality is ultimately just a bunch of arbitrary postulates come up with by some thinker, and hence just as much one-sidedly subjective). Both egoism (sacrifice of social to individual interests) and altruism (sacrifice of individual to social interests) are one-sided, and reflect the altruism of the worker (in giving to capital) and egoism of capital.

Morality has to do with the unity of the social and individual interest. However, under capitalism this unity can only exist for one class (ie. in the form of state power). As such, one has simply conflicting interests and moralities, and neither one is any more 'correct' or 'true' than the other, morally speaking. Rather, insofar as neither concerns the real social interest, because there is none (ethics and the state are highly interrelated subjects), neither is a 'real' morality; the proletariat does not take power in the social interest, but in its own, particular interest, and while this takes the form of identifying their interest as the general interest (ie. taking control of the state, the representative of the illusory general interest), nonetheless this is not true morality any more than the state is the real social interest.

Morality is not a matter of wordplay, but rather is something which can only exist practically, and once we have seen morality to consist of a dialectical unity of society and the individual, subject and object and so on, these still remain to be realized in practice (so that insofar as morality is reduced to a materialist form, to something practical and concrete rather than merely ideal, the practical ethicist becomes a communist in the same way that, as Engels, I believe, commented, the communist is simply a practical materialist).

The proletarian revolution ultimately does not stem from morality, because in actual fact proletarian morality is no more moral by itself than capitalist morality (if socialism forms the prerequisite for human morality to exist, it can hardly come about due to people acting in accordance with human morality), but rather from exclusive interests and appetites (and not one's rationally worked out according to morality, so that this reduces ultimately to the Socratic appetites), and in that sense the proletarian morality inherent in the conscious imposition of the proletarian interest as social interest (the morality resides in this being a conscious imposition, it doesn't matter whether the proletariat thinks of itself as acting in the name of rights or whatever the hell) is simply a sophism, that is, a cover for non-moral interests.


Now, I know that is a little dense since it is coming from ZeroNowhere, so I'll break it down a little bit.

To start with, the fundamental problem with Anarchism is that it is a sectarian tendency. But what actually IS a sectarian tendency? If you want a very in-depth look at what sectarianism is, you can check out this thread starting from this post ( post403.html#p403 ). To be brief, however, sectarianism is the act of forming a sect in contrast to joining with the class party. Forming a sect means that some type of eternal moral principles have been placed at the forefront of your group rather than simply the interests of the proletariat. By placing these moral principles above those of the proletariats' interests you will inevitably fail to act on those interests and thus be impotent to succeed in a proletarian revolution.

For example, the pacifists ZeroNowhere has already dealt with, they see a peaceful world as the good, but refuse to achieve the peaceful world because it would involve undertaking violence, and so they fail the proletarian revolution at this stage. For Anarchists however, their eternal principle is anti-authoritarianism, and particularly they have a beef with the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

At this point it is worth looking at the process of communist revolution to understand the need for the DotP. A class party will serve to direct the rising working class anger (not because the party controls the working class, but because the working class chooses to follow that party, at this point the party has no 'real' power) in to a political revolution which will smash the bourgeoise state. After the bourgeois state has been smashed, the proletarian state must be established with the class party at its head. The purpose of this state is to oversee the transition from capitalism to communism, to suppress counter-revolutionary insurrections that will occur internally and externally. Once the economy has been re-organised and the bourgeois cease to exist in the social sense the state no longer has a task to perform and ceases to be with the lack of classes.

The fundamental error of the Anarchists is that they deny the need for the DotP, this denial amounts to the claim that the smashing of bourgeois power will be a single event that simultaneously, instantaneously, transforms the economy to a socialised economy, and that the counter-revolution will not exist, this is, however, patently absurd and what will inevitably happen is that the proletarian dictatorship will be established and the Anarchists will find themselves on the side of the counter-revolution trying to smash the proletarian state.

Thus Anarchism is really and truly the last ideological line of defense for the capitalist class, when all seems darkest and most bleak for the capitalist system, Anarchism will be there to hold a candle for the bourgeois.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: The pitfalls of Anarchism
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:05 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1760
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
As before, I've had a couple of follow up questions.

"Excuse my ignorance but I thought under Leninism the state is permanent ? Is this the case and you are just not a leninist or am I wrong. If so how does Leninism differ from authodox Marxism."

Your ignorance needs no excusing, there are so many different people saying so many different things about Marxism it is impossible to keep them all straight, that's why you should ignore everything people are saying and read Marx yourself. On to the point.

I'm going to go ahead and take the liberty of interpreting Leninism to mean Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is just the coward's way to call yourself a Stalinist basically, so in the sense that Stalinists are not Marxists, under their ideology the state is a permanent feature.

As for me personally, I would never self-identify as anything other than a Marxist.

Stalinism and Marxism differ in such vast ways that it is hard to begin. The most fundamental point to be made, however, is that Stalinists seek to place themselves personally, as Stalinists in control of the existing state apparatus. They have no interest in smashing the bourgeois state, they merely wish to be the ones in control of it.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The pitfalls of Anarchism
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:14 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:41 pm
Posts: 72
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 1 time
Perhaps this would be a good thread to expand and rename "The pitfalls of [sectarian ideology here]" and then follow with a brief summary of each of the pitfalls by ideology.

Otherwise good stuff so far, enjoying it.

Although
Quote:
Thus Anarchism is really and truly the last ideological line of defense for the capitalist class, when all seems darkest and most bleak for the capitalist system, Anarchism will be there to hold a candle for the bourgeois.


I understand why you're saying this, but it seems to be a bit harsh on people who identify as anarchists. Perhaps it's a lack of any personal, practical revolutionary experience, but I feel that a lot of anarchist comrades are pretty important allies in the class struggle. I certainly understand the conflict, and the Spanish civil war is a pretty good example of it in action, but I feel we'll find allies much more closely aligned with our goals in the self-described camp of "anarchists" than we would with any liberals or conservatives.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The pitfalls of Anarchism
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:39 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1760
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
I think it is fairly important to only hold the interests of the working class as our "ally." We don't ally ourselves with Stalinists to oppose American imperialism and then abandon them when they want to support Assad or whoever, and there is good reason for this. We can not risk association with these anti-working class tendencies. Our positions must be made clear and crisp to the working class that we stand, independently from every other tendency, always and forever in favour solely of working class interests, solely for the emancipation of humanity.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred