Can we really change the world without taking power?

[JoeBlack]

I just don't know what the anarchist/autonomist alternatives look like because it changes from speaker to speaker. Which suggets to me that most sensible anarchists have broken with the classical anarchist abstention from the question of 'taking power' and instead are grudgingly moving in the marxist direction without knowing how far they want to go.

Actually I find the 'marxist' position of the state equally hard to grasp right from the Marx / Engels / Lenin differences to the very odd trot rows about just what Cuba is - I find those later ones fascinating in a trainspotting way - in particular the Spart / Workers Power one.

That aside Negri is a marxist (and indeed a 'leninist' in the sense that he thinks Lenin was right in his time). And autonomism in general is a branch of marxism (perhaps one moving towards an anarchist understanding of the state) rather than a branch of anarchism.

There are certainly areas where marxism is clearer than anarchism but the state is certainly not one of them.

 

[Top Dog]

But that's just it, it's very hard to know where anti-Leninists are coming from on the state because there is no coherence to their arguments. I have major disagreements with all manner of different Trots (about the class nature of the former Soviet Union etc) but I'm fairly sure that our description of a workers state would be pretty similar.

And you cant see there being a problem with that?!

That you agree with other trotskyists simply because you share as your foundation the work of trotsky and vladimir illich does not give your politics a strength, man - quite the opposite! The reason that "there is no coherance" as you describe it (though i would argue there is a great deal more coherance than you acknowledge and give credit for) is because that engaged and critical discussion aimed at producing new ideas, tactics, approaches, has been much more fertile than simply propagating ideology frozen in amber. The italian workerists disagreed on many issues and there were many strands of varying opinion. Such disagreements are the foundation of critical discourse... dialectics, bolshiebhoy

 

[LLETSA]

I don't care about spending time and energy postulating what a post revolutionary society would look like- the important thing is to act now- anarchist/libertarian socialist praxis is what is important- the direct control of struggles by those involved in them- not mediated by a leadership amenable to selling out or cooption.

And when those involved in struggles inevitably look to de-facto leaders in their own ranks, what happens?

 

[catch]

And when those involved in struggles inevitably look to de-facto leaders in their own ranks, what happens?

If they're looking for advice/guidance from people with experience or specific knowledge, then neither anarchists nor autonomists would have a problem with that - since they'd retain the right to ignore the advice (good or bad). It's when that person ends up in a position of institutional authority that allows them to direct decisions against the wishes of the majority that problems are raised. The answer to this is to propose, develop and support forms of organisation which allow for decisions to be taken, and advice to be given, without this occurring. That involves both arguing for them in various ways, and actively trying to engender them in our own struggles when they arise.

 

[sihhi]

And when those involved in struggles inevitably look to de-facto leaders in their own ranks, what happens?

Why is this "inevitable"?

 

[LLETSA]

Why is this "inevitable"?

Name me any leaderless struggles.

 

[mk12]

The recent Bolivian stuggles?

 

[LLETSA]

The recent Bolivian stuggles?

How so?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Name me any leaderless struggles.

Newcastle Utd's last game??

 

[TremulousTetra]

I find it hard to see how that could not be regarded as a form of state, possessing authority or at least the potential and ability to wield authority within a geographical area.

As I say, I've got an open mind about this.

This is what I was asking/saying a few weeks back. The definition given by an anarchist their was something like "a state is a body which claims the monopoly right to the use of violence in a geographic area". This is the same definition that the Marxist's use, which is why they describe anything like the Paris commune, that exists in a period of transition when there is other bourgeois states still about, as a workers state.

The distinction which anarchist seemed to be alluding to above, is that their "autonomous zones" will be controlled by workers. So what? This does not stop him from being a state, they are just workers state rather than a bourgeois state.

Rmp3

Hallas is good here http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp/thestate.htm

 

[sihhi]

Name me any leaderless struggles.

There've been plenty from across the political spectrum
The French Peasant Insurrection 1778
East Berlin 1953

I'm not sure why those "involved in struggles" should inevitably "look to de-facto leaders in their own ranks".
You made the claim- suggesting that without fail some people will accept other people as defacto leaders and presumably not challenge their being defacto leaders- back it up.

 

[LLETSA]

Newcastle Utd's last game??

City under Keegan's last two seasons.

 

[mk12]

"a state is a body which claims the monopoly right to the use of violence in a geographic area".

I think, for anarchists, a state must mean power is in the hands of a few.

 

[LLETSA]

There've been plenty from across the political spectrum
The French Peasant Insurrection 1778
East Berlin 1953

I'm not sure why those "involved in struggles" should inevitably "look to de-facto leaders in their own ranks".
You made the claim- suggesting that without fail some people will accept other people as defacto leaders and presumably not challenge their being defacto leaders- back it up.

Why is it that anarchists are always so defensive? Without any hostile intent, my initial question was one that would doubtless be on the lips of most people. History tells us that most people do, after all, look for leadership in struggle. Showing leadership is in itself not an evil. Catch's post above goes some way towards the kind of response I was looking for- which was one that would inform me regarding the anarchist view . However, if you're insisting on people backing up what they say, where is the evidence for what you claim for the 'plenty' (actually two) of the events you've named?

 

[sihhi]

Why is it that anarchists are always so defensive? My initial question was one that would doubtless be on the lips of most people. History tells us that most people do, after all, look for leadership in struggle. Showing leadership is in itself not an evil. Catch's post above goes some way towards the kind of response I was looking for- which was one that would inform me. However, if you're insisting on people backing up what they say, where is the evidence for what you claim for the 'plenty' (actually two) of events you've named?

Alright apologies then it seems we're confusing two different definitions of "leadership"-1 taking decisive action OR 2 usurping powers to gain privilege/power at the expense of others.

I don't know do you get the idea I'm defending "leaderlessness"? I don't have a problem with "leaders" as long as they are recallable.

Re More Leaderless Struggles
Resistance to the Franco-Prussian War 1870-1 leading to the famous Paris Commune.
South Korean governments in the 1950s and 1960s with military rule were opposed by wide basically leaderless movements in farms and factories.
Anti-Poll Tax Movement was for a while pretty leaderless.
February Revolution 1917 and the 1905 Revolution/Strike/Sabotage Wave were pretty leaderless aswell IMO.

PS For future reference I've never claimed to be an "anarchist". According to one (much cleverer) acquaintance I fit in as a "councilist".

 

[LLETSA]

Alright apologies then it seems we're confusing two different definitions of "leadership"-1 taking decisive action OR 2 usurping powers to gain privilege/power at the expense of others.

I don't know do you get the idea I'm defending "leaderlessness"? I don't have a problem with "leaders" as long as they are recallable.

Re More Leaderless Struggles
Resistance to the Franco-Prussian War 1870-1 leading to the famous Paris Commune.
South Korean governments in the 1950s and 1960s with military rule were opposed by wide basically leaderless movements in farms and factories.
Anti-Poll Tax Movement was for a while pretty leaderless.
February Revolution 1917 and the 1905 Revolution/Strike/Sabotage Wave were pretty leaderless aswell IMO.

PS For future reference I've never claimed to be an "anarchist". According to one (much cleverer) acquaintance I fit in as a "councilist".

But taking your first definition of leadership above, surely there were in all of those events 'people who took decisive action'? Were there not directly -elected, and recallable, councils set up in the Paris Commune?

Every poll tax group I knew of contained a small group who more or less got their way-sometimes with less consensus than at other times. Surely these people were leaders?

And I fail to see how either of the Russian revolutions could be said to be leaderless.

 

[sihhi]

But taking your first definition of leadership above, surely there were in all of those events 'people who took decisive action'?
---
Yes all leaders according to 1st definition- but not the second definition

Were there not directly -elected, and recallable, councils set up in the Paris Commune?

Yes there were which was one of the good things about it.

I'd go as far as saying All struggles involve leaders according to the first definition.

Every poll tax group I knew of contained a small group who more or less got their way-sometimes with less consensus than at other times. Surely these people were leaders?

Which branches were those? It's a thorny topic and it changes depending on the time and which particular branch.

And I fail to see how either of the Russian revolutions could be said to be leaderless.

October 1917 wasn't- a Bolshevik pre-planned coup-
but February 1917 and 1905 were cases of people by and large without leaders according to defintion2, people refusing to work, refusing to fight, refusing to guard aristocracy land etc.

 

[LLETSA]

October 1917 wasn't- a Bolshevik pre-planned coup-
but February 1917 and 1905 were cases of people by and large without leaders according to defintion2, people refusing to work, refusing to fight, refusing to guard aristocracy land etc.

Yes but in large part due to the promptings of the propaganda of the revolutionary parties and their leaders on the ground, rather than spontaneously. But yes, you may be right that this was leadership in the positive sense that you define.

 

[sihhi]

propaganda of the revolutionary parties and their leaders on the ground, rather than spontaneously. But yes, you may be right that this was leadership in the positive sense that you define.

Well it's a difficult one to call but I certainly don't think 1905 was merely as a result of propaganda

Mainly because of scale and the areas where strikes occurred from tataristan to the north around kursk murmansk to dagistan to far east to poland

PLUS the fact that hundreds of revolutionaries were in prison/ in exile/ abroad and only came back as a result of tsar's 1905 Manifesto.

 

[LLETSA]

Which branches were those? It's a thorny topic and it changes depending on the time and which particular branch.

The one I was in and more or less all the others I knew of locally. What was interesting was that I found that as many of the non-aligned working class people looked to the 'professional' (using the term loosely) activists for guidance, especially in the early days. Of the ones who stuck around, many trusted them less as time wore on, sometimes for positive reasons and sometimes not.

It is nothing particularly unique to the poll tax campaign that small groups of leaders dominated, however.

 

[LLETSA]

Well it's a difficult one to call but I certainly don't think 1905 was merely as a result of propaganda

I didn't mean solely as a result of the revolutionaries' propaganda, merely that this articulated the sufferings of the poor. I do agree, though, that there was a large degree of spontaneity.

While many revolutionaries were in exile or prison, the party machines were still fuctioning, while the seeds had already been sown.

 

[sihhi]

The one I was in and more or less all the others I knew of locally.

But where is local (PM if necessary)?
My take on it is that there were a lot of sidelined people from the moment onwards when certain "professional types" over-ran it in some not all APTUs.

But the actual non-payment itself- the act of not paying the new tax or the extra tax with respect to rates- was leaderless in the second sense.

 

[sihhi]

While many revolutionaries were in exile or prison, the party machines were still fuctioning, while the seeds had already been sown.

But the party machines were by and large caught unaware of what was going on- when the war ended in 1905 they thought that would be it and weren't agitating in any real sense.

They were caught unaware of February 1917 aswell iirc.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think, for anarchists, a state must mean power is in the hands of a few.

urban 75 anarchists? do they? I don't know. I don't remember them explaining that anywhere. Will they explain it now? We will see.

Fraternal greetings resistance MP3

 

[mk12]

Not necessarily Urban anarchists. But I think that in general anarchist theory (demonstrated in Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy), as state must include minority rule.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Not necessarily Urban anarchists. But I think that in general anarchist theory (demonstrated in Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy), as state must include minority rule.

so basically anarchists have their own definition of the state that nobody else uses, and then when somebody else talks about a workers state, like the Paris commune, they get really upset about it?

 

[mk12]

I'm just going by what i've read.

Here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm#s1

"Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State" by Bakunin. Here is a quote from that:

What does it mean that the proletariat will be elevated to a ruling class? Is it possible for the whole proletariat to stand at the head of the government? There are nearly forty million Germans. Can all forty million be members of the government? In such a case, there will be no government, no state, but, if there is to be a state there will be those who are ruled and those who are slaves.

The anarchist FAQ claims that a state is:

1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.

I don't know why anarchists haven't answered RMP3 on this question.

 

[catch]

I have at least twice on other threads, at length.

 

[Sorry.]

I don't know why anarchists haven't answered RMP3 on this question.

I spent some days and a few dozen posts banging my head against that particular brick wall before. Not doing it again...

 

[catch]

There's your answer!