"actually achieves things":
* the Cheka
* Destroying worker self-management in Russia
* the Gulag
* the Holodomor
* Suppression of the revolution in Spain
* Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to carve up Poland with Nazis
* Show trials
* Invasion of Tibet
* Hungary 1956
* Great Chinese Famine 1959-1961
* Czechoslovakia 1968
* Cultural Revolution
* the Stasi
* Invasion of Afghanistan
* Genocide against the Uyghurs
* Forced sterilizations in China
* Environmental devastation wherever and whenever Leninists are in power
* the "Social Credit System" ...
Go away little authoritarian.
– voline (kolektiva)
* the Cheka
* Destroying worker self-management in Russia
* the Gulag
* the Holodomor
* Suppression of the revolution in Spain
* Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to carve up Poland with Nazis
* Show trials
* Invasion of Tibet
* Hungary 1956
* Great Chinese Famine 1959-1961
* Czechoslovakia 1968
* Cultural Revolution
* the Stasi
* Invasion of Afghanistan
* Genocide against the Uyghurs
* Forced sterilizations in China
* Environmental devastation wherever and whenever Leninists are in power
* the "Social Credit System" ...
Go away little authoritarian.
– voline (kolektiva)
💯16🫡1
paternalistic and hierarchical ideas around organizational structure or governance are not going to help us
source
source
💯7
"We anarchists disdain a leadership with the power of command and ensured of extended operation, that is, every state government, bureaucracy and central party, every dictatorship and every cronyist regime.
But we deny neither the usefulness of the director in the theater or chairperson at a meeting nor of the captain on a ship. Here personal qualities assign certain tasks to the appropriate persons in certain cases. The same holds true in political struggle and just as well in an uprising or in fending off armed aggression.
Just as a wandering herd follows the lead animal, which is not chosen but rather takes the lead because it is confident of the best trail, but when tired can immediately be replaced by any other animal, so it is with people, too. There are spokesmen, there are ringleaders, that is, people who are followed because they bring the will of all most clearly to expression or set themselves into action with the most determination.
A leader is one who shows the way, not whoever gives laws or leads followers around behind him on a leash."
— Eric Mühsam
But we deny neither the usefulness of the director in the theater or chairperson at a meeting nor of the captain on a ship. Here personal qualities assign certain tasks to the appropriate persons in certain cases. The same holds true in political struggle and just as well in an uprising or in fending off armed aggression.
Just as a wandering herd follows the lead animal, which is not chosen but rather takes the lead because it is confident of the best trail, but when tired can immediately be replaced by any other animal, so it is with people, too. There are spokesmen, there are ringleaders, that is, people who are followed because they bring the will of all most clearly to expression or set themselves into action with the most determination.
A leader is one who shows the way, not whoever gives laws or leads followers around behind him on a leash."
— Eric Mühsam
🫡5
"The attempt to arrive at socialism from capitalism by means of a transition state is condemned to failure by the nature of the state as a central ordering power.
The state order rests on the process of transferring public functions to officials separated out from the whole especially to this end.
Should socialism after the fall of the capitalist social order wish to arrange its ways of life according to the same procedure, this would result in the repetition of the process which, through the division of social duties into cultivation of the land and defense of the land, brought about the suppression of the laboring men by the armed men, and thereby the stratification of the people into classes, and consequently the dispossession of the entirety by the strengthened minority, exploitation, capitalism."
— Eric Mühsam
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/erich-muhsam-the-liberation-of-society-from-the-state-what-is-communist-anarchism
The state order rests on the process of transferring public functions to officials separated out from the whole especially to this end.
Should socialism after the fall of the capitalist social order wish to arrange its ways of life according to the same procedure, this would result in the repetition of the process which, through the division of social duties into cultivation of the land and defense of the land, brought about the suppression of the laboring men by the armed men, and thereby the stratification of the people into classes, and consequently the dispossession of the entirety by the strengthened minority, exploitation, capitalism."
— Eric Mühsam
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/erich-muhsam-the-liberation-of-society-from-the-state-what-is-communist-anarchism
The Anarchist Library
The Liberation of Society from the State: What is Communist Anarchism?
Erich Mühsam The Liberation of Society from the State: What is Communist Anarchism? 1932 Translated by CR Edmonston, 13 Sept 2008 (last revised 7 Jan 2010)...
Forwarded from Disobey
"One of the necessities of centralised regimes is bureaucracy, which is all the more parasitic, oppressive and irresponsible, the more the government tends to concentrate the administration of the various branches of the economic and legal life of the nation into its hands.
The ministries are the main hubs of bureaucracy. Thousands of people every day turn to them who have measures to solicit, claims to make, interests to protect.
From the responses given after months and months, the confusion of documents, not to mention the intrigues and corruption, is a whole collection of things that makes the ministerial bureaucracy the most monstrous expression of technical, legal and administrative centralisation."
– Camillo Berneri, State and Bureacracy, 1920
The ministries are the main hubs of bureaucracy. Thousands of people every day turn to them who have measures to solicit, claims to make, interests to protect.
From the responses given after months and months, the confusion of documents, not to mention the intrigues and corruption, is a whole collection of things that makes the ministerial bureaucracy the most monstrous expression of technical, legal and administrative centralisation."
– Camillo Berneri, State and Bureacracy, 1920
’What attitude have Comrade Khrushchov and other leaders of the CPSU taken towards Stalin since the 20th Congress of the CPSU?
They have not made an overall historical and scientific analysis of his life and work but have completely negated him without any distinction between right and wrong.
They have treated Stalin not as a comrade but as an enemy.
They have not adopted the method of criticism and self-criticism to sum up experience but have blamed Stalin for all errors, or ascribed to him the “mistakes” they have arbitrarily invented.
They have not presented the facts and reasoned things out but have made demagogic personal attacks on Stalin in order to poison people’s minds.
Khrushchov has abused Stalin as a “murderer”, a “criminal” a “bandit”, a “gambler”, a “despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible”, “the greatest dictator in Russian history”, a “fool”, an “idiot”, etc. When we are compelled to cite all this filthy, vulgar and malicious language, we are afraid it may soil our pen and paper.
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as “the greatest dictator in Russian history”. Does not this mean that the Soviet people lived for thirty long years under the “tyranny” of “the greatest dictator in Russian history” and not under the socialist system? The great Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the whole world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible”. Does not this mean that the experience the great CPSU and the great Soviet people provided over thirty years for people the world over was not the experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat but that of life under the rule of a feudal “despot”? The great Soviet people, the Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the whole world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “bandit”. Does not this mean that the first socialist state in the world was for a long period headed by a “bandit”? The great Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the whole world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “fool”. Does not this mean that the CPSU which waged heroic revolutionary struggles over the past decades had a “fool“ as its leader? The Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the whole world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as an “idiot”. Does not this mean that the great Soviet army which triumphed in the anti-fascist war had an “idiot” as its supreme commander? The glorious Soviet commanders and fighters and all anti-fascist fighters of the world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “murderer”. Does not this mean that the international communist movement had a “murderer” as its teacher for decades? Communists of the whole world, including the Soviet Communists, completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “gambler”. Does not this mean that the revolutionary peoples had a “gambler” as their standard-bearer in the struggles against imperialism and reaction? All revolutionary people of the world, including the Soviet people, completely disagree with this slander!
Such abuse of Stalin by Khrushchov is a gross insult to the great Soviet people, a gross insult to the CPSU, to the Soviet army, to the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the socialist system, to the international communist movement, to the revolutionary people the world over and to Marxism-Leninism.’
– Lmao Ding Dong, On the Question of Stalin
They have not made an overall historical and scientific analysis of his life and work but have completely negated him without any distinction between right and wrong.
They have treated Stalin not as a comrade but as an enemy.
They have not adopted the method of criticism and self-criticism to sum up experience but have blamed Stalin for all errors, or ascribed to him the “mistakes” they have arbitrarily invented.
They have not presented the facts and reasoned things out but have made demagogic personal attacks on Stalin in order to poison people’s minds.
Khrushchov has abused Stalin as a “murderer”, a “criminal” a “bandit”, a “gambler”, a “despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible”, “the greatest dictator in Russian history”, a “fool”, an “idiot”, etc. When we are compelled to cite all this filthy, vulgar and malicious language, we are afraid it may soil our pen and paper.
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as “the greatest dictator in Russian history”. Does not this mean that the Soviet people lived for thirty long years under the “tyranny” of “the greatest dictator in Russian history” and not under the socialist system? The great Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the whole world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible”. Does not this mean that the experience the great CPSU and the great Soviet people provided over thirty years for people the world over was not the experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat but that of life under the rule of a feudal “despot”? The great Soviet people, the Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the whole world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “bandit”. Does not this mean that the first socialist state in the world was for a long period headed by a “bandit”? The great Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the whole world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “fool”. Does not this mean that the CPSU which waged heroic revolutionary struggles over the past decades had a “fool“ as its leader? The Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the whole world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as an “idiot”. Does not this mean that the great Soviet army which triumphed in the anti-fascist war had an “idiot” as its supreme commander? The glorious Soviet commanders and fighters and all anti-fascist fighters of the world completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “murderer”. Does not this mean that the international communist movement had a “murderer” as its teacher for decades? Communists of the whole world, including the Soviet Communists, completely disagree with this slander!
Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “gambler”. Does not this mean that the revolutionary peoples had a “gambler” as their standard-bearer in the struggles against imperialism and reaction? All revolutionary people of the world, including the Soviet people, completely disagree with this slander!
Such abuse of Stalin by Khrushchov is a gross insult to the great Soviet people, a gross insult to the CPSU, to the Soviet army, to the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the socialist system, to the international communist movement, to the revolutionary people the world over and to Marxism-Leninism.’
– Lmao Ding Dong, On the Question of Stalin
www.marxists.org
On The Question Of Stalin
🫡3
"All states are structured as hierarchies of control and privilege – structures that centralise more and more power in fewer and fewer individuals as you go up the chain of command. This very structure is contradictory and opposed, in form and content, to a democratic, emancipatory working class project.
Once a party is involved in the self-sustaining state machinery, its leaders are drawn into the day-to-day necessities of the interests of competing parties and politicians. The party and individual representative’s mandate must then change from one that may have sought to serve broad social interests, to a primary focus on remaining in political power.
Thus, the state, party and politician serve the primary purpose of maintaining their social, economic and political positions of power – control and privilege. The party and its servants are warped to serve this elitist interest, and its leaders, now working and residing in the halls, offices and residences of ruling class political power, become the very problem they may have sought to rid society of. They now have become part of the ruling class."
https://theslowburningfuse.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/voting-is-not-a-solution/
Once a party is involved in the self-sustaining state machinery, its leaders are drawn into the day-to-day necessities of the interests of competing parties and politicians. The party and individual representative’s mandate must then change from one that may have sought to serve broad social interests, to a primary focus on remaining in political power.
Thus, the state, party and politician serve the primary purpose of maintaining their social, economic and political positions of power – control and privilege. The party and its servants are warped to serve this elitist interest, and its leaders, now working and residing in the halls, offices and residences of ruling class political power, become the very problem they may have sought to rid society of. They now have become part of the ruling class."
https://theslowburningfuse.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/voting-is-not-a-solution/
The Slow Burning Fuse
voting is not a solution
Clearly many people on the Left think the real goal is to achieve state power to realise the promises of the future. In reality this means building a political party and pouring a substantial amoun…
💯4🫡1
"Russia and China are both imperialist settler colonial states and they don’t magically become the good-guy team by antagonistically opposing other imperialist settler colonial states."
– @HeavenlyPossum
– @HeavenlyPossum
kolektiva.social
HeavenlyPossum (@HeavenlyPossum@kolektiva.social)
24.6K Posts, 288 Following, 5.84K Followers · Anarchist, communist, opossum. But then, I repeat myself.
💯14
"Lenin himself had called the early Soviet system ‘state capitalist’, and repeatedly justified the development of state capitalism as an advancement towards socialism.
Other Marxists, however, would take much longer to adopt the term as part of a critical explanatory theory. Furthermore, with few notable exceptions, they also tended to adopt Lenin’s framing of state capitalism as an advanced and progressive form of capitalist production, serving only as a basis for the transition to socialism.
The critique of the Soviet Union as a form of class society should go beyond the relatively obvious observation that both a working class and ruling class continued to exist. A more nuanced version of the state capitalist theory is one which builds upon the work of Amadeo Bordiga and the Aufheben Collective, recognising the Soviet Union as a regime of capitalist development.
In other words, we should recognise that – far from being an advanced form of capitalism struggling to transition to socialism – the USSR was a system struggling to transition to a fully developed capitalism. The achievement of the Bolshevik regime was in integrating the socialist movement into a State project of economic developmentalism; transforming Russia from a largely undeveloped peasant society to a capitalist one, in unique conditions shaped by a radicalised population struggling to overthrow class society itself."
https://anarchistworker.substack.com/p/the-soviet-union
Other Marxists, however, would take much longer to adopt the term as part of a critical explanatory theory. Furthermore, with few notable exceptions, they also tended to adopt Lenin’s framing of state capitalism as an advanced and progressive form of capitalist production, serving only as a basis for the transition to socialism.
The critique of the Soviet Union as a form of class society should go beyond the relatively obvious observation that both a working class and ruling class continued to exist. A more nuanced version of the state capitalist theory is one which builds upon the work of Amadeo Bordiga and the Aufheben Collective, recognising the Soviet Union as a regime of capitalist development.
In other words, we should recognise that – far from being an advanced form of capitalism struggling to transition to socialism – the USSR was a system struggling to transition to a fully developed capitalism. The achievement of the Bolshevik regime was in integrating the socialist movement into a State project of economic developmentalism; transforming Russia from a largely undeveloped peasant society to a capitalist one, in unique conditions shaped by a radicalised population struggling to overthrow class society itself."
https://anarchistworker.substack.com/p/the-soviet-union
Substack
The Soviet Union
A Regime of Capitalist Development