Anarcho-stalinist site

Riddler wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/klote_org/

Um, lol?

That ought to be a joke... the starting quote is quite a hint to that.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

That ought to be a joke... the starting quote is quite a hint to that.

There's a bunch of matrix quotes. And a lot of people take that movie real serious, like applying it to real life situations...

But read the introduction. The chronology is way fucked up.

Black_Cross wrote:

There's a bunch of matrix quotes. And a lot of people take that movie real serious, like applying it to real life situations...

But read the introduction. The chronology is way fucked up.

The sole idea of anarcho-stalinism is... well... ridiculous. Bakunin would probably digress though so long as the dictator was invisible.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Bakunin would probably digress though so long as the dictator was invisible.

For real, it doesn't matter that there's a ruling party, so long as the people don't think there's a ruling party. Eureka!

And that site doesn't have one link or page on technocracy...

Black_Cross wrote:

For real, it doesn't matter that there's a ruling party, so long as the people don't think there's a ruling party. Eureka!

Sounds pretty much like a not particularily unfamiliar situation...

Black_Cross wrote:

And that site doesn't have one link or page on technocracy...

Too bad. I'd probably link it in my little writtings about Culture of Labour.

Kropotkin + Stalin = Many lulz.

WeiWuWei wrote:

Kropotkin + Stalin = Many lulz.

Leninism-Stalinism-Cowism-Hoxhaism-Trotkinkapism?

Stos wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

Kropotkin + Stalin = Many lulz.

Leninism-Stalinism-Cowism-Hoxhaism-Trotkinkapism?

That, or the contradiction of the negative affirmation of the existant nonexistance.

What's so funny in it? In by opinion, anarcho-stalinism is an ideology that proposes that a totally free society (anarchy) can be achieved by the evolution of an authoritarian society.

Riddler wrote:

What's so funny in it? In by opinion, anarcho-stalinism is an ideology that proposes that a totally free society (anarchy) can be achieved by the evolution of an authoritarian society.

wat

Riddler wrote:

What's so funny in it? In by opinion, anarcho-stalinism is an ideology that proposes that a totally free society (anarchy) can be achieved by the evolution of an authoritarian society.

Which is why i laughed. That and, of course, the obvious contradiction this poses.

And how is this ideology any different from just Stalinism. Stalinists still seek to establish communism, no? And communism is basically synonymous with anarchism. So you must have believed, even before this, that a free society could be established through authoritarian means. What makes you think this is at all viable?

Anarchy and stalinism dont mix. Plus did you see Korpotkin's beard? LOL!!

comrade110397 wrote:

Anarchy and stalinism dont mix. Plus did you see Korpotkin's beard? LOL!!

dont make fun of greatest men in human history. ±_±

Black_Cross wrote:

Which is why i laughed. That and, of course, the obvious contradiction this poses.

And how is this ideology any different from just Stalinism. Stalinists still seek to establish communism, no? And communism is basically synonymous with anarchism. So you must have believed, even before this, that a free society could be established through authoritarian means. What makes you think this is at all viable?

Actually, stalinists differ very much between each other. Stalin in the 20-ies indeed wanted to build a stateless communiusm, like Lenin. However, with the situation being critical in the 30-ies, he decided that only a totalitarian rule could be optimalc for the instant. Thus, much of the people, who call themselves stalinists, are actually totalitarians, and much of the people, who oppose to stalinism think of it as a totalitarian ideology.

Another difference: anarcho-stalinists share much of the things with the classical anarchism, like the individuality, religion, nationality and economical aspects, which you won't find in the classic stalinism.

Riddler wrote:

Actually, stalinists differ very much between each other. Stalin in the 20-ies indeed wanted to build a stateless communiusm, like Lenin.

So then what made 20's Stalin so great?

Quote :

Another difference: anarcho-stalinists share much of the things with the classical anarchism, like the individuality, religion, nationality and economical aspects, which you won't find in the classic stalinism.

Well, individuality is seriously undermined in a totalitarian state.

How can they share the economic aspects of anarchism if the state is in total control? If the people are directly in control of the industries, it will naturally follow that they are in control of the way society is run at large.

So what actually makes this Stalinist, and how does that not inherently rule out the aspects of anarchy that i pointed to?

in my opinion stalin never targeted a stateless society.

you can find great ideas about getting rid of the state in lenins writings.
the state must bei questioned and consequently overtaken which must result in die off of this state.

lecture: the state and revolution, lenin

for example in english here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

btw: http://www.marxists.org/ is a great source for literature, in a big number of languages, try it!

Just to let you know Lernt, my diet consists of meat, vegetables, and the flesh of elitist ideologues. Conclude what you'd like.

Lernt denken! wrote:

in my opinion stalin never targeted a stateless society.

you can find great ideas about getting rid of the state in lenins writings.
the state must bei questioned and consequently overtaken which must result in die off of this state.

Lenin used rhetoric, but none of his actions seemed to be geared towards decentralization, and, on the contrary, many of his actions strengthened the state, making it that much more difficult to establish communism.

Quote :

lecture: the state and revolution, lenin

Reading The State and Revolution from the anarchist perspective was quite illustrating. What makes you think Lenin is at all correct in his assertions about the state and its role during the revolution? Was there some historical trend that i missed?

As far as i can tell, Lenin was hardly more revolutionary (at least in practice) than Stalin, and neither made any significant steps towards egality and freedom.

Black_Cross wrote:

Just to let you know Lernt, my diet consists of meat, vegetables, and the flesh of elitist ideologues. Conclude what you'd like.

Lernt denken! wrote:

in my opinion stalin never targeted a stateless society.

you can find great ideas about getting rid of the state in lenins writings.
the state must bei questioned and consequently overtaken which must result in die off of this state.

Lenin used rhetoric, but none of his actions seemed to be geared towards decentralization, and, on the contrary, many of his actions strengthened the state, making it that much more difficult to establish communism.

Quote :

lecture: the state and revolution, lenin

Reading The State and Revolution from the anarchist perspective was quite illustrating. What makes you think Lenin is at all correct in his assertions about the state and its role during the revolution? Was there some historical trend that i missed?

As far as i can tell, Lenin was hardly more revolutionary (at least in practice) than Stalin, and neither made any significant steps towards egality and freedom.

i am sorry but please read about lenin actions before you start your anarchist petit-bourgeois reflexes (and diets? perhaps my bad english does not make me understand that "diet" thing, whatever).

first of all - who did push the soviets/councils in a time when bolsheviks were not in majority there? "all power to the soviets!"

second - the declaration of the self-determination of nations is going a hundred times further than any dammed capitalist state did bring on "egality and freedom".

what "you" call freedom, like perhaps kronstadt, is reactionary, petit-bourgeois action from those who exactly do NOT want egality and want to stand above others. or even let the rest of the state starve while profiting of the black market and so on.

please dont get me wrong, i would work together with you as long as you support democratic ways of revolutionary actions, dont get privileges for yourself (as anarchists did in spain) and dont bomb me up .

at last: i am fighting elite ideology. leninism is about avantgarde which is contrary to elite.
elite is fighting to stay above the masses,
avantgarde is fighting to enable the masses to reach a classles society.
like running forwards without standing above. secured by many democratic rules that we and I subdue to.

revolutionary greetings!

so bassically its an anti-authoritarian/hyper-authoritarian robot regime?


sound slike a george lucas movie

Lernt denken! wrote:

i am sorry but please read about lenin actions before you start your anarchist petit-bourgeois reflexes.

God, are all MLists like this?... Please elaborate on my "petit-bourgeois reflexes", otherwise, i couldn't possibly take you seriously.

Quote :

(and diets? perhaps my bad english does not make me understand that "diet" thing, whatever).

diet is (in common-speak) the commodities you consume to nourish yourself (i was speaking metaphorically, of course).

Quote :

first of all - who did push the soviets/councils in a time when bolsheviks were not in majority there? "all power to the soviets!"

So Kronstadt was just a hiccup then? I mean, their slogan was "all power to the soviets, and not the parties". And then around 18,000 of them died, somehow...

And the people called for the soviets (even the majority of the peasants, as they were mostly landless) regardless of the bolsheviki.

Quote :

second - the declaration of the self-determination of nations is going a hundred times further than any dammed capitalist state did bring on "egality and freedom".

Some questions for clarification: What do you mean by "the declaration of the self-determination of nations"? What's the significance of this in relation to Leninist elitism? Ane what's the point of making a comparison to a capitalist state?

Quote :

what "you" call freedom,

Quotes should probably be around freedom.

Quote :

like perhaps kronstadt, is reactionary, petit-bourgeois action from those who exactly do NOT want egality and want to stand above others.

The irony is palpable... Coming from someone who supported the bolsheviks, who supported a 32-tier rationing system, what makes you think i'll buy anything you're sellin' as far as equality goes?

And the demands of the sailors and workers of kronstadt were by no means radical or unreasonable as far as a soviet program is concerned. I'll just put them here, and you tell me what was petit-bourgeois about 'em.

Izvestiia wrote:

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF CREWS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND BATTLESHIP BRIGADES, OCCURING 1 MARCH, 1921

Having heard the report of the crew representatives, sent to the City of Petrograd by the General Meeting of ships' crews for clarification of the situation there, we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

The resolution was passed by the Brigade Meeting unanimously with two abstentions.

PETRICHENKO, President of the Brigade Meeting
PEREPELKIN, Secretary

The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of the entire Kronstadt garrison.

VASILIEV, President

Together with Comrade Kalinin, Vasiliev votes against the resolution.

Who'd have that the party drone who's charged with keeping the soviet under the parties thumb would've voted against this bid for autonomy.

Quote :

or even let the rest of the state starve while profiting of the black market and so on.

I would never approve of this.

Quote :

please dont get me wrong, i would work together with you as long as you support democratic ways of revolutionary actions, dont get privileges for yourself (as anarchists did in spain) and dont bomb me up .

grassroots democracy is essential to anarchist-communism. But state control of the capitalist system does not even resemble democracy. And what privileges are you talking about? The privilege to die fighting fascists on the front line while a duplicitous state withholds well armed troops in the rear-guard? The privilege to spend years building a collectivized industry (over half of the country was collectivized), just to watch the state subvert it with force?

Quote :

at last: i am fighting elite ideology. leninism is about avantgarde which is contrary to elite.
elite is fighting to stay above the masses,
avantgarde is fighting to enable the masses to reach a classles society.

From above the masses... I hear a difference, but i don't see one. And i'm not blind. What do you think the bolsheviki did to enable the masses? Surely slaughter, spy mania, and heirarchy are not ways to enable people.

Quote :

like running forwards without standing above. secured by many democratic rules that we and I subdue to.

Again, i hear a difference, but... You contradicted yourself; This is coercive. The state (or the bolsheviks) were able to enact policies without the approval of the people. That's inherently undemocratic.

first of all i want to tell you that i am very happy about your posting. this means you are not one of the typical university-student anarchist who just hates to read about other lectures and detests politics at all.

but i am somehow handicapped because of the english language which i am not that familiar with. also i am very tired now.
but i want to answer you. but later.
i hope you understand this.

revolutionary greetings, offering you a cooperation [dont know the special word in english] against capitalism - promising not to shoot you as long as you dont establish a black market

the people of kronstadt did not share the food, so other towns were starving. they were called to bring it out but they did rather fill their savings more and more. so they acted against the revolution.
as i am not eloquent enough in english to hold up with your writing style i wont write that much at all, but perhaps you would like to read something of an involved person:

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm

at last i think youre somehow respectless towards me in your writing style.
try to focus more on thinking about "why" and not stopping at the "what" questions.
for example the problems of a social revolution in a totally unevolved, nearly unindustrialised country with a very high analphabet rate, attacked by several imperial armies at a time, under fire from monarchists and reactionary and church-related forces..