Rubbish. In the e-mail you are replying to I never referred to a single underdeveloped or isolated country. It would be nice if you would refer
to what I actually said instead of putting words in my mouth.
> This, we are told, is the "reality" of socialism. But, like the Stalins they
> decry, these new Epigones turn the history of socialism on its head, and
> declare that state-capitalism-qua-Stalinism is the "true" historical
> representation of socialism.
Again, I never said such a thing. Real socialism must be libertarian. What you (and other authoritarian "socialists") advocate is really state-capitalism hidden in socialist rhetoric.
> But, Marx understood that world revolution could only succeed by first
> occurring in the most powerful capitalist countries.
Yeah, right. The white people will lead the way. What a bunch of BS.
> Thus in 1848, he wrote
> in the CM with Engels:
>
> "The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country
> is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under
> more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more
> developed proletariat than what existed in England in the 17th and in France
> in the 18th century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be
> but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution."
Boy, that prophecy failed. BTW, Russia in 1917 also had a much more developed proletariat then France in the 18th century.
> . Socialism fails and becomes degraded in the less advanced countries because
> the material conditions for socialism, along with a larger international
> revolutionary movement, do not exist. Socialist revolution can only become
> successful when it reaches the economically most advanced countries, where
> capital is concentrated.
Considering that the vast majority of real-life socialist societies have been pre-industrial I think it's pretty absurd to claim that you must have industrialization before you can have socialism.
Dddddd0814 at aol.com wrote:
> Joe writes:
> Actually, Engels is playing with semantics and equating two very
> different things (something which Marxists do frequently, most often
> with the state). There's a huge difference between hierarchical
> authority and a rebellion by those on the bottom of the hierarchy
> against the controll of those on the top of that hierarchy.
>
> David:
> Of course, no one's saying that these two things aren't very different in
> character.
Engels is.
> One is progressive and the other is reactionary. But both involve
> power and control. If the oppressed don't organize and gain power, they
> simply continue to be oppressed. By abstractly putting oneself beyond the
> notion of power itself, you just simply play into the hands of the ruling
> class, who will use coersion no matter what.
No one is putting oneself beyond the notion of power itself, except perhaps some Marxists. I'm seeking to understand power; Engel's essay obscures that understanding by pretending two very different things are the same. Engel's essay is wrong because it misunderstands (probably deliberately) what anti-authoritarians mean by authority.
<snip>
> But, even in the example of a woman using pepper spray, the issue of power is
> still there. When a woman defends herself by pepper spraying her attacker,
> she is taking power away from the attacker, weakening him, and putting power
> into her own hands. Taking control of the situation, exercising authority
> over her attacker. We can use whatever words we want to describe them, but
> the same thing's going on. It's a situation where "authority" and "control"
> are actually worthwhile, progressive things.
Once again you, like Engels, are attempting to obscure the difference between two very different things. There's a huge difference between having power over another (authority) and other power relations. The refusal of those on the bottom of the hierarchy to obey authority is not authority, it is a rebellion against authority.
> If we really wanted an end to *all* authority and control immediately, just
> for the sake of eliminating them, we'd have to advocate women stop defending
> themselves from attackers, African Americans stop defending themselves from
> the cops, workers stop organizing against the bourgeoisie!
This of course is standard Marxist word magic, with little relation to what anti-authoritarians mean by the term authority. To illustrate the fallacy behind this, let's take an example. Say someone responded to your call for the abolition of capitalism by defining capitalism as "production of stuff." This person then proceeds to defend capitalism by pointing out that we have to produce stuff to survive - otherwise we'll starve. This is then taken as a vindication of capitalism. The fallacy in such an arguement should be obvious to any socialist - the manipulation of the term 'capitalism' allows him to obscure social relations and avoid the socialist critique of capitalism. You (and Engels) do the same thing with the term authority.
H.1.15 Why does Engels' argument that revolution is "the most authoritarian thing there is" totally miss the point?
As well as the argument that "authority" is essential for every collective activity, Engels raises another argument against anarchism. This second argument is that revolutions are by nature authoritarian. In his words, a "revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon -- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror its arms inspire in the reactionaries." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 733]
However, such an analysis is without class analysis and so will, by necessity, mislead the writer and the reader. Engels argues that revolution is the imposition by "one part of the population" on another. Very true -- but Engels fails to indicate the nature of class society and, therefore, of a social revolution. In a class society "one part of the population" constantly "imposes its will upon the other part" -- those with power imposes its decisions to those beneath them in the social hierarchy. In other words, the ruling class imposes its will on the working class everyday in work by the hierarchical structure of the workplace and in society by the state. Discussing the "population" as if it was not divided by classes and so subject to specific forms of authoritarian social relationships is liberal nonsense.
Once we recognise that the "population" in question is divided into classes we can easily see the fallacy of Engels argument. In a social revolution, the act of revolution is the overthrow of the power and authority of an oppressing and exploiting class by those subject to that oppression and exploitation. In other words, it is an act of liberation in which the hierarchical power of the few over the many is eliminated and replaced by the freedom of the many to control their own lives. It is hardly authoritarian to destroy authority! Thus a social revolution is, fundamentally, an act of liberation for the oppressed who act in their own interests to end the system in which "one part of population imposes its will upon the other" everyday.
Malatesta states the obvious:
"To fight our enemies effectively, we do not need to deny the principle of freedom, not even for one moment: it is sufficient for us to want real freedom and to want it for all, for ourselves as well as for others.
"We want to expropriate the property-owning class, and with violence, since it is with violence that they hold on to social wealth and use it to exploit the working class. Not because freedom is a good thing for the future, but because it is a good thing, today as well as tomorrow, and the property owners, be denying us the means of exercising our freedom, in effect, take it away from us.
"We want to overthrow the government, all governments -- and overthrow them with violence since it is by the use of violence that they force us into obeying -- and once again, not because we sneer at freedom when it does not serve our interests but because governments are the negation of freedom and it is not possible to be free without getting rid of them . . .
"The freedom to oppress, to exploit, to oblige people to take up arms [i.e. conscription], to pay taxes, etc., is the denial of freedom: and the fact that our enemies make irrelevant and hypocritical use of the word freedom is not enough to make us deny the principle of freedom which is the outstanding characteristic of our movement and a permanent, constant and necessary factor in the life and progress of humanity." [Life and Ideas, p. 51]
It seems strange that Engels, in effect, is arguing that the abolition of tyranny is tyranny against the tyrants! As Malatesta so clearly argued, anarchists "recognise violence only as a means of legitimate self-defence; and if today they are in favour of violence it is because they maintain that slaves are always in a state of legitimate defence." [Op. Cit., p. 59] As such, Engels fails to understand the revolution from a working class perspective (perhaps unsurprisingly, as he was a capitalist). The "authority" of the "armed workers" over the bourgeois is, simply, the defence of the workers' freedom against those who seek to end it by exercising/recreating the very authoritarian social relationships the revolution sought to end in the first place. Ultimately, Engels is like the liberal who equates the violence of the oppressed to end oppression with that the oppressors!
Needless to say, this applies to the class struggle as well. Is, for example, a picket line really authoritarian because it tries to impose its will on the boss, police or scabs? Rather, is it not defending the workers' freedom against the authoritarian power of the boss and their lackeys (the police and scabs)? Is it "authoritarian" to resist authority and create a structure -- a strike assembly and picket line -- which allows the formally subordinated workers to manage their own affairs directly and without bosses? Is it "authoritarian" to combat the authority of the boss, to proclaim your freedom and exercise it? Of course not. Little wonder Bakunin talked about "the development and organisation" of the "social (and, by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses" and "the revolutionary organisation of the natural power of the masses"!
Structurally, a strikers' assembly and picket line -- which are forms of self-managed association -- cannot be compared to an "authority" (such as a state). To try and do so fails to recognise the fundamental difference. In the strikers' assembly and picket line the strikers themselves decide policy and do not delegate power away into the hands of an authority (any strike committees execute the strikers decisions or is replaced). In a state, power is delegated into the hands of a few who then use that power as they see fit. This by necessity disempowers those at the base, who are turned into mere electors and order takers (i.e. an authoritarian relationship is created). Such a situation can only spell death of a social revolution, which requires the active participation of all if it is to succeed. It also, incidentally, exposes a central fallacy of Marxism, namely that it claims to desire a society based on the participation of everyone yet favours a form of organisation -- centralisation -- that excludes that participation.
Georges Fontenis summarises anarchist ideas on this subject when he writes:
"And so against the idea of State, where power is exercised by a specialised group isolated from the masses, we put the idea of direct workers power, where accountable and controlled elected delegates (who can be recalled at any time and are remunerated at the same rate as other workers) replace hierarchical, specialised and privileged bureaucracy; where militias, controlled by administrative bodies such as soviets, unions and communes, with no special privileges for military technicians, realising the idea of the armed people, replace an army cut off from the body of Society and subordinated to the arbitrary power of a State or government." [Manifesto of Libertarian Communism, p. 24]
Anarchists, therefore, are no more impressed with this aspect of Engels critique than his "organisation equals authority" argument. In summary, his argument is simply a liberal analysis of revolution, totally without a class basis or analysis and so fails to understand the anarchist case nor answer it. To argue that a revolution is made up of two groups of people, one of which "imposes its will upon the other" fails to indicate the social relations that exist between these groups (classes) and the relations of authority between them which the revolution is seeking to overthrow. As such, Engels critique totally misses the point.