“Throughout the history of our civilisation, two traditions, two opposed tendencies, have been in conflict: the Roman tradition and the popular tradition, the imperial tradition and the federalist tradition, the authoritarian tradition and the libertarian tradition.” ― Pyotr Kropotkin
@@MutualAidWorks repression and systematic starvation of workers and the non-implemention of socialism is ok because it's not materialist apparently - some internet tankie larper
@@mcboat3467 The funniest part is that Kropotkin doesn't even fall to the Utopian Socialism category since he based his ideology on a scientific analysis of mutual aid, Kropotkin is by definition a Scientific Socialist. So you either don't know what Utopian and Scientific Socialism is, you don't know who Kropotkin is or you are just making up shit.
Dang, I made an entire video using Brinton's "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control" as a primary source not even knowing you had already created one! You covered some quotes I didn't though, so I feel like they're pretty good as companion pieces
The central flaw of Leninism is that it genuinely believes that communism needs to be legislated into existence. All it's counter-revolutionary and authoritarian positions are a result of that central belief. But, communism (or socialism or whatever you want to call it) is not simply working class self-control. Communism is realized when the working class creates new forms of distribution outside of capitalist markets and its competition. Workers councils have never had the opportunity to get that far yet. Not in Russia.. and not in Spain either.
I'll team up with tankies as soon as I don't have to worry about a red bullet in the back of my head post-revolution. So far the record ain't too great
@@seeibe I don't owe anything to the idea of a "people's revolution", I fight to make myself free and in a revolution I use the power of everyone else who wishes to be free as a tool for my goal, likewise they use my power to achieve theirs. If I reason that teaming up with Tankies will most likely end in them betraying me, I do not see the "peoples revolution" as a path to my goal. Doing something I don't agree with just because it serves a fixed idea of a united revolution and not because it will benefit me is a misguided opinion. The revolution doesnt own the peoples actions, the people own the revolution's actions.
I'll team up with anarchists when they stop larping, denouncing movements which are actually successful, appropriating western anti-communist Cold War propaganda, supporting imperialist regime change, denouncing anti-imperialism, speaking from a place of ignorance and immense western white privilege, and of course, dying after 3 seconds. So far the record ain't too great
@@berniehoe9960 "don't have good track records either" At least you have tacitly implied that libertarian socialism is nothing but a complete and utter failure, which it is.
Ableism? I haven't been ableist at all! Unless you consider "kiddie" an ableist slur? In that case please provide me a source for that and I'll happily edit it out, because I don't want to insult people with disabilities unlike you people on reddit and twitter
Okay, I can't be bothered sifting through all the comments to find the specific reply I'm looking for. Someone made the false claim that Makhno was anti-semitic... When Makhno armed thousands of working class Jews and taught them to defend themselves against reactionary pogroms... Makhno was not anti-semitic, nice Leninist propaganda.
Primitivism is a fine idea but it's obviously not a system that will work for everyone. If someone wants to run their anarchist society according to primitivist ideals, I don't see the problem.
@@daymanfighterofthenightman A lot of them do, actually... It's a huge part of their ideology. They see civilization as the main issue. Some of them even go so far as to say that agriculture is bad. Honestly, if so many of them weren't so set on having everybody live the way they want them to, primitivism would be great and I would totally consider it valid. Live how you like provided you're as non-hierarchical as possible and not hurting innocent people is what I say.
Leaders don't see any other way of doing things than leading. After thousands of years of civilization run by leaders, if leadership was going to solve any problems, it would have done it already.
I thought anarchists only wanted to abolish unjustified hierarchies? If a leader was chosen based on merit and held truly accountable as a representative of his people, would there still be any problem with their existence as a leader?
There's a difference between putting someone in charge of managing a specific project, and general leadership. Why would it even make sense for one person or group to run everything? Limited management is often necessary. Leadership leads to authoritarianism every time, because that's what leaders do. It's their job.
Governments work... For the rich. Or for those who wish to seek and assert control. No government works for the workers, history has proven that to be true a million or more times.
We've tried left unity over and over again, with Makhno and Catalonia, look how that worked out... Anyways Its pretty pointless arguing with Leninists what I found is, first they get offended when we say the USSR was always state capitalist, we show them facts, then they try and argue that it was necessary, you show them more facts showing how others proved it wasn't, lastly they either say "you believe everything you hear?", "Catalonia wasn't perfect!" or they say "capitalist propaganda lies". Funny thing is, know who else does that when I'm disproving their theories? Fascists... oh and "Anarcho" Capitalists...
Lykoref No, Marxism and leninism aren't the same thing. Leninism is a right wing deviation of Marxism. That said, any form of socialism calling for a centralized, Bureaucratic, authoritarian state is a right wing deviation of socialist philosophy. But, you're right in saying not all marxists do that. I quite like council communism, but I'm honestly not terribly familiar with other forms of libertarian Marxism. Would love to learn more if you're willing to share.
Lykoref no I do understand there are many forms of marxism, that is why I specifically mentioned Leninists,. However any system that wants to establish a "representative" form of government is not going to win you socialism. The same is true for any dictatorial form. Only a consensus direct democracy can do this, the only place that should be left with a representative electoral system is the military as that type of hierarchy is necessary if you want to implement grand battle plans.
"we show them facts, then they try and argue that it was necessary" That's because it was necessary, ever heard of the Russian Civil War? Or perhaps World War II? Considering that anarchist Ukraine and Catalonia were only able to survive minor attacks by having the Soviets as their sugar daddy, I reckon they would've fallen over after about 3 seconds if they were put in Lenin's position.
"Nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated." - George Orwell, Author's Preface to the Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm.
I'm sorry I didn't feel the need to come up with an elaborate detailed response to an quote from a literal anti-communist (whose dying act was to provide a list of communists to the British government) against the Soviet Union. How much of Orwell have you read, much of his writings are pretty glaring examples of his racial bias and smug sense of intellectual superiority.
Really though, what is Democratic Socialism? Seems to me it's a vague term used by anyone from social democrat to anarchists. The whole idea of socialism is democracy being expanded to the economic sphere so the "democratic" part seems redundant and only used to quell the underlying fears of Americans they still hold from Cold War propaganda.
@@Reality4Peace Demsocs are reformists who want to act through existing democratic institutions. If Social Democrats seek to change capitalism until it is tolerable enough, Democratic Socialists seek to change capitalism until we can get rid of it. Many committed leftists disagree arguing that reform is a failed project. To which the reformists will argue that revolution also fails more than it works. And then it devolves into sectarianism. I honestly don't have a solid position on that question. On one hand revolution now would be impossible, because the mass movement is dead and needs to be rebuilt if it were to achieve anything. On the other hand to actually transition away from capitalism there will HAVE to be some clean breaks that seriously reorganise society, and a purely reformist program has trouble accomodating that.
Lenin was to socialism as the Founding Fathers of the US were to freedom. Both Lenin and the Founding Fathers propped up a state capitalist system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. In the USSR, the proletariat worked for the state capitalists and behaved or they died, whereas in the US, we work for the state capitalists or we starve. The Founding Fathers created a kinder, gentler tyranny than Lenin created, but it is nonetheless tyranny. Unless we retake some control of the production and manufacturing in the US through labor unions, and take control of our politicians away from the plutocracy, we'll be a totalitarian oligarchy like Russia is soon.
Marxist Hedonist Secular Demon No, because, as with fascists, it's a victory for you if the debate takes place at all. As it legitimises your absurd opinions.
Actually, I don't want to see a fight. I would hate to hear them swaring each other. If someone learns something new during the process then both parts win.
Bukharin literally explained why Marxists don't debate with Anarchists ages ago xD Again, a debate is not a truth game. Winning a debate doesn't prove anything whoever wins.
So uh, there's alot of leninists here saying that the centralisation of Russia was necessary to resist against imperialist forces. But I don't see them talking about why the destruction of all political contemporaries was necessary. Obviously creating a dissenting opposition that needs to be crushed to justify their existence, instead of cooperating with them goes against their whole all hands on deck ideology, so I'm wondering why they aren't disowning this as bad praxis that needs to be improved upon in future attempts.
So glad you made this vid, fuck all centralized power! Think of the mindset of people wanting centralized power, it's truly disturbing and I have no sympathy in not letting them have it.
the group of people who hold this beliefs will defend them. My sentence was perfectly clear, the fact that you try to suck sth so miniscule out of my sentence in order to implicate stuff about me says a lot about you.
"THis space has been left blank because the initial image considered 'primitivism' to be legit." XD Someone should make a version of this adding anarcho-transhumanism whatever one may think of it specifically to piss off primitivists lmao
As in the amout of power it had caused it to grow further disaffected from and uncaring towards the people it originally championed? Sounds about right.
This is why I only work with individual Marxists who I know are alright and don't want none of the shit Lenin did.... Rather than pursuing the dream of "Left Unity" and (trying to work with) working with (more like working for) ML/Bolshevik organisations. Libertarian individual Marxists are okay, though. Those that want workers control, not state control. I'll work with those so long as they don't try to get me to tow a party line.
Why do they have to be individuals? There are left-communist, councilist and other "liberatarian marxists" organizations out there. IMO, they are generally more principled than the majority of anarchist organizations.
Because I don't trust any non-anarchist organisation to remain anti-bureaucratic. I'm opposed to bureaucracy, and the anarchist organisations I am part of have no or a minimal level of bureaucracy, and they keep to their word that should bureaucracy emerge, it is due to necessity, and will fall when it is no longer necessary.
I am fully in favor of left unity, if we're talking about the actual left. Leninism, Stalinism, etc, are not on the left. They are right wing ideologies dressed in left wing clothing. That said, they're understood as being leftists, which pisses me off, so I'll call for libertarian left unity, or "bottom left" unity. This is the opinion of a single member (Coal), and not the opinion of the ANVIL collective in it's entirety. Any opinion expressed from this account is an expression of the individual writing it, as we are a directly democratic collective, and the organization as a whole holds only the opinions expressed within it's charter, as agreed upon by all members.
Hi, I have some questions unrelated to the video: 1.) Is the "boss-worker" relationship still a hierarchical one, if the worker voluntarily agrees to work for the boss, and why? 2.) Once the revolution becomes real and there is a bunch of people voluntarily deciding that they want to live in a market system outside of ancom communes, what do we do with it? I would really appreciate some answers to this questions they are quite existential to me, thanks.
1) Yes it is. For the same reason that a master-slaver relationship is hierarchical even if the slave voluntarily agrees to become a slave (There are certain things you cannot surrender voluntarily, even if you utter some "magic words"). 2) Nothing. People should be free to live as they wish.
1) It is in some but unlike what another commentator mentioned it’s perfectly normal in others. In a capitalist society, the worker has no say in the policies of his boss. That’s unjust. But if you in a socialist workplace had an election to elect a boss who is accountable to his actions and can get kicked out and listens to the workers and works himself it is fine. The profit obviously should belong to the workers unlike in a capitalist society if it does not then its hierarchical. When I say “hierarchical” I mean unjust hierarchy. In both cases they are hierarchy. 2) Wouldn’t that make them counter revolutionaries? In that case treat them the same way you treat another counter revolutionary. That’s because I don’t consider Market socialism as socialism but some here might disagree.
I feel like Lenin, coming from an agrarian, pretty Feudal state, saw the production and efficiency of Post IndRev Capitalist states, and thought, "hey, I'll do that but without Private Capitalism. It's all about Nationalism baby!"
Quick question. Suppose we live in an an-com society and workers of factory A produce the good B. Who gets to decide what is done to the good B? (how it is distributed, mainly) The worker-elected group of people in the organization immediately above the factory, the one at the top, or the workers of factory A?
I would say the workers in conjunction with the people who depend on good B, let's call that commune A. Those people could for instance be the immediate region the factory could supply to involving the amount of people the factory could supply to. That group should also be in communication with other groups (communes, federates, whatever) for when there is a surplus of good B for commune A, maybe commune C has a shortage and commune A could give them their surplus. Or if there is a shortage in commune A but commune D happens to have a surplus they could get it from them. Ideally things are as local as is possible but the communication with other groups is necessary for this reason but also for goods that are rarer (because they're resource- or labor intensive for instance) so goods can be distributed to where they're needed the most. Google Murray Bookchin.
You're the best for making this video. I have a friend who at the time of Sanders' second run, still wasn't very familiar with socialism and even less so of anarchism. They also joined DSA at the time and just recently told me that they had a problem with Black Socialists of America because anti-authoritarian discourse is dangerous and that authority is necessary to dismantle the basis of class contradictions (which is itself contradictory because what is a classism if not authority based hierarchy?). I knew this was false but didn't quite know how to respond at the time because I just don't know enough about the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik seizure of power. It sounds like there was already a strong network of worker controlled entities but they were either dismantled or absorbed by the state. Is that correct to say?
I feel like too many anarchists and libertarian socialists are ignoring history and calling for “left unity.” Like, left unity sounds cool and all, but why don’t we do socialism instead.
There is plenty of Leninists who want left unity for socialism, and hell, there are a few MLs as well. The problem is idiots like LSR actively refuse any outreach or counterargument on the pure basis of "tankies tankies tankies", and will actively shelve out bourg. propaganda in support of capitalist imperialism. You know, instead of actually examining the USSR and determining its flaws and its successes?
I’m a Marxist Leninist who used to be an anarchist. I still enjoy your videos and I’m totally fine with you criticising Leninism and the Soviet Union and all that. I don’t agree with you but I’m fine with you saying these things. But I think it’s not a good idea to be against left unity completely. We can’t just be acting on idealism. I love anarchism but I personally don’t think it will work too well on a large scale. I think anarchist communes and socialist states need to work together. Maybe we could have seperate anarchist communes with a decentralised government planning centres which all communicate to help us coordinate resources and stuff idk. I still think we need to work together. I really don’t like the idea of being divisive. We can think about what to do after the revolution. Every country is different and requires different steps. We need to remember that this disagreement is not about communism (the end goal) but how to get to communism (the means to achieving the end goal). It isn’t about ideology vs ideology. We need to think about what we know will work and also what is the best system for the people which will also work. We need to think about welfare and efficiency and try to find a balance. I would love anarchism but if it can’t work on a large scale then how are we gonna achieve our goals? Like I share the same principles with anarchists but a social state is way more efficient and how are we gonna get people to just voluntarily give over their land? Like idk I don’t want to have a big debate or anything I just think that we should work together and find compromise and realise that we shouldn’t be fighting and that our goals are the same. We should try to agree on a way to get there which most of us can agree on.
dis nomina yes be as divisive as possible. You like Noam Chomsky? Even he thinks that the biggest problem with the left is sectarianism. We need to stick together. Our goals are literally the exact same. Its kinda fucking shitty to tell someone to fuck off when they want to create unity. I literally prefer anarchism but I’m not convinced it’s the best option to get to communism. I don’t like it when the people who are meant to be my comrades are telling me to fuck off when I think we should work together. I get that there are other Marxist Leninist who will talk shit about anarchists and I find that toxic as well and i criticise them too. I’ve been criticising the Finnish Bolshevik when he talks condescendingly about anarchists. If we are this sectarian then we aren’t going to get anything done. This isn’t difference between ideology it’s difference between the means at which we achieve our goals and I think it’s more important to organise and discuss these things together and try to reach common ground. We are comrades. We need to work together.
DragoonBoom there’s a difference between the state under capitalism and the state in the revolution. The state has a completely different role to play. I would be against them destroying their political contemporaries if they were just ideologically opposed or they weren’t getting in the way at all with the revolution but if the others were actually trying to overthrow the state and trying to get in the way of the revolution then I think it’s fine to get rid of them. The state in the revolution is actually important. Like it’s not just some unjust hierarchy which is used to maintain the power of the oligarchs of society. The state is to take back the property for the people so it can be collectivised, get rid of classes, plan the economy, defend from outside threats etc etc. The state is used to maintain the revolution. Anarchists want a similair sort of thing but without vertical hierarchy. They still want the planned economy and the defence from outside states and still wants all the things that the state is supposed to do but they just don’t like the authority of it. It’s democratic and it’s centralised though. So being against the revolution is actually a problem when we already have started the revolution and are planning everything. If there’s a group of anarchists going around trying to revolt against the state when the state is literally in the process of socialist revolution to achieve communism and trying to provide for the people and defend from enemies then I really think that the anarchists must be dealt with. If the anarchists are talking and discussing and debating with the Marxist Leninists and trying to make the state as least oppressive as possible or for them to set up anarchist communes or anarchist revolutions in smaller countries or for them to try and influence politics through democracy then it’s totally fine to have them around. I don’t know exactly what the opposition were actually doing. If the destruction of political contemporaries was not justified then I don’t agree with it. Also it’s important to note that the USSR had the dictatorship of the proletariat where the state is run democratically by the workers for the workers. This is fundamentally different to the state under capitalism or fascism.
@CommunistLudicrum You can't put aside differences of political ideology when you are talking directly about politics. At best you can ask the different factions to try to compromise but obviously decisions need to be made and it seems to me that in any state of revolutionary upheaval the more authoritarian elements will win out every time. Compromise isn't likely to occur when everyone is under the belief that one wrong move will send your whole societal dream crashing down.
@CommunistLudicrum And why do you think that sectarianism was so rife? The only reason you have any pretense of unity now is because your ideas exist strictly within the realms of abstract theory while you live in an otherwise comfortable society that isn't in a state of violent upheaval. And how exactly do you expect to create a worldwide revolution in a short enough time frame to prevent being destroyed by imperialist powers?
I would like to point out here that according to Lenin, the State was supposed to be gradually dissolved and central planing was a place holder until workers could be sufficiently educated and coordinated to take over. Also the first thing Stalin did when he took power was have almost all of the Bolsheviks purged.
This was good and I recommend delving deeper into this, critiqueqing the idea of a benevolent dictator (I know an authoritarian socialist who believes in such an idea)
I was a Leninist and became a ancom like Makhno when i begin to study the Ukraine Rev. So from mine point of view, the left united is indeed possible, since if i came to become an anarchist, maybe some leninist more convict can accept some anarchist ideas. I have a very good friend in mine teachers union, and he is a Leninist. We desagree in some points, but in the MAJORITY of things we add forces one to another. In the case of a revolution with a united left front, we (ancom) only has to agree in NOT permit one steep back (in direction of capitalism framework with another names).
Leninism is the parent of all the other -isms there. The following all consider themselves Leninists, but disagree with each other on whose ideas are truest to Lenin's legacy. • Stalinism is the ideology of Stalin: socialism can exist in one country without waiting for international revolution. The most brutal and totalitarian of the bunch, being most committed to killing and lying to people in the service of revolution. • Trotskyism: socialism can only come about through worldwide international revolution. Views the Soviet Union either as a "degenerated workers state" or as state capitalist. • Maoism: similar to Stalinism, but with a Chinese twist. Views the peasantry as taking the place of the proletariat in the revolution, contra traditional Marxism. There's also some obscure Leninisms like Hoxhaism, Titoism, and Bordigism. And a bizarre Trotskyist offshoot called Posadism, which (1) believes nuclear war would be a good thing, and (2) literally believes in aliens, and that the aliens will make communism possible.
Hey comrade, you do realize that there's more comrades on the Auth-left than Leninist's, right? I'm an ancomm that is willing to see the nuance in comrades that detest the treatment of workers and anarchists while understanding the potentially practical need for a semblance of a state in areas far more ripe with reactionary forces than other areas. Many Marxists of my left unity group have no intention nor desire to crush worker control, as many understand the wrongs that have been done. I think that not taking any nuance into account in this subject is crucially damning to our cause and potential. In some parts of the United States, there is very little to no hope of collectivization or getting the common working class person to work with a leftist movement, as many have already been brainwashed by far right media and ideologies. I've traveled across this country and as die hard anarchist as I am, I can't imagine these swathes of the country raising a red and black flag without a transitional period of ratting out white supremacists and 3%ers. Maybe it's different in your part of the world, but here in the US there will probably need to be segments of anarchist communes side by side with transitional governments. Left Unity is our only hope for saving the world, and we have been running out of time for years now. The Marxists won't stop the united right by themselves and neither will the anarchists. We need to be smart and put aside our grudges as they are not more important than saving the world, which is much bigger than any of us whether individually or collectively.
Lykoref I haven't finished the video yet, but I completely agree with you. I still like the video because I think these things need to be discussed. but certainly different tactics will work in different parts of the world. I do however believe that community solidarity is the start of the road to socialism and whatever ideology you follow I believe that this should be your priority
Why can't anarchists "rat out" supremacists and 3%ers? What makes a state better suited to do that than anarchists? Remember, anarchists ONLY object to unjustified hierarchies. If there is a hierarchy that goes through anarchist analysis and is deemed necessary, then that's okay, but it's very hard to justify most forms of power. If it is really, truly necessary in the USA to have a transitional government then anarchists can carry it out. But there's no need to go straight to an authoritian way of doing things without trying alternative methods first.
While i agree with all of this, i think left unity is too much of a valuable concept to be burned at the altar of lost russian revolution. Many Leninists (Trot and some Maoists gang basically) have skewed version of their own history, and more left leaning of those could be helpful to the cause. So, all of those crimes happened at unindustrialised world, if revolution happen to begin in first world some Leninists would take stance with Socialism proper, not against it. Maybe. Idk. Non-anarchist Radical Left should be considered too, Feminist, Green, Labour movements, national liberation movements, left-liberal without a party affiliation... etc. Those kind of people can be majority when revolution starts, and their organisations can be cooperated with anarchist organisations. What we need to remember is left unity is not leftisr unity, policies mattes not whether they regard themselves socialist or not.
+existential anarchist Implying you ever had much unity to begin with. At best you can organize around taking shit from the rich or in more modern times taking shit from the white man. Other than that you have little to hold your coalition of vastly different people with countless often incompatible ideas on economic and social policy together. It's a hell of a lot easier to unite a common people in defense of themselves, their territory and their traditions which is partially why the left is so often found attacking itself.
Wait.. You guys are actually holding out for a revolution? To me this is really just a nice game of what-if.. I can see myself living in an anarchist system with the other anarchists here in the comment section. I can not envision myself participating in a revolution that involves the majority of the populace. Most people aren't exactly nice or well meaning.
D Bojangles Or taking from rich white people? I agree it's easier to organise people the way you described, but people need socialism. Literally, they need to take shit from rich white men. Hundred years of capitalism and imperialism crippled earth, people need equality and it's not easy but, to some extent, inevitable for that reason. Unless earth will just destroy itself. That's why Left always returns. If we let capitalism and states run wild, we will live in a post-apocalyptic landscape eventually. Well, most of us will.
"The state as an institution is designed to protect and enforce oppressive class relations such as that of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, not erode them. Allowing the state to continue to exist will not assist in dissolving such relations, only in perpetuating them in new and equally destructive forms . Without the state , such classes will be unable to enforce their will on the populous, and thus will not be able to continue their existence." - Nestor Makhno.
Make an hour long documentary on why "An"Caps/"An"Fashies/"An"Nats are all totally oxymoronic, and throw in some other total oxymorons, like "Anarcho"-Monarchism that I've seen a couple of dingi use and take seriously, I repeatedly laughed at them and asked them things like "You're joking?" "You've got to be kidding me?" and "Nah, you can't be serious, how are you being serious? Anarcho-Monarchism! xD LOL!" They tried explaining it and I was just like "Anarchist Landlordism... Yeah, I'm not buying it." And throw in other total oxymorons like "National Socialism"... How Socialism is inherently pro international working class and opposed to nationalism of any kind? Touch on "Strasserist National Socialism" too, and differentiate it from Hitler's even worse version. And "National Syndicalism"... Basically, just have a nice, long documentary destroying and debunking right wing co-options and oxymorons. =] That, I'd actually donate cash to you for. I probably already should, considering we're both AFed. Mutual Aid and all.
Also! Cameron! I have a question! Answer me by message on Twitter if you wanna keep it private. But what do you think of Egoism, The Post Left and "Anarchist-Individualism" ???
The entire article is grounded on absolutism. There is barely a mention of their international situation. An unreal account of the reasoning behind the leninist moves. This article clearly produces an image of the birth of crystallized government in the ranks of the workers which then seizes control only to become another oppressive state apparatus. The soviets were not an island amongst themselves. The seeming oppression from the New state was not a state against the workers. It was a state that had to be the same form as the aggressors external to the soviets. This incorporates oppression! That's why it was not communist!
This entire video is just unfair misrepresentation. If the Bolsheviks adopted anarchist decentralized tactics they would've croaked under the pressure of the Russian Civil War. Your entire critique of the Soviet Union is within the framework of War Communism, which is not representative of Leninism at all. Furthermore, these worker councils which got dissolved weren't replaced with some bureaucracy like to paint it as, they were incorporated into the Soviet state which was itself run by democratic worker councils, hence "Soviet".
Yeah, that's literally what happened. The councils were incorporated into the Soviet government which was run at a grassroots level by local Soviets. The term "Soviet" translates to "council" in Russian.
Do you understand democratic centralism? Evidently not, there's a good reason why MLs don't bother with white teenagers who can't even grasp the basics.
@@cooperrush6474 Fuck off. Frankfurt School, Budapest School, Left communism, Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Anarcho communism, Analytical Marxism are all followed by white teenagers. And yes, I am a black
@@cooperrush6474 In 1918 all non Bolshevik organizations were banned from the Soviets. Any election in which the result was predicted to go against Bolsheviks was not carried out. So in Nov. 1918 Congress of Soviets Bolsheviki got 97 percent vote.
Build a social order that can compete with the imperialist countries premised upon empowering the workers and repressing the capitalists that lasts longer than 20 minutes and get back to us.
@@enfercesttout yeah, communists and labor organizers spend their lives fighting capitalists and their governments all over the world, risking their lives, just so they can have power to oppress working people someday. Pretty solid analysis
Hey so i know this is an older video so my comment prolly isnt gonna be seen, but i’ve had an issue with this video for awhile i wanted to air out. I love 95% of the video, but i do take issue with the table at the end of the video with the anarchist ideologies that you regard as compatible under left-libertarian unity. I also believe in the ideal of left-libertarian unity, but i differ in which ones i feel are actually compatible. I resent the opinion of yours that anarcho-primitivism is somehow illegitimate, or that “green anarchy” is fine yet anarcho primitivism is unacceptable. Yet you somehow deem anarcho-pacifism and mutualism worthy of left-libertarian unity. I find it pretty cringe when fellow anarchists throw our anti-civ/anarcho primitivist comrades under the bus while accepting anarchists who would introduce a market system or utilize “work vouchers” (fiat currency) and literally reintroduce wage labor into an anarchist program.
Being triggered means that your fight or flight system responds to the present as if you were actually experiencing your trauma. Don't use it to refer to people being annoyed.
I made a reply in another thread but essentially no, I don't like authoriatarianism and thus am not a tankie, I just had problems with anarchists (not everyone who does is a stalinist, you know)
Fair points, however I think you shouldn't overlook the historical and material reality the state was faced with at the begining of the revolution. Like, Russia was, at the time, mostly feudal with an underdeveloped industry, so the capitalism stage kinda had to have happened in order to develop more productive forces.
dadothemasta The idea that capitalism must be implemented before socialism can be possible is one of the most ridiculous and wrongheaded notions in left history. Capitalism destroys the possibilities for worker self-management and liberatory human-scale technologies with its centralisation of industry, hierarchical management structures, and mass-production modes of distribution. Developing state capitalism in a previously feudal nation just made it easy for Russia to collapse into traditional capitalism in the 1990s.
State capitalism was a necessary step in order to modernize as quickly as possible to create the material conditions required to fascilitate socialism. Mistakes were made, but once again, you need to take into account the material reality of the time.
Why the rush tho? i understand they were paranoid about invasion but if necessities of people meant loss of war and defeat of socialism, then be it. There is still a tomorrow. It's better to die hero, since Soviet died off anyways eventually.
Yeah, this is why I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist. I don't agree with Marx at all that the industrialization was a good thing. There were some very small anarchist peasant communes in Russia, Marxist literally told them to GTFO and make way for his idea of "socialism". Anarchism can exist within any technological phase, it could exist before the industrialization, and it can exist after full automation of the industry when workers will no longer have that much power. I do agree though, that what Russia did at the time was the only way to become a global player militarily and economically. That's the problem for us anarchists, the system we advocate for does not produce something that can survive against hostility in the short term. On the other hand, anything not anarchist will definitely wipe out the species in the long term, so in the end we're "right", it's just that all the "wrong" people can overpower us with brute force.
Marx disagreed with your view on this. He said that the communal owned fuedal land in Russia was the right foundation for an easier transition to socialism.
"But given their history of dismantling socialist institutions, they're not defending against the counterrevolution, they _are_ the counterrevolution." Exactly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. Badmouse should watch this video. Maybe it'll get him off the tankie path he's on atm.
And yet he managed to do the most important things right. You know, like actually beating the shit out of fascists, unlike the anarchists who failed at every attempt because discipline and structure scares the shit out of their little snowflake hearts.
Lenin's ideological contributions(especially in the area of imperalism) far surpasses any the idealism of Anti-Semetic neck beards who pretend to be revolutionary.
I wish you hadn't used that annoying background music. This is all valuable information that you're putting out. Why on earth make it harder to listen to?
The abandonment of socialism after the Russian Revolution was one of the greatest self-owns of modern history. Every organ of popular power put in place by the proletariat and peasantry in 1917 - from the democratized army to the factory committees to the soviets themselves - was systematically disempowered and dismantled once the Bolsheviks were in power. And then after all that Lenin has the gall to blame it on the workers themselves, saying they'd been "declassed." Pathetic.
Alternate timeline: LSR edition- Anarchist Soviet Union. 1917-The Bolsheviks seize state power and immediately dissolve it, and Lenin calls for the creation of non hierarchical workers councils across Russia. 1917(the next day)- The revolution falls to invasion by western powers, monarchist/ capitalist insurrection, etc., Landowners hoard their crops and everyone starves. Anything can sound bad if you ignore historical context
Over a territory like Russia, during the time of the revolution, where there were innumerable revolutionary and counter-revolutionary factions, during a state of WORLD WAR, I absolutely believe centralization was necessary. This wasn't some joyous happy time in Russia, the country was in chaos.
Federated militias work so well all their successes got wiped out by imperialist powers A future of subjugation is synonymous with Anarchism because that's all they even know
Yes, we definitely should try it again... all the previous time it failed, it was not done right... but we are so special that this time it will surely work out... it never worked and never will, I mean for ordinary people not for the elite.
Yes because starting out with a title like that is not at all provoking Leninists, passively aggressively implying that we are not socialists. Yet before anyone has even said anything you are asking us to shut up about it. Douche move if i ever saw one. No wonder many of us have such an easy time seeing similarities between anarchists and liberals. Maybe me struggling with seeing you as comrades is not only my fault? Nah sorry i forgot, its always my fault because im a "tankie".
My problem with tankies lies in their unquestining obedience to their party heads. As people, they ought to have some good ideals to get where they are to begin with.
Comrade Sonic Well, i can easily agree since i am neither an Anarcho-syndicalist (catalonia) nor Platformist (ukraine), i have no total commitment (but critical appraisal) to those long dead organisations (Cnt is still alive don't @ me) but what i'm talking about literal, currently existing Communist Parties with literal thought policing their partisans. This is a problem for Tankies. I recognise their right to call themselves Socialists, on the basis that term is (or became) general enough. Communist is a bit rougher but i don't mind as long as they couple it with Leninist, Authoritarian or Statist Communism.
So you think the Bolsheviks built up a centralised authoritarian state apparatus because they were ... evil and power hungry? And that it had nothing to do with maybe the special historical context, the civil war, the fact that dozens of imperialist armies invaded and attacked the young soviet state, the internal counterrevolutionary sabotage from day one, the international isolation and the underdeveloped economy? If the socialist revolutions in Europe would have succeeded and there wouldnt have been the civil war, there wouldnt have been the necessity for this massive centralisation of military and political power and in economy, there wouldnt be a tscheka and no Stalin. I am a communist but I dont want to defend every action of the Bolsheviks. They committed serious crimes and made many mistakes, no doubt about that and we have to learn from this mistakes. But what you are doing has nothing to do with a differentiated analysis. Have you e.g. ever read some different source about the Russian Revolution than anarchist ones? Its completely legitimate to criticize the Bolsheviks for many things but comparing them with the Nazis is anticommunist bullshit and in the consequence a relativization of fascism and its crimes like the holocaust. Its also hilarious how you rant about the evil authoritarian bolsheviks while at the same time idealizing a military dictator and bandit like Makhno and his supporters who persecuted dissidents, murdered and robbed innocent civilians, built labor camps and a secret police which had nothing to do with "non-hierarchical anarchist" principles.
Also it's worth noting that the Makhnovist movement was committing supply raiding and was suspected of working in allegiance with the White Army, plus they happened to want to take over one of the region's biggest bread baskets which the Soviet Union would have needed to keep everyone fed.
Ok ok...calm down and let me finish xD 1. I am not a Leninist (anymore). 2. I am an advocate for Left Unity 3. I agreed with almost everything you said in your videos the previous weeks, except the point about central planning, of which I am still a fan due to the necessity to change our current economy as fast as possible into a environmental sustainable state. Now to my criticisms of this video (I'll leave out less important things like 1:26 - if a decree helps the cause, I am all for it. but we should not rely on what is allowed from above) About the bolshevik "obsession" with central planning: A civil war was coming, and at that time state-owned industries were in all countries the most efficient industries. It is natural, that a central planning would arise from that thought. Furthermore, the communist manifesto already suggests the centralization of f.e. transportation, communication and production. The reason for that is also stated: "... in accordance with a common plan. ", "... to public purposes. " It's almost obvious that communists would see the necessity for a common plan - and workers would benefit from that too since markets with their ever returning crises can be abolished. That also a reason why I don't like the idea of just transforming the workplace into a worker's coop and leave the market as it is. Indeed, our comrades did well in Catalonia doing it without a state. But there was a certain degree of centralization there, a certain amount of authoritarian measurements. Engel's wrote in "On authority" (very short, everyone should have read it. although he doesn't really answer on anarchists arguments) exactly the same (figuratively) what Lenin said at 6:27. In a factory one has to obey the process of the machines, and if the whole economy should function like a machine with one single purpose (and not in a competing way), then the individual factories have to obey the plan. (btw 8:00 is a reason why I prefer direct democracy over representative democracy, even in councils this will lead to the fraction which has a marginal majority at the bottom to have the absolute majority at the highest councils) Well, in the end I don't want to defend what happened 100 years ago too much. I don't know if Kronstadt could have been solved peacefully, I don't know about the Makhnovshchyna since there are not many sources from that time (except Arshinov). And maybe the workers should have had more rights, even during the civil war. The thing about the operation for profit (10:45) is that the planning method were not ready yet. I mean, they probably could have replaced money with labour vouchers, but it was not possible to plan the entire economy. So what they did was a dual-planning. The state gives out plan targets for key industries, and each workplace has to operate on the profit motive. Now, this was not the best thing, and I understand why some people would call this state capitalism. However, the plan did benefit the whole society and not the "ruling elite". Yes, there existed a bureaucratic class in the USSR. But it was not an exploiting class, the state had the function to avoid letting one class benefit from the production process aside the working class. And that worked in a way. There were no rich people in the USSR, even the highest ranks of the party were materially not that much better off than the lowest working people. And the civil rights did improve in contrast to other capitalist countries. Massive literature campaigns, equal rights for women, free healthcare, etc. I agree that the mere existence of a bureaucratic class was a problem, and I agree that they should have dropped the profit operation of the individual workplace as soon as possible (with central planning this would have been possible in the late 1970s, early 1980s according to Paul Cockshott). In the end, I have to agree that we can't turn back time. Centralized planning had proven to be very effective, and they didn't even had our today's computation capacity and didn't even abolish money. Hence I remain a communist, although I agree like almost every anarchist point you made in earlier videos. (Please give me something to read about anarchist economics, I would very much like proposals which include today's possibilities of compertechnology or other technologies) Oh and btw 13:40 is not a point against today's centralized planning if it is controlled by direct democracy, i.e. the same thing I (and many communists) would want to see implemented.
@Eoin O'Connor The direct democracy would set the plan targets, not do the planning or the implementation of the plan. If you want to read more "Towards a new Socialism" (you might have heard about that, it's very famous) is available as a free pdf online or Paul Cockshott's YT channel
An Verndari I don't necessarily agree but this is fair except the part about obedience to process part. Obedience to process means obedience to state, machines don't have wills of their own. Engels is bullshitting to defend his dogwhistling to Blanquists.
An Verndari Skimmed it. Looks useless and impossible. Direct democratic planning would work fine on its own. Centralism would just render it inefficient.
@Eoin O'Connor What is direct democratic planning which is not centralized? What do you vote in? In your local area? About what? Even in local areas, you would have a centralized thing if you vote on the plan directly. Or do you mean councils? But councils are representative, not direct democracy.
" A revolution which is inspired by state socialism and adopts this form even 'provisionally' and 'temporarily' is lost : it takes a wrong road down an ever steeper slope. All political power inevitably creates a privileged position for those who exercise it. Having taken over the revolution, mastered it, and harnessed it, those in power are obliged to create the bureaucratic and repressive apparatus which is indispensible for any authority that wants to maintain itself, to command, to give orders, in a word : to govern. All authority seeks to some extent to control social life. It's existence predisposes the masses to passivity, it's very presence suffocates any spirit of initiative. 'Communist' power is a real bludgeon. Swollen with 'authority' it fears every independent action. Any autonomous action is immediately seen as suspect and threatening, for such authority wants sole control of the worker. Initiative from any other source is seen as an intrusion upon it's domain and an infringement of it's prerogatives and, therefore, unacceptable." - Volin
Dear Libertarian Socialist Rants, while I agree that Leninist/ Stalinist rule in it's authitorianism was wrong, reagarding your opposition to the state per se, and to central planning, HOW do you think without the state/ central planning, the problem of competition (for example between the local syndicates) can be avoided? Actually that was a problem with the Anarchist forces in spain, even, given some local groups heavily outproduced others, and instead of sharing the excess they produced they in often kept it for themselves and in some cases even sold it to underlings of Franco (!), since they gave them better deals for it). So how to solve the problem of competition?
Anarchism is a joke. If there is no central planning the autonomous factories will compete with each other, or after a while they start to form conglomerates, which means that they have to give up some part of their autonomy in the name of a greater good. Capitalism will return either way, even if the managers are elected from the workers of that particular factory. If every fucking productive unit is a self-governing commune without any central organization to regulate the market, there will be really brutal competition between the agents and sooner or later some of them will fall and some of them will reach a monopol position. Clearly, you never saw one of those mills from the inside and started to think about how and why things work like that inside and outside of it, while grinding through your shift.
When libertarian socialism has lead mass social revolution and over seen the construction of a meaningful socialist societies as Leninism has done and continues to do then I'll give it a fair hearing.
Let just pull up a quote from Michael Parenti. "Real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this ‘pure socialism’ view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.”
"Meaningful socialist societies constructed by Leninism" Like....? No country that has adopted Marxist-Leninist systems have turned out well besides China, and that's only because they've mostly rejected those systems and adopted Capitalism.
China's economy is sill overwhelmingly state owned and controlled and to say that countries with ML government didn't turn out well is simply untrue. The USSR was a super power and the eastern bloc had some of the fast growing economies in the world. Their problems came from the market reforms made by people like Gorbachev.
@libertarainsocialistrants Have you read emma goldmans "My Disillusion in russia",it's wonderfully written and it's great to see the the collapse from a human perspective , she experienced these thing while they happend and witnessed Bolshevik mismanagement of production and distribution and party favoritism that existed in early Soviet russia.
*_RED AND BLACK OR PUT IT BACK!!!_*
[Syndicalists and other lib-leftists permitted]
@@Cd5ssmffan my dumbass forgot red and black was associated with syndicalists as well. But my point stands: lib-left is based af.
@@Cd5ssmffan Syndaclism is a method against capitalism, Anarcho Communism is a societal model. Both must co exist with eachother to work at its best
@@Cd5ssmffan Comunist is not exyst like yunicors
@@justynawojcicka5056 r/youngpeopleyoutube
“Throughout the history of our civilisation, two traditions, two opposed tendencies, have been in conflict: the Roman tradition and the popular tradition, the imperial tradition and the federalist tradition, the authoritarian tradition and the libertarian tradition.”
― Pyotr Kropotkin
You know that person was idealistic than materialist. You should consider material conditions always
@@mcboat3467 Crazy people on youtube are so entertaining! Thankyou for making me laugh!
@@MutualAidWorks yeah like you u so funny. The ideology is just. XD XD
@@MutualAidWorks repression and systematic starvation of workers and the non-implemention of socialism is ok because it's not materialist apparently - some internet tankie larper
@@mcboat3467 The funniest part is that Kropotkin doesn't even fall to the Utopian Socialism category since he based his ideology on a scientific analysis of mutual aid, Kropotkin is by definition a Scientific Socialist.
So you either don't know what Utopian and Scientific Socialism is, you don't know who Kropotkin is or you are just making up shit.
Dang, I made an entire video using Brinton's "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control" as a primary source not even knowing you had already created one! You covered some quotes I didn't though, so I feel like they're pretty good as companion pieces
The central flaw of Leninism is that it genuinely believes that communism needs to be legislated into existence. All it's counter-revolutionary and authoritarian positions are a result of that central belief.
But, communism (or socialism or whatever you want to call it) is not simply working class self-control. Communism is realized when the working class creates new forms of distribution outside of capitalist markets and its competition. Workers councils have never had the opportunity to get that far yet. Not in Russia.. and not in Spain either.
They got pretty far in spain and yugoslavia though
Where in Leninism does it teach that communism needs to be "legislated into existence"?
@@REDTEK161 nowhere, this people have never read Lenin
I'll team up with tankies as soon as I don't have to worry about a red bullet in the back of my head post-revolution. So far the record ain't too great
But for a proper people's revolution, wouldn't you have to team up with everyone, including 'tankies'?
@@seeibe I don't owe anything to the idea of a "people's revolution", I fight to make myself free and in a revolution I use the power of everyone else who wishes to be free as a tool for my goal, likewise they use my power to achieve theirs. If I reason that teaming up with Tankies will most likely end in them betraying me, I do not see the "peoples revolution" as a path to my goal.
Doing something I don't agree with just because it serves a fixed idea of a united revolution and not because it will benefit me is a misguided opinion. The revolution doesnt own the peoples actions, the people own the revolution's actions.
I'll team up with anarchists when they stop larping, denouncing movements which are actually successful, appropriating western anti-communist Cold War propaganda, supporting imperialist regime change, denouncing anti-imperialism, speaking from a place of ignorance and immense western white privilege, and of course, dying after 3 seconds. So far the record ain't too great
Cooper Rush lmao literally every ML revolution has devolved into authoritarianism and failed except cuba. y'all don't have good track records either
@@berniehoe9960 "don't have good track records either" At least you have tacitly implied that libertarian socialism is nothing but a complete and utter failure, which it is.
*clinky clank here come the tanks*
Hey, remember all those anarchist revolutions that resulted in the genocide of millions like the Holodomor? Oh wait....
Disan Also, fuck your ableism
"fuck millenial anarchist kiddies you genocidal fucks"
Oh look, a tankie!
I thought tankies were Stalinists? I guess in 2018 the definition expanded to "anyone who isn't an anarchist"
Ableism? I haven't been ableist at all! Unless you consider "kiddie" an ableist slur? In that case please provide me a source for that and I'll happily edit it out, because I don't want to insult people with disabilities unlike you people on reddit and twitter
Okay, I can't be bothered sifting through all the comments to find the specific reply I'm looking for.
Someone made the false claim that Makhno was anti-semitic... When Makhno armed thousands of working class Jews and taught them to defend themselves against reactionary pogroms... Makhno was not anti-semitic, nice Leninist propaganda.
15:09 "This space has been left blank because the initial image considered 'primitivism' legit."
LMFAO
Sad to see Anarchist are discrimitory against their own
Primitivism is a fine idea but it's obviously not a system that will work for everyone. If someone wants to run their anarchist society according to primitivist ideals, I don't see the problem.
Some primitivist thinkers believe that human society itself is dangerous to the world.
@@daymanfighterofthenightman A lot of them do, actually... It's a huge part of their ideology. They see civilization as the main issue. Some of them even go so far as to say that agriculture is bad. Honestly, if so many of them weren't so set on having everybody live the way they want them to, primitivism would be great and I would totally consider it valid. Live how you like provided you're as non-hierarchical as possible and not hurting innocent people is what I say.
Leaders don't see any other way of doing things than leading. After thousands of years of civilization run by leaders, if leadership was going to solve any problems, it would have done it already.
I thought anarchists only wanted to abolish unjustified hierarchies? If a leader was chosen based on merit and held truly accountable as a representative of his people, would there still be any problem with their existence as a leader?
There's a difference between putting someone in charge of managing a specific project, and general leadership. Why would it even make sense for one person or group to run everything? Limited management is often necessary. Leadership leads to authoritarianism every time, because that's what leaders do. It's their job.
@@oftinuvielskin9020
That's what I thought.
Lmao yeah because governments have never worked. Dumbest shit I've seen written all week.
Governments work... For the rich. Or for those who wish to seek and assert control. No government works for the workers, history has proven that to be true a million or more times.
lovin the breakbeat in the background
Woah dude, you're on fire recently! Gonna watch video now
We've tried left unity over and over again, with Makhno and Catalonia, look how that worked out...
Anyways Its pretty pointless arguing with Leninists what I found is, first they get offended when we say the USSR was always state capitalist, we show them facts, then they try and argue that it was necessary, you show them more facts showing how others proved it wasn't, lastly they either say "you believe everything you hear?", "Catalonia wasn't perfect!" or they say "capitalist propaganda lies".
Funny thing is, know who else does that when I'm disproving their theories? Fascists...
oh and "Anarcho" Capitalists...
Ruben Reis Marxists are not Leninists. please educate yourself on other forms of state based leftism before casting out left unity all together.
#notallmarxists
Lykoref No, Marxism and leninism aren't the same thing. Leninism is a right wing deviation of Marxism.
That said, any form of socialism calling for a centralized, Bureaucratic, authoritarian state is a right wing deviation of socialist philosophy. But, you're right in saying not all marxists do that. I quite like council communism, but I'm honestly not terribly familiar with other forms of libertarian Marxism. Would love to learn more if you're willing to share.
Lykoref no I do understand there are many forms of marxism, that is why I specifically mentioned Leninists,.
However any system that wants to establish a "representative" form of government is not going to win you socialism. The same is true for any dictatorial form.
Only a consensus direct democracy can do this, the only place that should be left with a representative electoral system is the military as that type of hierarchy is necessary if you want to implement grand battle plans.
"we show them facts, then they try and argue that it was necessary"
That's because it was necessary, ever heard of the Russian Civil War? Or perhaps World War II? Considering that anarchist Ukraine and Catalonia were only able to survive minor attacks by having the Soviets as their sugar daddy, I reckon they would've fallen over after about 3 seconds if they were put in Lenin's position.
"Nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated."
- George Orwell, Author's Preface to the Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm.
Cause quoting a Trotskyite snitch is an argument
Who's arguing?
"The USSR isn't socialist, now read my book about the talking animals that take over a farm" -Some British Ex-colonial cop
"Reductio ad absurdum"- Some tankie in a youtube comment
I'm sorry I didn't feel the need to come up with an elaborate detailed response to an quote from a literal anti-communist (whose dying act was to provide a list of communists to the British government) against the Soviet Union. How much of Orwell have you read, much of his writings are pretty glaring examples of his racial bias and smug sense of intellectual superiority.
I have an interesting question for you: What are your thoughts on Democratic Socialism, from a LibSoc perspective?
Really though, what is Democratic Socialism? Seems to me it's a vague term used by anyone from social democrat to anarchists. The whole idea of socialism is democracy being expanded to the economic sphere so the "democratic" part seems redundant and only used to quell the underlying fears of Americans they still hold from Cold War propaganda.
@@Reality4Peace Demsocs are reformists who want to act through existing democratic institutions. If Social Democrats seek to change capitalism until it is tolerable enough, Democratic Socialists seek to change capitalism until we can get rid of it. Many committed leftists disagree arguing that reform is a failed project. To which the reformists will argue that revolution also fails more than it works. And then it devolves into sectarianism.
I honestly don't have a solid position on that question. On one hand revolution now would be impossible, because the mass movement is dead and needs to be rebuilt if it were to achieve anything. On the other hand to actually transition away from capitalism there will HAVE to be some clean breaks that seriously reorganise society, and a purely reformist program has trouble accomodating that.
@@KyussTheWalkingWorm
Democratic Socialism doesn't have anything to do with reform.
@Kassie Grant Bhaskar Sunkara made the case for non-reformist reformism for what democratic socialism is.
Tankies so rustled, awesome job!
Lenin was to socialism as the Founding Fathers of the US were to freedom. Both Lenin and the Founding Fathers propped up a state capitalist system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. In the USSR, the proletariat worked for the state capitalists and behaved or they died, whereas in the US, we work for the state capitalists or we starve. The Founding Fathers created a kinder, gentler tyranny than Lenin created, but it is nonetheless tyranny. Unless we retake some control of the production and manufacturing in the US through labor unions, and take control of our politicians away from the plutocracy, we'll be a totalitarian oligarchy like Russia is soon.
Do a debate with TheFinnishBolshevik or at least respond to his videos.
f1945
AnarchoPac already did that.
Marxist Hedonist Secular Demon
No, because, as with fascists, it's a victory for you if the debate takes place at all. As it legitimises your absurd opinions.
Actually, I don't want to see a fight. I would hate to hear them swaring each other. If someone learns something new during the process then both parts win.
+LightningSamus Have you seen Finbol talk to people? I can't imagine him spewing vitriol during a debate.
Bukharin literally explained why Marxists don't debate with Anarchists ages ago xD Again, a debate is not a truth game. Winning a debate doesn't prove anything whoever wins.
"For socialism to succeed, we must abandon socialism!" - tankie logic
BS
Don’t use sectarian terms please, education of the right wing of the left is important.
@@StephenSchleis "the right wing of the left" Makes literally no sense
Marxist Hedonist Secular Demon
Fuck your ableism
No, it goes like this; for communism to succeed we need socialism - MARX logic.
>rattling noises
>thousands of comrades lying dead in the field
>faint Soviet hymn in the background
*the tanks are here*
Those rattling noises are canonically the chains tankies didn’t lose
So uh, there's alot of leninists here saying that the centralisation of Russia was necessary to resist against imperialist forces. But I don't see them talking about why the destruction of all political contemporaries was necessary. Obviously creating a dissenting opposition that needs to be crushed to justify their existence, instead of cooperating with them goes against their whole all hands on deck ideology, so I'm wondering why they aren't disowning this as bad praxis that needs to be improved upon in future attempts.
Carl A yes all those evil left SR:s and anarchists and dont get me started on the workers opposition/s
So glad you made this vid, fuck all centralized power! Think of the mindset of people wanting centralized power, it's truly disturbing and I have no sympathy in not letting them have it.
I object to the last image, Marx shouldn’t be in the same picture as partied with Lenin
And a tankie invasion of the comments in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
do you really wonder that people who get citicized in a video will defend themselves?
sinthoras
Ideas were criticised. Not people.
The fact you take criticism of your ideology so personally says a lot.
the group of people who hold this beliefs will defend them. My sentence was perfectly clear, the fact that you try to suck sth so miniscule out of my sentence in order to implicate stuff about me says a lot about you.
sinthoras
Your original reply to me didn't say that. It indicated personal offence, which is very childish.
Dude anarchists get nasty if you criticise THEIR ideology
Don't act like this is a one-way street because you're both massive asses
I really am looking forward to what Finnish Bolshevik, comrade hakim, or tovarisch Endymion have to reply on this
The full source is a fascinating read and the video is a nice summary, thanks
Thanks a lot. I have a Trotskyist friend to whom I oughta show this. XD
Ew
Boy! Do I enjoy your rants! Thanks for putting them together
shriekingtankies.mp4
Never tapped this fast on my notifications.
"THis space has been left blank because the initial image considered 'primitivism' to be legit." XD
Someone should make a version of this adding anarcho-transhumanism whatever one may think of it specifically to piss off primitivists lmao
Thanks for making this!
Yeah uh but um something something class consciousness
holy shit its the actual thunk slimey
Badmouseproductions would have backed this video in 2016.
THANK YOU LSR!
The Soviet Union between 1918 to 1953 was practically the Dr. Manhattan of socialism
As in the amout of power it had caused it to grow further disaffected from and uncaring towards the people it originally championed?
Sounds about right.
This is why I only work with individual Marxists who I know are alright and don't want none of the shit Lenin did.... Rather than pursuing the dream of "Left Unity" and (trying to work with) working with (more like working for) ML/Bolshevik organisations. Libertarian individual Marxists are okay, though. Those that want workers control, not state control. I'll work with those so long as they don't try to get me to tow a party line.
Why do they have to be individuals? There are left-communist, councilist and other "liberatarian marxists" organizations out there. IMO, they are generally more principled than the majority of anarchist organizations.
Because I don't trust any non-anarchist organisation to remain anti-bureaucratic. I'm opposed to bureaucracy, and the anarchist organisations I am part of have no or a minimal level of bureaucracy, and they keep to their word that should bureaucracy emerge, it is due to necessity, and will fall when it is no longer necessary.
Damn, I love that you are back. Your videos are always amazing.
I am fully in favor of left unity, if we're talking about the actual left.
Leninism, Stalinism, etc, are not on the left. They are right wing ideologies dressed in left wing clothing.
That said, they're understood as being leftists, which pisses me off, so I'll call for libertarian left unity, or "bottom left" unity.
This is the opinion of a single member (Coal), and not the opinion of the ANVIL collective in it's entirety. Any opinion expressed from this account is an expression of the individual writing it, as we are a directly democratic collective, and the organization as a whole holds only the opinions expressed within it's charter, as agreed upon by all members.
Hi, I have some questions unrelated to the video: 1.) Is the "boss-worker" relationship still a hierarchical one, if the worker voluntarily agrees to work for the boss, and why? 2.) Once the revolution becomes real and there is a bunch of people voluntarily deciding that they want to live in a market system outside of ancom communes, what do we do with it?
I would really appreciate some answers to this questions they are quite existential to me, thanks.
1) Yes it is. For the same reason that a master-slaver relationship is hierarchical even if the slave voluntarily agrees to become a slave (There are certain things you cannot surrender voluntarily, even if you utter some "magic words").
2) Nothing. People should be free to live as they wish.
1) It is in some but unlike what another commentator mentioned it’s perfectly normal in others. In a capitalist society, the worker has no say in the policies of his boss. That’s unjust. But if you in a socialist workplace had an election to elect a boss who is accountable to his actions and can get kicked out and listens to the workers and works himself it is fine. The profit obviously should belong to the workers unlike in a capitalist society if it does not then its hierarchical. When I say “hierarchical” I mean unjust hierarchy. In both cases they are hierarchy.
2) Wouldn’t that make them counter revolutionaries? In that case treat them the same way you treat another counter revolutionary. That’s because I don’t consider Market socialism as socialism but some here might disagree.
Do you have any form of discord or group for fans?
I feel like Lenin, coming from an agrarian, pretty Feudal state, saw the production and efficiency of Post IndRev Capitalist states, and thought, "hey, I'll do that but without Private Capitalism. It's all about Nationalism baby!"
Yup, and it turned out that this was both cruel and ultimately less effective than a similar system with a private sector.
Lenin was vehemently anti-great Russian Chauvinism you fucking moron.
distracted from the dialectics by the bangin choons, tbh
Quick question. Suppose we live in an an-com society and workers of factory A produce the good B. Who gets to decide what is done to the good B? (how it is distributed, mainly) The worker-elected group of people in the organization immediately above the factory, the one at the top, or the workers of factory A?
I would say the workers in conjunction with the people who depend on good B, let's call that commune A. Those people could for instance be the immediate region the factory could supply to involving the amount of people the factory could supply to. That group should also be in communication with other groups (communes, federates, whatever) for when there is a surplus of good B for commune A, maybe commune C has a shortage and commune A could give them their surplus. Or if there is a shortage in commune A but commune D happens to have a surplus they could get it from them. Ideally things are as local as is possible but the communication with other groups is necessary for this reason but also for goods that are rarer (because they're resource- or labor intensive for instance) so goods can be distributed to where they're needed the most.
Google Murray Bookchin.
You're the best for making this video. I have a friend who at the time of Sanders' second run, still wasn't very familiar with socialism and even less so of anarchism. They also joined DSA at the time and just recently told me that they had a problem with Black Socialists of America because anti-authoritarian discourse is dangerous and that authority is necessary to dismantle the basis of class contradictions (which is itself contradictory because what is a classism if not authority based hierarchy?). I knew this was false but didn't quite know how to respond at the time because I just don't know enough about the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik seizure of power. It sounds like there was already a strong network of worker controlled entities but they were either dismantled or absorbed by the state. Is that correct to say?
I feel like too many anarchists and libertarian socialists are ignoring history and calling for “left unity.” Like, left unity sounds cool and all, but why don’t we do socialism instead.
There is plenty of Leninists who want left unity for socialism, and hell, there are a few MLs as well. The problem is idiots like LSR actively refuse any outreach or counterargument on the pure basis of "tankies tankies tankies", and will actively shelve out bourg. propaganda in support of capitalist imperialism. You know, instead of actually examining the USSR and determining its flaws and its successes?
you appeared in my dreams 2 nights ago
oh hello
Thanks for this, Fellow Worker
thanks for spreading these ideas
I’m a Marxist Leninist who used to be an anarchist. I still enjoy your videos and I’m totally fine with you criticising Leninism and the Soviet Union and all that. I don’t agree with you but I’m fine with you saying these things.
But I think it’s not a good idea to be against left unity completely. We can’t just be acting on idealism. I love anarchism but I personally don’t think it will work too well on a large scale. I think anarchist communes and socialist states need to work together. Maybe we could have seperate anarchist communes with a decentralised government planning centres which all communicate to help us coordinate resources and stuff idk.
I still think we need to work together. I really don’t like the idea of being divisive. We can think about what to do after the revolution. Every country is different and requires different steps.
We need to remember that this disagreement is not about communism (the end goal) but how to get to communism (the means to achieving the end goal). It isn’t about ideology vs ideology.
We need to think about what we know will work and also what is the best system for the people which will also work. We need to think about welfare and efficiency and try to find a balance. I would love anarchism but if it can’t work on a large scale then how are we gonna achieve our goals? Like I share the same principles with anarchists but a social state is way more efficient and how are we gonna get people to just voluntarily give over their land?
Like idk I don’t want to have a big debate or anything I just think that we should work together and find compromise and realise that we shouldn’t be fighting and that our goals are the same. We should try to agree on a way to get there which most of us can agree on.
dis nomina yes be as divisive as possible. You like Noam Chomsky? Even he thinks that the biggest problem with the left is sectarianism. We need to stick together. Our goals are literally the exact same.
Its kinda fucking shitty to tell someone to fuck off when they want to create unity.
I literally prefer anarchism but I’m not convinced it’s the best option to get to communism. I don’t like it when the people who are meant to be my comrades are telling me to fuck off when I think we should work together. I get that there are other Marxist Leninist who will talk shit about anarchists and I find that toxic as well and i criticise them too. I’ve been criticising the Finnish Bolshevik when he talks condescendingly about anarchists.
If we are this sectarian then we aren’t going to get anything done. This isn’t difference between ideology it’s difference between the means at which we achieve our goals and I think it’s more important to organise and discuss these things together and try to reach common ground. We are comrades. We need to work together.
@@purplesuicide8561 so I'm guessing that you're against the Bolsheviks destroying their political contemporaries?
DragoonBoom there’s a difference between the state under capitalism and the state in the revolution. The state has a completely different role to play.
I would be against them destroying their political contemporaries if they were just ideologically opposed or they weren’t getting in the way at all with the revolution but if the others were actually trying to overthrow the state and trying to get in the way of the revolution then I think it’s fine to get rid of them.
The state in the revolution is actually important. Like it’s not just some unjust hierarchy which is used to maintain the power of the oligarchs of society. The state is to take back the property for the people so it can be collectivised, get rid of classes, plan the economy, defend from outside threats etc etc.
The state is used to maintain the revolution. Anarchists want a similair sort of thing but without vertical hierarchy. They still want the planned economy and the defence from outside states and still wants all the things that the state is supposed to do but they just don’t like the authority of it. It’s democratic and it’s centralised though.
So being against the revolution is actually a problem when we already have started the revolution and are planning everything. If there’s a group of anarchists going around trying to revolt against the state when the state is literally in the process of socialist revolution to achieve communism and trying to provide for the people and defend from enemies then I really think that the anarchists must be dealt with. If the anarchists are talking and discussing and debating with the Marxist Leninists and trying to make the state as least oppressive as possible or for them to set up anarchist communes or anarchist revolutions in smaller countries or for them to try and influence politics through democracy then it’s totally fine to have them around.
I don’t know exactly what the opposition were actually doing. If the destruction of political contemporaries was not justified then I don’t agree with it.
Also it’s important to note that the USSR had the dictatorship of the proletariat where the state is run democratically by the workers for the workers. This is fundamentally different to the state under capitalism or fascism.
@CommunistLudicrum You can't put aside differences of political ideology when you are talking directly about politics. At best you can ask the different factions to try to compromise but obviously decisions need to be made and it seems to me that in any state of revolutionary upheaval the more authoritarian elements will win out every time. Compromise isn't likely to occur when everyone is under the belief that one wrong move will send your whole societal dream crashing down.
@CommunistLudicrum And why do you think that sectarianism was so rife? The only reason you have any pretense of unity now is because your ideas exist strictly within the realms of abstract theory while you live in an otherwise comfortable society that isn't in a state of violent upheaval. And how exactly do you expect to create a worldwide revolution in a short enough time frame to prevent being destroyed by imperialist powers?
15:08
Now I'm interested in your take on anarcho-primitivism.
Just re-watched this. Great stuff, and interesting too.
I would like to point out here that according to Lenin, the State was supposed to be gradually dissolved and central planing was a place holder until workers could be sufficiently educated and coordinated to take over. Also the first thing Stalin did when he took power was have almost all of the Bolsheviks purged.
Did he actually?
This was good and I recommend delving deeper into this, critiqueqing the idea of a benevolent dictator (I know an authoritarian socialist who believes in such an idea)
there are no MLs who want any dictators
@@sinthoras1917 yeah but I'm not talking about leninists. I'm noting that the authoritarian left goes much further than just mls.
MLs usually get included into the "authoritarian left"
@@sinthoras1917 understandable, but I mean honest-to-goodness dictatorial socialists
I legit know one of those
I was a Leninist and became a ancom like Makhno when i begin to study the Ukraine Rev. So from mine point of view, the left united is indeed possible, since if i came to become an anarchist, maybe some leninist more convict can accept some anarchist ideas. I have a very good friend in mine teachers union, and he is a Leninist. We desagree in some points, but in the MAJORITY of things we add forces one to another. In the case of a revolution with a united left front, we (ancom) only has to agree in NOT permit one steep back (in direction of capitalism framework with another names).
I found that very educational, thanks.
What’s the material difference between Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism?
And theoretically Trotskyism?
Leninism is the parent of all the other -isms there. The following all consider themselves Leninists, but disagree with each other on whose ideas are truest to Lenin's legacy.
• Stalinism is the ideology of Stalin: socialism can exist in one country without waiting for international revolution. The most brutal and totalitarian of the bunch, being most committed to killing and lying to people in the service of revolution.
• Trotskyism: socialism can only come about through worldwide international revolution. Views the Soviet Union either as a "degenerated workers state" or as state capitalist.
• Maoism: similar to Stalinism, but with a Chinese twist. Views the peasantry as taking the place of the proletariat in the revolution, contra traditional Marxism.
There's also some obscure Leninisms like Hoxhaism, Titoism, and Bordigism. And a bizarre Trotskyist offshoot called Posadism, which (1) believes nuclear war would be a good thing, and (2) literally believes in aliens, and that the aliens will make communism possible.
Ok THIS is epic
Genuine question:
Wasn't Lenin and Trotskys government forced to do this due to being surrounded by, and pressured by, the Capitalist Empires?
Any good historical books about this subject?
nonameslb
_Bloodstained: 100 Years of Leninist Counter-Revolution_ from AK Press.
@@voltairinekropotkin5581 Thanks.
No states nor property, only people.
Hey comrade, you do realize that there's more comrades on the Auth-left than Leninist's, right? I'm an ancomm that is willing to see the nuance in comrades that detest the treatment of workers and anarchists while understanding the potentially practical need for a semblance of a state in areas far more ripe with reactionary forces than other areas. Many Marxists of my left unity group have no intention nor desire to crush worker control, as many understand the wrongs that have been done. I think that not taking any nuance into account in this subject is crucially damning to our cause and potential.
In some parts of the United States, there is very little to no hope of collectivization or getting the common working class person to work with a leftist movement, as many have already been brainwashed by far right media and ideologies. I've traveled across this country and as die hard anarchist as I am, I can't imagine these swathes of the country raising a red and black flag without a transitional period of ratting out white supremacists and 3%ers. Maybe it's different in your part of the world, but here in the US there will probably need to be segments of anarchist communes side by side with transitional governments.
Left Unity is our only hope for saving the world, and we have been running out of time for years now. The Marxists won't stop the united right by themselves and neither will the anarchists. We need to be smart and put aside our grudges as they are not more important than saving the world, which is much bigger than any of us whether individually or collectively.
Lykoref
If that's your opinion on the state, then you are NOT an anarchist. By definition.
Lykoref I haven't finished the video yet, but I completely agree with you. I still like the video because I think these things need to be discussed. but certainly different tactics will work in different parts of the world. I do however believe that community solidarity is the start of the road to socialism and whatever ideology you follow I believe that this should be your priority
@Lykoref
You can read my whole comment if you want to. I am also an advocate of left unity, although I call myself just a communist.
Well, yeah but Marxists are small relative to left liberals. Why not ally with them? Many of them would be as usefull as Marxists.
Why can't anarchists "rat out" supremacists and 3%ers? What makes a state better suited to do that than anarchists?
Remember, anarchists ONLY object to unjustified hierarchies.
If there is a hierarchy that goes through anarchist analysis and is deemed necessary, then that's okay, but it's very hard to justify most forms of power. If it is really, truly necessary in the USA to have a transitional government then anarchists can carry it out. But there's no need to go straight to an authoritian way of doing things without trying alternative methods first.
While i agree with all of this, i think left unity is too much of a valuable concept to be burned at the altar of lost russian revolution. Many Leninists (Trot and some Maoists gang basically) have skewed version of their own history, and more left leaning of those could be helpful to the cause. So, all of those crimes happened at unindustrialised world, if revolution happen to begin in first world some Leninists would take stance with Socialism proper, not against it. Maybe. Idk. Non-anarchist Radical Left should be considered too, Feminist, Green, Labour movements, national liberation movements, left-liberal without a party affiliation... etc. Those kind of people can be majority when revolution starts, and their organisations can be cooperated with anarchist organisations. What we need to remember is left unity is not leftisr unity, policies mattes not whether they regard themselves socialist or not.
omit five yeah, but we need people.
omit five
I don't like left-liberals either, but... twitter.com/cushbomb/status/823081796422291456?lang=en
+existential anarchist
Implying you ever had much unity to begin with. At best you can organize around taking shit from the rich or in more modern times taking shit from the white man. Other than that you have little to hold your coalition of vastly different people with countless often incompatible ideas on economic and social policy together. It's a hell of a lot easier to unite a common people in defense of themselves, their territory and their traditions which is partially why the left is so often found attacking itself.
Wait.. You guys are actually holding out for a revolution? To me this is really just a nice game of what-if.. I can see myself living in an anarchist system with the other anarchists here in the comment section. I can not envision myself participating in a revolution that involves the majority of the populace. Most people aren't exactly nice or well meaning.
D Bojangles Or taking from rich white people?
I agree it's easier to organise people the way you described, but people need socialism. Literally, they need to take shit from rich white men. Hundred years of capitalism and imperialism crippled earth, people need equality and it's not easy but, to some extent, inevitable for that reason. Unless earth will just destroy itself. That's why Left always returns. If we let capitalism and states run wild, we will live in a post-apocalyptic landscape eventually. Well, most of us will.
"The state as an institution is designed to protect and enforce oppressive class relations such as that of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, not erode them. Allowing the state to continue to exist will not assist in dissolving such relations, only in perpetuating them in new and equally destructive forms . Without the state , such classes will be unable to enforce their will on the populous, and thus will not be able to continue their existence." - Nestor Makhno.
Irony of a burgerking ad playing before thia
Thank you so much for this video. Authoritarians are not on my team.
pls make a video on why primitivism isn't legit; like i can kinda already see why that is, but there's probably nuances im not seeing
Make an hour long documentary on why "An"Caps/"An"Fashies/"An"Nats are all totally oxymoronic, and throw in some other total oxymorons, like "Anarcho"-Monarchism that I've seen a couple of dingi use and take seriously, I repeatedly laughed at them and asked them things like "You're joking?" "You've got to be kidding me?" and "Nah, you can't be serious, how are you being serious? Anarcho-Monarchism! xD LOL!" They tried explaining it and I was just like "Anarchist Landlordism... Yeah, I'm not buying it." And throw in other total oxymorons like "National Socialism"... How Socialism is inherently pro international working class and opposed to nationalism of any kind? Touch on "Strasserist National Socialism" too, and differentiate it from Hitler's even worse version. And "National Syndicalism"... Basically, just have a nice, long documentary destroying and debunking right wing co-options and oxymorons. =] That, I'd actually donate cash to you for. I probably already should, considering we're both AFed. Mutual Aid and all.
Also! Cameron! I have a question! Answer me by message on Twitter if you wanna keep it private. But what do you think of Egoism, The Post Left and "Anarchist-Individualism" ???
I doubt Cameron has much to say about primitivism to be honest
There would be no point in that. The primmies wouldn't see it.
You're doing great work, Cameron!
Also Roni Size. Way to cater for us old c*nts!
Brilliant video, noice one!
*incoming tankies*
*plays red alert 2 intro*
The entire article is grounded on absolutism.
There is barely a mention of their international situation. An unreal account of the reasoning behind the leninist moves. This article clearly produces an image of the birth of crystallized government in the ranks of the workers which then seizes control only to become another oppressive state apparatus. The soviets were not an island amongst themselves. The seeming oppression from the New state was not a state against the workers. It was a state that had to be the same form as the aggressors external to the soviets. This incorporates oppression! That's why it was not communist!
Could you make a vídeo on anarchist militancy/ things anarchists can do to show that a world without hierarchies can exist
Music?
This entire video is just unfair misrepresentation. If the Bolsheviks adopted anarchist decentralized tactics they would've croaked under the pressure of the Russian Civil War. Your entire critique of the Soviet Union is within the framework of War Communism, which is not representative of Leninism at all. Furthermore, these worker councils which got dissolved weren't replaced with some bureaucracy like to paint it as, they were incorporated into the Soviet state which was itself run by democratic worker councils, hence "Soviet".
The workers councils were dissolved and put under the control of workers councils. Makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, that's literally what happened. The councils were incorporated into the Soviet government which was run at a grassroots level by local Soviets. The term "Soviet" translates to "council" in Russian.
Do you understand democratic centralism? Evidently not, there's a good reason why MLs don't bother with white teenagers who can't even grasp the basics.
@@cooperrush6474 Fuck off. Frankfurt School, Budapest School, Left communism, Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Anarcho communism, Analytical Marxism are all followed by white teenagers. And yes, I am a black
@@cooperrush6474 In 1918 all non Bolshevik organizations were banned from the Soviets. Any election in which the result was predicted to go against Bolsheviks was not carried out. So in Nov. 1918 Congress of Soviets Bolsheviki got 97 percent vote.
Build a social order that can compete with the imperialist countries premised upon empowering the workers and repressing the capitalists that lasts longer than 20 minutes and get back to us.
Wade Cumins We can't. We are not Taylorists. You guys empowered only when it benefited you.
@@enfercesttout yeah, communists and labor organizers spend their lives fighting capitalists and their governments all over the world, risking their lives, just so they can have power to oppress working people someday. Pretty solid analysis
"Feudalism is the way to go because no one has yet created a capitalist democracy capable of defeating the feudal states of our time"
Wade Cumins And how is that going now?
"hi, I'm a zapatista!"
"Hi, I'm a rojavan!"
"hi, I'm part of revolutionary Catalonia!"
Hey so i know this is an older video so my comment prolly isnt gonna be seen, but i’ve had an issue with this video for awhile i wanted to air out. I love 95% of the video, but i do take issue with the table at the end of the video with the anarchist ideologies that you regard as compatible under left-libertarian unity. I also believe in the ideal of left-libertarian unity, but i differ in which ones i feel are actually compatible. I resent the opinion of yours that anarcho-primitivism is somehow illegitimate, or that “green anarchy” is fine yet anarcho primitivism is unacceptable. Yet you somehow deem anarcho-pacifism and mutualism worthy of left-libertarian unity. I find it pretty cringe when fellow anarchists throw our anti-civ/anarcho primitivist comrades under the bus while accepting anarchists who would introduce a market system or utilize “work vouchers” (fiat currency) and literally reintroduce wage labor into an anarchist program.
..according to that pamphlet
Triggered Tankies incoming.
Being triggered means that your fight or flight system responds to the present as if you were actually experiencing your trauma. Don't use it to refer to people being annoyed.
And here we have a typical anarchist who insults people with serious mental impairments as a result of trauma
@@disan605 Oh fuck off tankie.
I made a reply in another thread but essentially no, I don't like authoriatarianism and thus am not a tankie, I just had problems with anarchists (not everyone who does is a stalinist, you know)
@@disan605 Let me guess. Spineless Liberal? Or Douchebag Conservative?
Fair points, however I think you shouldn't overlook the historical and material reality the state was faced with at the begining of the revolution. Like, Russia was, at the time, mostly feudal with an underdeveloped industry, so the capitalism stage kinda had to have happened in order to develop more productive forces.
dadothemasta
The idea that capitalism must be implemented before socialism can be possible is one of the most ridiculous and wrongheaded notions in left history.
Capitalism destroys the possibilities for worker self-management and liberatory human-scale technologies with its centralisation of industry, hierarchical management structures, and mass-production modes of distribution.
Developing state capitalism in a previously feudal nation just made it easy for Russia to collapse into traditional capitalism in the 1990s.
State capitalism was a necessary step in order to modernize as quickly as possible to create the material conditions required to fascilitate socialism. Mistakes were made, but once again, you need to take into account the material reality of the time.
Why the rush tho? i understand they were paranoid about invasion but if necessities of people meant loss of war and defeat of socialism, then be it. There is still a tomorrow. It's better to die hero, since Soviet died off anyways eventually.
Yeah, this is why I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist. I don't agree with Marx at all that the industrialization was a good thing. There were some very small anarchist peasant communes in Russia, Marxist literally told them to GTFO and make way for his idea of "socialism". Anarchism can exist within any technological phase, it could exist before the industrialization, and it can exist after full automation of the industry when workers will no longer have that much power. I do agree though, that what Russia did at the time was the only way to become a global player militarily and economically. That's the problem for us anarchists, the system we advocate for does not produce something that can survive against hostility in the short term. On the other hand, anything not anarchist will definitely wipe out the species in the long term, so in the end we're "right", it's just that all the "wrong" people can overpower us with brute force.
Marx disagreed with your view on this. He said that the communal owned fuedal land in Russia was the right foundation for an easier transition to socialism.
"But given their history of dismantling socialist institutions, they're not defending against the counterrevolution, they _are_ the counterrevolution." Exactly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. Badmouse should watch this video. Maybe it'll get him off the tankie path he's on atm.
@@carla9172 Nobody is defining socialism in that way. That is a form of socialism, yes, but that doesn't make it the definition of socialism.
Anyone who uses the word rankiem unironically is a bigger lib than vaush
I love the content of this video.
As a critique though, the music backing is very distracting to my brain. Also, it makes me a little anxious.
Lenin was wrong about a lot of things.
And yet he managed to do the most important things right. You know, like actually beating the shit out of fascists, unlike the anarchists who failed at every attempt because discipline and structure scares the shit out of their little snowflake hearts.
like?
Lenin's ideological contributions(especially in the area of imperalism) far surpasses any the idealism of Anti-Semetic neck beards who pretend to be revolutionary.
Miki Seius Lenin was alive during wwii? Shocked.
TheBrainwashedCommie He basically gave a ground for supporting nationalist movements when it fits their interest.
Let’s be honest, it’s the Tankies fault that Anarchism isn’t so big.
How?
I wish you hadn't used that annoying background music. This is all valuable information that you're putting out. Why on earth make it harder to listen to?
I got some nice comments about it too.
It's a minor gripe really, especially as you did link to the Maurice Brinton pamphlet. Kudos to you for putting this together.
Nice video
The abandonment of socialism after the Russian Revolution was one of the greatest self-owns of modern history. Every organ of popular power put in place by the proletariat and peasantry in 1917 - from the democratized army to the factory committees to the soviets themselves - was systematically disempowered and dismantled once the Bolsheviks were in power. And then after all that Lenin has the gall to blame it on the workers themselves, saying they'd been "declassed." Pathetic.
Alternate timeline: LSR edition- Anarchist Soviet Union. 1917-The Bolsheviks seize state power and immediately dissolve it, and Lenin calls for the creation of non hierarchical workers councils across Russia. 1917(the next day)- The revolution falls to invasion by western powers, monarchist/ capitalist insurrection, etc., Landowners hoard their crops and everyone starves.
Anything can sound bad if you ignore historical context
So you think federated militias are incapable of defending a territory? Explain Afghanistan then.
No centralised state doesn't mean no coordination.
Catalonia had a centralised structure and received material support from the Soviets and other foreign volunteers
Over a territory like Russia, during the time of the revolution, where there were innumerable revolutionary and counter-revolutionary factions, during a state of WORLD WAR, I absolutely believe centralization was necessary. This wasn't some joyous happy time in Russia, the country was in chaos.
Joe Chisten
And they lost. Thank you for proving my point.
Federated militias work so well all their successes got wiped out by imperialist powers
A future of subjugation is synonymous with Anarchism because that's all they even know
Ahh...I hear you have some Roni Size playing in the background there.
Yes, we definitely should try it again... all the previous time it failed, it was not done right... but we are so special that this time it will surely work out...
it never worked and never will, I mean for ordinary people not for the elite.
Please, when leninist people answer to this, dont just scream tankies and run.
Yes because starting out with a title like that is not at all provoking Leninists, passively aggressively implying that we are not socialists. Yet before anyone has even said anything you are asking us to shut up about it. Douche move if i ever saw one.
No wonder many of us have such an easy time seeing similarities between anarchists and liberals. Maybe me struggling with seeing you as comrades is not only my fault? Nah sorry i forgot, its always my fault because im a "tankie".
TANKIES "runs away"
Orange Hitler ok bud
My problem with tankies lies in their unquestining obedience to their party heads. As people, they ought to have some good ideals to get where they are to begin with.
Comrade Sonic Well, i can easily agree since i am neither an Anarcho-syndicalist (catalonia) nor Platformist (ukraine), i have no total commitment (but critical appraisal) to those long dead organisations (Cnt is still alive don't @ me) but what i'm talking about literal, currently existing Communist Parties with literal thought policing their partisans. This is a problem for Tankies.
I recognise their right to call themselves Socialists, on the basis that term is (or became) general enough. Communist is a bit rougher but i don't mind as long as they couple it with Leninist, Authoritarian or Statist Communism.
So you think the Bolsheviks built up a centralised authoritarian state apparatus because they were ... evil and power hungry? And that it had nothing to do with maybe the special historical context, the civil war, the fact that dozens of imperialist armies invaded and attacked the young soviet state, the internal counterrevolutionary sabotage from day one, the international isolation and the underdeveloped economy? If the socialist revolutions in Europe would have succeeded and there wouldnt have been the civil war, there wouldnt have been the necessity for this massive centralisation of military and political power and in economy, there wouldnt be a tscheka and no Stalin.
I am a communist but I dont want to defend every action of the Bolsheviks. They committed serious crimes and made many mistakes, no doubt about that and we have to learn from this mistakes. But what you are doing has nothing to do with a differentiated analysis. Have you e.g. ever read some different source about the Russian Revolution than anarchist ones? Its completely legitimate to criticize the Bolsheviks for many things but comparing them with the Nazis is anticommunist bullshit and in the consequence a relativization of fascism and its crimes like the holocaust. Its also hilarious how you rant about the evil authoritarian bolsheviks while at the same time idealizing a military dictator and bandit like Makhno and his supporters who persecuted dissidents, murdered and robbed innocent civilians, built labor camps and a secret police which had nothing to do with "non-hierarchical anarchist" principles.
Have a debate with C Derick varn.
Also it's worth noting that the Makhnovist movement was committing supply raiding and was suspected of working in allegiance with the White Army, plus they happened to want to take over one of the region's biggest bread baskets which the Soviet Union would have needed to keep everyone fed.
Ok ok...calm down and let me finish xD
1. I am not a Leninist (anymore).
2. I am an advocate for Left Unity
3. I agreed with almost everything you said in your videos the previous weeks, except the point about central planning, of which I am still a fan due to the necessity to change our current economy as fast as possible into a environmental sustainable state.
Now to my criticisms of this video (I'll leave out less important things like 1:26 - if a decree helps the cause, I am all for it. but we should not rely on what is allowed from above)
About the bolshevik "obsession" with central planning: A civil war was coming, and at that time state-owned industries were in all countries the most efficient industries. It is natural, that a central planning would arise from that thought. Furthermore, the communist manifesto already suggests the centralization of f.e. transportation, communication and production. The reason for that is also stated: "... in accordance with a common plan. ", "... to public purposes. "
It's almost obvious that communists would see the necessity for a common plan - and workers would benefit from that too since markets with their ever returning crises can be abolished. That also a reason why I don't like the idea of just transforming the workplace into a worker's coop and leave the market as it is. Indeed, our comrades did well in Catalonia doing it without a state. But there was a certain degree of centralization there, a certain amount of authoritarian measurements.
Engel's wrote in "On authority" (very short, everyone should have read it. although he doesn't really answer on anarchists arguments) exactly the same (figuratively) what Lenin said at 6:27. In a factory one has to obey the process of the machines, and if the whole economy should function like a machine with one single purpose (and not in a competing way), then the individual factories have to obey the plan. (btw 8:00 is a reason why I prefer direct democracy over representative democracy, even in councils this will lead to the fraction which has a marginal majority at the bottom to have the absolute majority at the highest councils)
Well, in the end I don't want to defend what happened 100 years ago too much. I don't know if Kronstadt could have been solved peacefully, I don't know about the Makhnovshchyna since there are not many sources from that time (except Arshinov). And maybe the workers should have had more rights, even during the civil war.
The thing about the operation for profit (10:45) is that the planning method were not ready yet. I mean, they probably could have replaced money with labour vouchers, but it was not possible to plan the entire economy. So what they did was a dual-planning. The state gives out plan targets for key industries, and each workplace has to operate on the profit motive. Now, this was not the best thing, and I understand why some people would call this state capitalism. However, the plan did benefit the whole society and not the "ruling elite". Yes, there existed a bureaucratic class in the USSR. But it was not an exploiting class, the state had the function to avoid letting one class benefit from the production process aside the working class. And that worked in a way. There were no rich people in the USSR, even the highest ranks of the party were materially not that much better off than the lowest working people. And the civil rights did improve in contrast to other capitalist countries. Massive literature campaigns, equal rights for women, free healthcare, etc.
I agree that the mere existence of a bureaucratic class was a problem, and I agree that they should have dropped the profit operation of the individual workplace as soon as possible (with central planning this would have been possible in the late 1970s, early 1980s according to Paul Cockshott).
In the end, I have to agree that we can't turn back time. Centralized planning had proven to be very effective, and they didn't even had our today's computation capacity and didn't even abolish money. Hence I remain a communist, although I agree like almost every anarchist point you made in earlier videos. (Please give me something to read about anarchist economics, I would very much like proposals which include today's possibilities of compertechnology or other technologies)
Oh and btw 13:40 is not a point against today's centralized planning if it is controlled by direct democracy, i.e. the same thing I (and many communists) would want to see implemented.
An Verndari
Central planning run through direct democracy is oxymoronic.
If you have central planning, by definition you don't have direct democracy.
@Eoin O'Connor
The direct democracy would set the plan targets, not do the planning or the implementation of the plan. If you want to read more "Towards a new Socialism" (you might have heard about that, it's very famous) is available as a free pdf online or Paul Cockshott's YT channel
An Verndari I don't necessarily agree but this is fair except the part about obedience to process part. Obedience to process means obedience to state, machines don't have wills of their own. Engels is bullshitting to defend his dogwhistling to Blanquists.
An Verndari
Skimmed it. Looks useless and impossible.
Direct democratic planning would work fine on its own. Centralism would just render it inefficient.
@Eoin O'Connor
What is direct democratic planning which is not centralized? What do you vote in? In your local area? About what? Even in local areas, you would have a centralized thing if you vote on the plan directly. Or do you mean councils? But councils are representative, not direct democracy.
"Stalinism" isn't a thing guys, remember that.
Isaiah Strong Yeah, that's correct. It should be called National Non-communism.
" A revolution which is inspired by state socialism and adopts this form even 'provisionally' and 'temporarily' is lost : it takes a wrong road down an ever steeper slope. All political power inevitably creates a privileged position for those who exercise it.
Having taken over the revolution, mastered it, and harnessed it, those in power are obliged to create the bureaucratic and repressive apparatus which is indispensible for any authority that wants to maintain itself, to command, to give orders, in a word : to govern.
All authority seeks to some extent to control social life. It's existence predisposes the masses to passivity, it's very presence suffocates any spirit of initiative. 'Communist' power is a real bludgeon. Swollen with 'authority' it fears every independent action. Any autonomous action is immediately seen as suspect and threatening, for such authority wants sole control of the worker. Initiative from any other source is seen as an intrusion upon it's domain and an infringement of it's prerogatives and, therefore, unacceptable."
- Volin
Dear Libertarian Socialist Rants, while I agree that Leninist/ Stalinist rule in it's authitorianism was wrong, reagarding your opposition to the state per se, and to central planning, HOW do you think without the state/ central planning, the problem of competition (for example between the local syndicates) can be avoided? Actually that was a problem with the Anarchist forces in spain, even, given some local groups heavily outproduced others, and instead of sharing the excess they produced they in often kept it for themselves and in some cases even sold it to underlings of Franco (!), since they gave them better deals for it).
So how to solve the problem of competition?
Anarchism is a joke. If there is no central planning the autonomous factories will compete with each other, or after a while they start to form conglomerates, which means that they have to give up some part of their autonomy in the name of a greater good. Capitalism will return either way, even if the managers are elected from the workers of that particular factory. If every fucking productive unit is a self-governing commune without any central organization to regulate the market, there will be really brutal competition between the agents and sooner or later some of them will fall and some of them will reach a monopol position.
Clearly, you never saw one of those mills from the inside and started to think about how and why things work like that inside and outside of it, while grinding through your shift.
When libertarian socialism has lead mass social revolution and over seen the construction of a meaningful socialist societies as Leninism has done and continues to do then I'll give it a fair hearing.
robertrulebirtannia
Except none of them were socialist. So that's false.
Let just pull up a quote from Michael Parenti.
"Real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this ‘pure socialism’ view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.”
"Meaningful socialist societies constructed by Leninism" Like....? No country that has adopted Marxist-Leninist systems have turned out well besides China, and that's only because they've mostly rejected those systems and adopted Capitalism.
China's economy is sill overwhelmingly state owned and controlled and to say that countries with ML government didn't turn out well is simply untrue. The USSR was a super power and the eastern bloc had some of the fast growing economies in the world. Their problems came from the market reforms made by people like Gorbachev.
It's called state capitalism. The point is not the "free market", that's a myth anyway. The point is steep hierarchies.
@libertarainsocialistrants Have you read emma goldmans "My Disillusion in russia",it's wonderfully written and it's great to see the the collapse from a human perspective , she experienced these thing while they happend and witnessed Bolshevik mismanagement of production and distribution and party favoritism that existed in early Soviet russia.
Marxist-Liberalism... By Joe, I think I've cracked it!