Back

@MikeDunnAuthor

The Kronstadt Rebellion was a counter-revolutionary insurrection. The whole rebellion was a misguided revolt caused by the sailors' and workers' inability to understand that the economic hardships they faced wasn't a betrayal of the workers by the Bolsheviks, but a result of the difficult transition to a new socialist economy, which was exacerbated by the Civil War and foreign blockades.

@Radical_EgoCom and their inability to understand that authoritarianism was for their own good.

@MikeDunnAuthor

Apparently, the inability to understand the cause-and-effect of complex geopolitical issues persists to this day. "Just blame the Bolsheviks and not the national and international bourgeois" is the calling cry of the anti-authoritarians.

@Radical_EgoCom @MikeDunnAuthor

I haven't seen a good solution to bad guys abusing an anarchist setup.

And I have yet to see MLs plausibly explain the actual mechanics of the withering of the state under a socialist DotP.

Also the whole authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian dichotomy needs some kind of radical reframing imo.

@JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

The withering away of the state follows the successful establishment of socialism, as the state, an instrument of class domination, becomes unnecessary. Initially, during the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state is crucial for suppressing the bourgeoisie and defending the revolution. As class distinctions diminish and a classless society develops, the state will gradually lose its governance role, ultimately leading to its dissolution. #socialism #communism

@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor thats like an answer out of a book, and probably what was imagined, yet no sign of the "withering of the state" has taken place after in any big socialist revolutions, instead the state was reinforced over and over against outside threat's, which would be somewhat reasonable as well as inside dissidents. Whats not reasonable is sending anarchists and social revolutionaries to their deaths, which had no lesser part in the Russian Revolution than the Bolsheviks

@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

There was never a time given for how long the DotP would have to last, only that it would have to last as long as internal and external class threats existed, and unfortunately the socialist experiments that have existed either dissolved for one reason or another before reaching the withering away phase and full communism or currently exist and are still required to exist due to internal/external class threats. 1/2

@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

It's very reasonable for socialist states to punish people (regardless of whether they previously helped the revolution or not) for (either intentionally or unknowingly) initiating counter-revolutionary opposition, whether it be the anarchists seeking to abolish the socialist state prematurely or the social democrats seeking to introduce revisionism into the state. 2/2

@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor well thats a convenient excuse, isn't it? If any opposition regarding the state as a political tool is silenced, who would ever dare to speak out for it's "withering", if doing so would likely come with the accusation of being "counter-revolutionary"?

With acting like that imo the Bolsheviks determined the end of the revolution, building an authoritarian state (which had its achievements nonetheless) which would either remain just this or fail and fall back into capitalism, like it happened in russia as well as china.

I find it fatal to stick to the same recipes from over a hundred years ago (not just because of the time but of the materialist conditions of the time) and repeat the same mistakes (of which anarchists made plenty as well), when building towards future revolutions.

@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

You don't "speak out" for the withering away of the state. You're seem to be mistaking "withering away" with "abolition." The withering away of the state happens after class has been abolished. Class can only be abolished through a socialist state and its equalization of social conditions. Since the state is a tool of class oppression, once class no longer exists, the state will eventually wither away.

@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor ok, if using this terms: As the state is a tool of class oppression, it requires classes of oppressor's and oppressed. That far I agree.

I would also argue that a state always works towards this class division to preserve it's existence, and to resolve it is directly opposed to the state itself. So if one oppressing class is toppled, another takes it's place.

In theory with the so called DotP the classes just switched places. I would argue that very soon after the revolution in russia, no significant part of the bourgeoisie was present in russia, either fled or executed, the MoP taken.

Therefore with the new state in place two classes formed. One of Bolshevik party functionaries, dissolving the sovjets and centralize control over the MoP and the once more disenfranchised proletariat, while the former claimed to speak for the latter.

I assume you would most likely disagree with the last part. I would be honestly curious, how anyone can ever work towards liberation of the working class, if said working class has no control whatsoever over it?

@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

Yes, the Soviet Union did have a class of Bolshevik functionaries (referred to as the "nomenklatura") who had access to privileges, resources, and benefits that were not available to the general population. The Soviet Union was in the process of trying to eliminate class, but, as briefly mentioned previously, did not achieve a classless society and unfortunately collapsed before it could.

@Radical_EgoCom @theDuesentrieb @MikeDunnAuthor

For a DotP to be legitimate it would necessarily have to be tied to a commitment to remove class distinctions. Not just a theoretical commitment or rhetorical one. An actual *measurable* process whose mechanisms are transparent, and which is legally required to meet certain milestones periodically

Such a process is in NO WAY inconsistent with organized self-defense - thus the excuse of external threat should be discarded with prejudice.

@JoeChip @theDuesentrieb @MikeDunnAuthor

Class threats come from outside the country, too. It isn't just the bourgeoisie of one country that will try to destroy socialism, but the bourgeoisie of other countries as well. Organized self-defense against all class threats, both from inside or outside the country, is consistent with the commitment to remove class distinctions.

@Radical_EgoCom @theDuesentrieb @MikeDunnAuthor

"Consistent with" is radically insufficient. This is where everything breaks down. I argue with as much force as I can muster that the removal of class distinctions must be an objectively measurable process. Indefinite extensions to this process cannot be permitted.

Parallel to this process must be a political reform that returns operational control of production to people's soviets.

@JoeChip @theDuesentrieb @MikeDunnAuthor

Revolution doesn't happen in a vacuum, which you seem to be arguing as if it does, as if every country can have one single plan for how to abolish class, as if every country experiences the exact same things at the exact same times in the exact same ways and can have a check list, pre-written, for how to abolish class, as if unforeseen or unavoidable obstacles won't prevent the abolition of class and delay it.

@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

The proletariat gains political power through the party, which represents them through representatives who are democratically elected by the proletariat to speak on their behalf and can also be democratically removed by the proletariat. They aren't giving up their power.

@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

I agree, I'd rather call them delegates, to avoid confusion with parliamenterism, but that is just word juggling.

This is what the early sovjets were meant to do or different approaches of council communism.

I see very little difference, besides terms, between this and for instance, an anarchist confederation.

I just disagree that this was in place in the sovjet union or is in current countries calling themselves socialist

@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

The state is the big, giant difference between the representative democracy with the DotP I described and an anarchist confederation. The DotP actually has a state to defend the revolution, organize society, and construct socialism, while an anarchist confederate lacks this necessity.

@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor so if an anarchist confederation had the means of defending the revolution, would establish an economy based on the socialist principle "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" and therefore organise society, would there still be a necessity for a state?

@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

No, there wouldn't be a need for a state if anarchists could do that, but I'm not all that interested in "what if" scenarios. If anarchists can do it, then do it. If they can't, then their inability to do so was predicted by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor I admit I understand that, but before, let's say, 1871 any socialist revolutions had been "what if" scenarios and socialists, marxists as well as anarchists have achived much to learn from.

Anyway, I have to call it a day were I live, but thanks for the discussion

@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor

I get that you're done for today, but just in case you want to respond tomorrow (or not), it isn't 1871 anymore. We no longer have to rely on "what if" scenarios to determine the success rates of state socialism and anarchism. Both have been tried, and state socialism has proven to be more successful in terms of longevity and sustainability, making it the more preferable option for a revolutionary model.