From: "Nate Holdren" <nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: is leninism dead? was: Flooding
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:09:19 -0500


Hi Sean,
the debate about the state and about the soviet union etc is interesting. 
Below I quoted things from both your last two emails that I thought were 
interesting.

first:
"both the u.s. and the soviet union were empires, both systems were pretty 
much equally fucked, there wasn't one evil empire; what are the consequences 
of this realization for anarchist and marxist theory?
... we need to take seriously that both systems have little of what we want, 
therefore we must consider what different manifestations these regimes have 
taken, to not do so is irresponsible of us."

I agree that we need to take this seriously. As I understand it,  the US and 
USSR are both versions of capitalism, involving the imposition of work and 
divesting workers of control, so one consequence is that we don't aim to 
achieve something like the USSR. Beyond that, what should we consider? The 
historical account of gains and losses within the class war as to why these 
different courses were taken? This is important to know more about. Is there 
anything else?

second:
"i basically see anarchism/small c communism as a movement totally outside 
of the spectacle, while leninism wants to use some parts of the spectacle 
(many leninists claim but hasn't really been observed in practice) to get 
rid of spectacular society for good. of course what we have seen instead is 
leninism reproduce something akin to capitalism... i'm just willing to 
accept that by some magical course of events leninism could actually lead to 
communism... it's communism from above, but it might actually be 
possible..."

I'm sympathetic to this argument, I've tried to make a somewhat similar 
argument about supporting trade union struggles and others, and I think this 
isn't too far off of what Chris said before about his view that national 
liberation struggles can sometimes become more than national liberation 
struggles.
I have a hard time taking seriously the idea that leninism is going to get 
us to communism, any more than trade unionism or national liberationism will 
get us to communism. I do think it's possible that struggle originating with 
leninism could grow to become something more and better. But insofar as 
they're successful in achieving their aims, leninist I think will only end 
up achieving a different arrangement of capitalism.
I took you elsewhere to be saying that some aspects of these alternative 
forms of capitalism (like the USSR and Cuba) may have worthwhile elements to 
them, something I agree with, in that there may be a more equitable 
distribution of goods etc, (and this may also NOT be the case, I don't know 
the data). If this is the case then there may well be things about these 
alternative forms of capitalism that it might be worth supporting, in some 
instances. but even if this is the case I think it's still a limited short 
term tactical support and not a belief that successful leninists will 
actually get us to communism.

cheers,
Nate

>hi commie00,
> >
> > hey greg (and sean)
> >
> > thanks for the calmness and clarity of this
> > discussion... i hope i can
> > maintain this with my contribution...
> >
> > i guess first of all, my basic disagreement with you
> > (greg) seems to be
> > rooted in our understandings of of marx's critique
> > of the gotha program...
> >
> > to me it doesn't seem like marx is actually setting
> > up a rigid notion of two
> > stages, but is instead just eluding to the fact that
> > communism (in a
> > particular sense) will not appear overnight. and to
> > the best of my memory,
> > marx does not at any point specifically say that in
> > the "lowest stage" the
> > state still exists. in fact, if memory serves, in
> > some other writings
> > (perhaps letters?) he makes explicit that the
> > "lowest stage" can not come
> > into existance until the state is destroyed, or at
> > least weakened to the
> > point where there is room for communism to begin
> > taking root.
> >
> > when you add into this that marx takes as a
> > presupposition from (at least)
> > the german ideology on that communism is the
> > movement (verb) that does away
> > with class society (and that this movement is
> > against alienation and for
> > community), and that marx understood communism to be
> > a stateless society
> > (and that from at least the 1850s onward he began
> > criticizing hierarchy,
> > etc.), you can get quite a different reading of the
> > critique than the one
> > offered by lenin and generally accepted by many.
>
>how is this understanding of marx any different than
>communitarianism? this seems like the kind of stuff
>you would read in the ecologist magazine, or receive
>from international forum on globalization theorists...
>
> >
> > to wit: the short description of stages in the
> > critique should not be taken
> > as solid since marx viewed communism not only as the
> > goal (for lack of a
> > better word), but the method. that is, the bulding
> > of community and
> > supression of alienation (communization) are the
> > means to the end. thus the
> > "lower stage" becomes something much more difuse,
> > and his description merely
> > a tool for explaining that we can't be puritanical.
> > however, this does not
> > mean we have to accept the "state" as a
> > revolutionary tool. in fact, in my
> > understanding, it means unending hostility toward
> > the state (and all forms
> > of institutionalized hierarchies) as part-and-parcel
> > of class society /
> > organizational body & weapon of the bourgeoisie / a
> > form of alienation. that
> > is: the struggle against hierarchical, market, etc.
> > social relations will
> > continue within a any future society for a while
> > (since we are stamped with
> > them, and will stamp younger generations with them),
> > but that this does not
> > mean said society has a "state", etc.
>
>but we can't fully realize our alternatives within
>class society, to do this would involve fully having
>control over our own destinies, no matter what we do
>we still have to contest with the courts, money,
>police, army, etc...
> >
> > from here i think we have decide on how we define
> > the state: to me some of
> > the key aspects of the state are:
> >
> > 1) it is inherently internally hierarchical. while
> > not every dictionary
> > would agree to this, it is still our collective
> > experience. and thus use of
> > the term "state" conjures up, even subconsciously, a
> > hierarchical organ
> > controled by a few people. and, since language is
> > the structure of our
> > thought, we can see a reason why calling something a
> > "state" can doom
> > whatever it is to hierarchicalness, and thus the
> > supression of any kind of
> > "working class rule" in a positive sense.
> >
> > 2) it is historically wedded to the bourgeoisie.
> > that is: while prior to the
> > advent of capitalism we see many proto- and
> > near-states, the state is never
> > fully realized until the rise of the bourgeoisie. if
> > memory serves, this is
> > one of the reasons marx stopped using the term
> > "state" to describe anything
> > revolutionary in the 1850s, even going so far as to
> > get on folks for using
> > the term "semi-state".
> >
> > so, now we get to the heart, i suppose: what do we
> > understand to be a
> > "state". i assume that you would understand the
> > workers' councils in hungary
> > '56 to be a "state", while i understand it to be an
> > anti-state expression of
> > proletarian power. that is: if it is not
> > hierarchical, and not attached to
> > the bourgeoisie, then (to me) it is not a state but
> > something else,
> > something new.
> >
> > i do agree that "the state" will persist... however,
> > i think it will persist
> > as the organizational force of the class enemy, not
> > as something "in the
> > hands of the working class". from here i much agree
> > with dauve / barrots
> > assessment, which i quote in its entirety:
> >
> > "States and How to Get Rid of Them
> >
> > The State was born out of human beings' inability to
> > manage their lives. It
> > is the unity - symbolic and material - of the
> > disunited. As soon as
> > proletarians appropriate their means of existence,
> > this mediation begins to
> > lose its function, but destroying it is not an
> > automatic process. It will
> > not disappear little by little as the non-mercantile
> > sphere gets bigger and
> > bigger. Actually, such a sphere would be fragile if
> > it let the central
> > governmental machinery go on, as in Spain 1936-37.
> > No State structure will
> > wither away on its own.
> >
> > Communizing is therefore more than an addition of
> > direct piecemeal actions.
> > Capital will be sapped by general subversion through
> > which people take their
> > relationships with the world into their own hands.
> > But nothing decisive will
> > be achieved as long as the State retains some power.
> > Society is not just a
> > capillary network: relationships are centralized in
> > a force which
> > concentrates the power to preserve this society.
> > Capitalism would be too
> > happy to see us change our lives locally while it
> > carries on on a global
> > scale. As a central force, the State has to be
> > destroyed by central action,
> > as well as its power dissolved everywhere. The
> > communist movement is
> > anti-political, not a-political."
>
>i'm unclear as to what is mean by central action, this
>actually sounds leninist/authoritarian, the central
>action of a standing military? or a parliament?
>
>this also does not respond to how we will overcome the
>capitalist state when they have access to resources,
>hierarchal control of people, wealth, so many things
>that a decentralized proletarian movement does not...
> >
> > (http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/etoc.html)
> >
>
> >
> > quick note to sean: i'm not entirely sure where you
> > got the idea that i
> > think i've found the science of revolution, or
> > whatnot. if i've given that
> > idea to you, please accept my apology since i agree
> > with you (and ilan,
> > etc.) that no such science exists, nor can it exist.
> >
>that was the stuff i was saying about anarchism and
>autonomism saying to hell with the state and all it
>apparatuses... i basically see anarchism/small c
>communism as a movement totally outside of the
>spectacle, while leninism wants to use some parts of
>the spectacle (many leninists claim but hasn't really
>been observed in practice) to get rid of spectacular
>society for good. of course what we have seen instead
>is leninism reproduce something akin to capitalism...
>i'm just willing to accept that by some magical course
>of events leninism could actually lead to communism...
>it's communism from above, but it might actually be
>possible...
>
> > but, of course, i don't have access to a research
> > library, so i prolly don't
> > know what i'm talking about...
>
>
>haha
>peace out,
>-Sean
>
>
>
>====>"Any art that does make us yawn, you can throw away immediately. Don't 
>bother with explanations. The hook! P.D.Q.! The hook for any artist who 
>bores his audience, no matter how much trouble he may have taken, no matter 
>how much time he may have spent studying."
>   -Jean Dubuffet-
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
>http://sports.yahoo.com/
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---