====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Couple of points here-- and my points are not meant as an oppositon to Dan's contention that anarchism is not intellectually bankrupt, or that anarchism has been an historically imporant current in the class struggle. 1. " Before the 1917 Russian revolution, the most dedicated advocates of class warfare were ALL Anarchists"-- that is just not accurate in Russia, or outside Russia. It was not the case in Russia in 1905; it was not the case in the Irish struggle throughout the late 18th century, 19th century, and 20th century. It was not the case in the Cuban revolutionary struggles of 1868, and in the resumption of those struggles after 1888. It was not the case in the emerging agrarian and urban struggle in China. It was not the case in the Mexican Revolution of 1910-- although things might have turned out better if there had been greater numbers of anarchist advocates of class warfare. 2. I suppose part of the problem hinges on relative definitions of "most dedicated advocates of class warfare," because the phrase itself is pretty much empty of any political, historical content, and context. So advocates of abolition of the state qua state "outrank" the left socialists, left social-democrats who argued, agitated, organized for class based opposition to WW1? So advocates of "class warfare" "outdo" the organizers, agitators for the resurgence of the 1905 soviets in 1916 Russia? 3. Regarding the CNT and its participation in the popular front government in Spain-- certainly significant portions of the CNT rank and file [and some of its leadership] thought this was a "betrayal," but the question is a little bit more complex than the "answer" of "betrayal." Like...what's being betrayed? Opposition to the bourgeoisie, to capitalism? Like the necessity for the proletariat to remain independent of the governments of the bourgeoisie? Like the importance of constructing organs and protecting organs of dual power in opposition to governments of recuperation? Or is it a betrayal of an opposition to state power as state power? Dan says that some in the CNT saw the entry into the popular front government as a tactic, strategy to protect the workers' councils from complete destruction by the official Communist Party. I'm interest in what Dan thinks-- does he regard that as a valid reason, argument for entry? And in any case, what were the results of that entry? 4. If all the "strains" of anarachism shouldn't be lumped together and dismissed as bankrupt or irrelevant, that same sense of discrimination should be applied to "Leninism"-- as if such a thing as Leninism might actually exist. IMO once a group starts talking about its fidelity to Leninism with a Capital L, the game is pretty much over-- but the point is that there is a historical validity to the organization, development, and activity of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution-- of the growing unity of the Bolsheviks and the deepest ranks and files of the workers through the factory committees and the soviets where truly the Bolsheviks were identified by the workers as their, the workers, OWN-- as their own agency for defending the organization, and for securing the power, of the soviets. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan" <[email protected]> ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
