Lenin's State and Revolution

[Guest]

I'm reading Lenin's State and Revolution, and in there Lenin quotes the following from Engels-
(he's talking about the anarchists)

"Had the autonomists," he wrote, "contented themselves with saying that the social organization of the future would allow authority only within the bounds which the conditions of production make inevitable, one could have come to terms with them. But they are blind to all facts that make authority necessary and they passionately fight the word.

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction." (p.39)

I was wondering what do you guys think about his argument, that a revolution is by definition authoritarian and so the anarchism is anti-revolutionary.

[Crustanarchy]

The Party quickly executed the Kronstadt "autonomists". So I'd say he was wrong simply because he's a god damn hypocrite who's paranoid because of the "revolution". He wanted to push his agenda. That's why they dissolved or violently destroyed the workers' and villagers' councils also called "soviets".

[Noleaders]

"Had the autonomists," he wrote, "contented themselves with saying that the social organization of the future would allow authority only within the bounds which the conditions of production make inevitable, one could have come to terms with them. But they are blind to all facts that make authority necessary and they passionately fight the word.

Thats pretty much what they did say but with "authority" being free associations controlling their own stuff.

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests.

Oh yeah, and we saw how well that turned out....
I think the grand total of people murdered by socialist dictatorships in the last century was around 170,000,000. Doesnt sound like withering away to me. Why dont authoritarian socialists not cry out against all forms of oppression, why contain with bringing down capitalism?

But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed.

Blatant misrepresentation

They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

Nope, the first act is creating alternatives

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means.

Many anarchists believe in using general strikes or black markets to bring down the state as peacefully as possible

And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.

Miss out "in the reactionaries" and thats a pretty good summary of how socialist governments work

Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie?

Self defence is authority now? And the Paris Commune barely lasted more than a day anyway.

Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?

They did use a lot of "authority", i believe it got them all killed...

Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction."

Really? In light of reality i think we have the better claim to consistency with our principles, i mean "everyone is oppressed by a small minority of capitalist, i know lets give everything to a dictator"....
Really? Authoritarian socialism didnt betray the "proletariat"?

I was wondering what do you guys think about his argument, that a revolution is by definition authoritarian and so the anarchism is anti-revolutionary.

That its very out of date since it was written way before we saw the results of socialist government. And like i said not all anarchists believe in revolution and self defence is in no way authority.

[Marja]

But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

Not true. As Noleaders said, the first act is the creation of alternatives. Besides which, Bakunin discuses the nature of authority, and the diferences between rational authority and political power, in God and the State.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means.

A revolution cannot be accomplished through force of arms. The state, of course, has stronger arms, and any revolutionary movement must build strength, support, and credibility, before it can try to match the state in combat. I suspect that it can continue the process so that it can undermine the state without direct combat. Even if we look at the political/military struggles of the October Revolution, Kerensky saw the power slipping from his hands; he ordered his troops to seize the Bolshevik printing-presses before Lenin, Trotsky, or Antonov-Ovseënko ordered the pro-Soviet troops to enter combat. In this case, both sides moved aggressively to present the Congress of Soviets with a fait accompli.

And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire...

That is true of every state, but it is the last weapon in each state's arsenal. A thousand means of building support, of co-opting one dissenting faction, and suppressing another, come first.

[AndyMalroes]

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means.

Yeah Violent revolutions will never work anymore, I think we've lost that battle.

[scarydreams]

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie?

I differentiate between the use of force on an entire population and the use of force on the masters that have enslaved that population. Surely they don't have to go hand in hand? To say that violent revolution will never work again is a bit shortsighted, it all would seem to depend on the prevailing social climate at the time.