#1
Post rating: ~
Trotsky's logic outweighs any and every invective Anarchists rely on to criticize those who seize state power.

In and of itself, this self-justification that “we did not seize power not because we were unable but because we did not wish to, because we were against every kind of dictatorship,” and the like, contains an irrevocable condemnation of anarchism as an utterly anti-revolutionary doctrine. To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of every revolution consisted and consists in putting a new class in power, thus enabling it to realize its own program in life. It is impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible to lead the masses towards insurrection without preparing for the conquest power


http://fractioncommuniste.org/eng/bci01/bci01_8.php
#2
Post rating: ~
This is the basic and often repeated argument.

Anarchists are not against seizing power, they are against an elite seizing power in the name of the people. The workers themselves have to seize power. Trotsky basically defined the state as "armed people", anarchists disagree. A state is a governing institution separate and above the masses. Communes are not governments as they are self-governing.

So the workers shouldn't be seizing power over a governing institution separate and above the masses (i.e. a state). In fact, it is impossible to do so as they are the masses. And of course they should be defending their communes by means of violence if necessary against reactionaries, but that's not the definition of a state. A workers' state is an impossibility, it's a contradictio in terminis.
#3
Post rating: ~
#4
Post rating: ~
why is the faily planet mustang's new ifap
#5
Post rating: ~
:colbert:
#6
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

DeleuzerAndRetardi posted:

why is the faily planet mustang's new ifap



Perestroika

#7
political car tune
Post rating: ~

Lucille posted:

:colbert: