Hello, Ben:

Before proceeding, should explain that this is not a long and involved essay. While, based on its length alone, one might assume that I did not give your piece the attention that it deserved, there is actually a reason for this appearance. This reason is that I was able to identify what I feel is a single distinct premise upon which all assertions within your essay are based. While I most certainly am not trying to be undiplomatic, it is my opinion that this premise represents a simple Straw Man fallacy. This Straw Man can best be defined as attributing a false reason to the anarchist opposition to vanguardist communism. To better illustrate what I mean, I have selected several quotes from your essay which I feel are based upon this fallacy:

---

"Now the first conclusion we can draw from my first law is that it blows to hell the contention widely held in anarchist circles that the so-called ‘Leninist’ groups of today represent an eventual physical threat to militant anarchists whom they will supposedly exterminate on the magical day they come to power.

I am not exaggerating when I argue that such fear-mongering circulates in anarchist circles. I have seen numerous claims, on email lists, in public meetings, in public leaflets, in posts to infoshop.org by its owner and even in the first post of my debate opponent, Daniel, that ‘Leninists’, should they come to power, will shoot, kill or imprison anarchists."
- Ben

---

While I think we can both agree it cannot be denied that anarchists have historically been targeted by communist regimes, it is not this fact upon which anarchists base their opposition to vanguardist communism. As I explained in Essay #155:

---

"I use the term ‘vanguardist’ broadly to describe any communist who favours the existence of a ‘transitional state’ between the period immediately following the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a classless, stateless society. In the sense that I use it, vanguardism is simply the idea that a specific organization must spearhead and ‘lead’ the working class through the revolution. This definition does not include any preconceptions about what you refer to as ‘feudal’ and ‘paternalistic’ values which likely vary depending upon which vanguardist communist one would talk to."

---

Therefore, I will argue that the treatment of anarchists by past communist regimes is, in the big picture, irrelevant and of little utility to any anarchist argument which seeks to discredit the notion of a "workers’ state". As implied by the above quote from my previous essay, such treatment of anarchists would likely vary from regime to regime. While past animosity between anarchists and vanguardists certainly is a factor in this conflict, I believe that it is a stretch to suggest that the current conflict is rooted in the events of the past. This conflict is, to the contrary, based upon ideological differences inherent in anarchism and vanguardist communism. Therefore, to present this animosity as though it was the basis for anarchist opposition to vanguardist communism is to grossly misrepresent our position.

We find this same fallacy in the next statement:

---

"it would appear that the political conflicts between anarchists and ‘Leninists’ today find their roots in the past."
- Ben

---

I believe that this statement is incorrect. As has been explained, anarchist opposition to a workers’ state is based more on ideological disagreements than on past experience. Unlike the events of the past which, rightfully, should remain in the past, differences in our respective ideologies will inevitably survive through the ages. I have spoken to many anarchists who believe that we should simply forgive and forget. However, despite this concession, none of these anarchists have gone so far as to accept the notion of a workers’ state.

Therefore, with all this said, two questions remain:

1) If the anarchist opposition to vanguardist communism is not based upon historical events, then what is it based on? And;

2) Have you managed to successfully refute this opposition in Essay #160:

First, let us examine question 1:

As I have explained, the reason anarchists are opposed to vanguardist communism is based on ideological differences which will always remain constant, regardless of what isolated confrontations we might have. The reason that anarchists are opposed to a workers’ state is really quite simple: we believe that it simply is not possible for workers to truly control it. As I stated in Essay #155:

---

"...even with the ability to agitate and organize, a proletarian state cannot be seen as being controlled by the working class. There is, after all, a difference between the workers influencing the state and the workers controlling the state. Influencing the State simply involves applying political pressure from without in the hopes that it will decide to take actions which favour the workers."

---

Therefore, it is impossible for the workers to truly control the state even if the state does grant the them utmost freedom to organize and agitate. As long as the majority of the working class is relegated to influencing the state from the outside while it is truly controlled by a minority of supposedly "working class" people who happen to occupy a position within it, the state will never be controlled by workers in a collective sense. Again, to quote Essay #155:

---

"In order for the entire working class to manage the state (as opposed to a portion of workers occupying the state, automatically rendering them as a new ruling class), every working-class individual would have to become a state official."

---

In short, a state, by its very nature, transforms the minority of people who occupy positions within it into a new ruling class. The inevitable result of this is the creation of conflicting class interests between rulers and workers. Expressed in the most simple way, the well-being of the working class is dependant upon minimizing the control that the ruling class holds over them; and, conversely, the well-being of the ruling class is dependant upon maximizing the control that they hold over the working class.

Such is the anarchist argument against the "proletarian state". Now we must examine question 2: did you manage to refute this argument in your latest essay?

To answer this question, there are several quotes we must examine:

---

"A state machine controlled by the working class will make possible the transition to a classless society that will not need a state.

In the context of a stable, modern economy this workers' state will protect the fundamental democratic rights of agitation and organization for everyone (including critics and opponents, whether reactionary or progressive, of the workers' state)."
- Ben

---

It can be seen, upon examining this statement, that it insufficiently addresses the anarchist critique of the workers’ state simply because it fails to take into account the conflicting class interests which statism creates. Had these conflicting interests been taken into account, statements such as "this workers' state will protect the fundamental democratic rights of agitation and organization for everyone" would have been augmented with an explanation of how such actions are not contrary to the interests of the ruling class.

Next, I wish to respond to this:

---

"In the event that political leaders of the state become corrupt and attempt to restrict the democratic rights of the masses (ie: the ability of the masses to form independent political organizations and carry out agitation critical of state policies) -- the masses will make use of information war and the weapon of transparency (made possible by the emerging revolution in digital communications) to organize themselves for powerful mass actions to overthrow such corrupt political leaders."
- Ben

---

In this statement, you have made two very important concessions:

1) that a workers’ state has the potential to degenerate into a dictatorship; and,

2) that the workers themselves are capable of organizing grassroots direct action without the help of a central organization, which is precisely what anarchists have always advocated.

For these reasons alone, it is neither desirable nor necessary for the working class to utilize the state as a tool for creating a just society. When the potential for a workers’ state to result in dictatorship is considered alongside the fact that statism will naturally create conflicting class interests, we must conclude that such a state cannot possibly be used to the advantage of the working class. And when we consider this conclusion alongside the fact that the workers themselves are perfectly capable of organizing a just society, then it becomes glaringly obvious that anarchism offers the working class a far more favourable system for social change than does Leninism or any other vanguardist ideology.