The different schools of thought

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm still learning :blushing:
What are the major schools of thought about leftism and what are the differences between them?
I'm familiar with the names; Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Anarchism and Stalinism, but I'm not sure what seperates one from the other. I'm pretty sure I've missed some out too.
Anyone any good at using bullet points? :)
-Rachel

[ZeroNowhere]

Marxism
De Leonism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/de-leonismi-t100202/index.html?p=1341927) (Also, all of De Leon's works can be found here (http://slp.org/litera2.htm#anchor437650). Pronounced 'Day-Lay-OWN'ism)
World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/index.php) (For some reason, they still have their article on SIUs up, even though they've been reminded that it's bullcrap for ages. Also, the other main point of difference from us De Leonists is on labour credits. But still, they're awesome)

Left Communism
International Communist Current (http://en.internationalism.org/) (Generally good, from what I've seen, though the critique of De Leonism on their site contains almost as much bullcrap as 'State and Revolution')
Made up of council communists, Luxemburgists (well, some), and possibly De Leonists, though it's not a necessary part of De Leonism. Focus on internationalism, generally libertarian socialism.

Anarchism
Anarchist FAQ (http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html) (Great for an introduction to anarchism, though its portrayal of Marx and Marxism is critiqued here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/critique-anarchist-faq-t100349/index.html))
Anarcho-syndicalism (http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html)
Mutualism (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/) (For an introduction, use the Anarchist FAQ)
CrimethInc (http://www.crimethinc.com/) (Though keep in mind that CrimethInc does not exist, because that wouldn't be mysterious enough)

Marxists would fit under this depending on the definition used for 'anarchism'. Not all, however. For example, one can have pro-schooling Marxists, etc.

Leninism
Trots (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyismi-t69834/index.html)
Leninism-Trotskyism-Posadism (http://www.forteantimes.com/features/profiles/180/juan_r_posadas.html)
Stalinism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=46) (Hey, I referred to the Trots as 'Trots', I have the right to do that)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, we can simplify this down even more. There are two basic sorts of socialism:

1) From Above: Socialism can only be built by an enlightened or super militant (sometimes conspiratorial, or militarised) elite (since the masses are either too divided, weak, stupid, or lazy to do it for themselves -- or they have been bought-off somehow). Social Democrats (Labourism), Stalinism, Maoism and most forms of Anarchism are based on this model. [I can hear the howls of rage even now.]

2) From Below: Socialism can only come about if the mass of workers do it for themselves. Anything else will just prolong or re-introduce class division and oppression. Several versions of Leninism/Trotskyism, left communism and anarcho-syndicalism are founded on this principle.

The rest is just detail.

Read this by Hal Draper:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

It just about says it all.

[apathy maybe]

In fact, we can simplify this down even more. There are two basic sorts of socialism:

1) From Above: Socialism can only be built by an enlightened or super militant (sometimes conspiratorial, or militarised) elite (since the masses are either too divided, weak, stupid, or lazy to do it for themselves -- or they have been bought-off somehow). Social Democrats (Labourism), Stalinism, Maoism and most forms of Anarchism are based on this model. [I can hear the howls of rage even now.]

2) From Below: Socialism can only come about if the mass of workers do it for themselves. Anything else will just prolong or re-introduce class division and oppression. Several versions of Leninism/Trotskyism, left communism and anarcho-syndicalism are founded on this principle.

The rest is just detail.

Read this by Hal Draper:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

It just about says it all.

Yeah, there are two sorts, from above, most sorts of "Leninism" and most sorts of non-autonomist Marxism. And from below, all sorts of anarchism.

All the people who think that reformism is the way forward can probably also be put into the "from above" category.

----

I'll focus only on anarchism, 'cause that's what I am.

Anarchists think that people should make their own decisions, that there shouldn't be people "above" and people "below", and support the right of individuals to do what they like with their own body.

Rosa, if you would care to explain how that makes anarchism "from above", I would love to read it. I suspect you will talk about some long discredited writing of some long dead authors. Your argument would have much more force if you could find some writing from the last fifty years to support your argument. Oh, and it should be by someone who identifies as an anarchist, and is recognised by other anarchists as an anarchist (no "anarcho"-capitalists, and keep the number of primitivists to a minimum).

[Some Red Guy]

I thought Leninism was "from above", with the vanguard party etc..
I should so some more reading into this.

[apathy maybe]

Rosa, I've just read the Draper section on anarchism, he talks about two long dead authors, of which the specific writings he mentions are long discredited by serious anarchists. Got anything else to offer?

Most of what Proudhoun wrote is no longer accepted by modern anarchists. The single sentence on Bakunin is pointless. Draper attempts to claim that just because anarchists oppose politics, that they then are in the "from above" camp, that doesn't work.

He creates a dichotomy where no exists.

The great problem of our age is the achievement of democratic control from below over the vast powers of modern social authority. Anarchism, which is freest of all with verbiage about something-from-below, rejects this goal. It is the other side of the coin of bureaucratic despotism, with all its values turned inside-out, not the cure or the alternative.
Saying that there are only two options, "democratic control" as envisioned by you and Draper, and "bureaucratic despotism", and then saying that because anarchists (and not even all of them...) reject "democratic control from below" that they support "bureaucratic despotism" is showing a dreadful ignorance of anarchism at best, or, more likely with intelligent people, a deliberate misleading. An attempt to draw people away from the "allure" of anarchism towards whatever brand of "Marxism" you are peddling.

[Invincible Summer]

In fact, we can simplify this down even more. There are two basic sorts of socialism:

1) From Above: Socialism can only be built by an enlightened or super militant (sometimes conspiratorial, or militarised) elite (since the masses are either too divided, weak, stupid, or lazy to do it for themselves -- or they have been bought-off somehow). Social Democrats (Labourism), Stalinism, Maoism and most forms of Anarchism are based on this model.

2) From Below: Socialism can only come about if the mass of workers do it for themselves. Anything else will just prolong or re-introduce class division and oppression. Several versions of Leninism/Trotskyism, left communism and anarcho-syndicalism are founded on this principle.

The rest is just detail.

Read this by Hal Draper:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

It just about says it all.

Leninism is from below? "Most forms of" Anarchism (an-caps are not anarchists) are top-down? What in the holy hell are you smoking?

All the anarchist organizations/infoshops/etc that I've encountered have [I]always been based on the organization of individuals and have never involved some sort of hierarchical structure.

[benhur]

most forms of Anarchism are based on this model. [I can hear the howls of rage even now.]


I think this is unfair to anarchists. Most of them believe that only the workers can save workers, they don't believe in some super-intelligent political party (or messiah) coming down from the skies to save them. They believe that people have to save themselves (which is why they're against the very idea of depending on state or political parties, individuals etc.). Most of the anarchist groups are at the grassroots level, unlike so-called socialist parties like SWP that are more like clubs to accommodate bored, middle-class women.

p.s.

Is it okay to post as a guest in this section, provided I use the same username? I am too lazy to log in sometimes, just wondering....;)

[manic expression]

Marxism vs Anarchism. This came to a head in the late 19th Century. Anarchists believed that the state was the central cause of oppression, and that all states are inherently bad. Marx saw the capitalist state as a state for the present ruling class, and concluded that the working class can (and will) establish a state in its own interests. Many of the disagreements between Marxists and anarchists comes from this: whether or not to establish a state after the revolution. Next, Marx underlined class struggle as the essential aspect of society, as well as the decisive factor of revolution. Anarchists did not share Marx's view of class struggle, and in particular rejected the idea that the working class constitutes the only revolutionary group. Some anarchists have taken Marx's analysis, but that developed later.

Leninism. Leninism really developed in a few ways: first in rejection of the "Marxist" Social Democrats who supported WWI and a gradual revolution. The tendency that Lenin belonged to within the Second International included a lot of revolutionaries (including Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Connolly, Eugene V Debs and others) who all opposed WWI and promoted the immediate overthrow of capitalism. Lenin also pioneered the analysis of imperialism, which became a key part of what is known as Leninism. In addition, Lenin's theories and practices on the vanguard party separated him from other revolutionaries; the idea that the most politically advanced members of the working class must organize themselves in a disciplined party lies at the foundation of Leninism.

Trotskyism. After Lenin's death, the direction of those who upheld Bolshevism went in a few different ways. First, Leninism became "Leninism" (before his death it would have been referred to as Bolshevism for the most part). Second, the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin would define the international communist movement. Trotsky, after being exiled from the Soviet Union, criticized the bureaucratic mechanisms of the USSR, arguing that these were deformations which hampered and damaged socialism. Stalin held that the development of the Soviet state after 1928 was fully socialist. Also, Trotsky felt that socialism could not survive in a single country, whereas Stalin held that socialism could be maintained in one nation with the appropriate policies. Trotsky's theories, most notably that of the "deformed worker state" and the "permanent revolution", define both Trotskyism and the Leninists who reject them (oftentimes called "Stalinists", although this is controversial).

Maoism and the Sino-Soviet Split. By 1956, it became apparent that Khrushchev had firmly denounced Stalin and his policies. Mao, the leader of the Chinese Revolution and the People's Republic of China, defended Stalin (with some criticisms) from these claims. The communist movement split once more between those who accepted Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin and those who accepted Mao's defense of him. However, Mao added far more than just a rejection of the "Secret Speech": he formed a revolutionary platform that included the major participation of the peasantry, as well as a revolutionary strategy characterized by guerrilla warfare. Moreover, Mao denounced Khrushchev and other socialist leaders as "revisionists", essentially calling them counterrevolutionaries. Mao didn't just say Khrushchev and his supporters were incorrect, he put them on the same level as imperialists.

I don't know enough about different types of anarchism to fully summarize them, so I'll leave that to others.

[scarletghoul]

manic_expression's post is the best in this thread, but there is more to Maoism than anti-revisionism. Maoism also involves ideas of Mao such as Peoples War (Mao also developed very good military tactics for this), New Democracy, and Mass Line, and Three Worlds theory.

Mao is inspirational to many poor countries and nations (Nepal, India, Peru, black americans)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM, and the rest:


Rosa, if you would care to explain how that makes anarchism "from above", I would love to read it. I suspect you will talk about some long discredited writing of some long dead authors. Your argument would have much more force if you could find some writing from the last fifty years to support your argument. Oh, and it should be by someone who identifies as an anarchist, and is recognised by other anarchists as an anarchist (no "anarcho"-capitalists, and keep the number of primitivists to a minimum).

Hey, stop being so authoritarian! I said "most forms of anarchism", not "all forms of anarchism". If your particular brand isn't one of these, good for you.

And yes, Leninism is all about 'socialism from below'. Read Draper if you don't believe me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarletghoul:


Mass Line

We have already established here that the masses had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'mass line':

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-vs-t87244/index.html

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, I never said they did, but its still a big part of the Mao Zedong thought. Cool thread though.

[revolution inaction]

AM, and the rest:



Hey, stop being so authoritarian! I said "most forms of anarchism", not "all forms of anarchism". If your particular brand isn't one of these, good for you.

Show that any kind of anarchism is from above



And yes, Leninism is all about 'socialism from below'. Read Draper if you don't believe me.

I prefer to look at what leninist do, and it doesn't support the idea that leninism is socialism from below

[manic expression]

I prefer to look at what leninist do, and it doesn't support the idea that leninism is socialism from below

Right, because the Bolsheviks were in power before the October Revolution. They came from above! :rolleyes:


there is more to Maoism than anti-revisionism. Maoism also involves ideas of Mao such as Peoples War (Mao also developed very good military tactics for this), New Democracy, and Mass Line, and Three Worlds theory.

Very true, I forgot some of those (and to be honest, I should know more about them). The concept of the Cultural Revolution is also something pretty unique to Maoism.

[Black Sheep]

Rosa:

In fact, we can simplify this down even more. There are two basic sorts of socialism:

1) From Above: Socialism can only be built by an enlightened or super militant (sometimes conspiratorial, or militarised) elite (since the masses are either too divided, weak, stupid, or lazy to do it for themselves -- or they have been bought-off somehow). Social Democrats (Labourism), Stalinism, Maoism and most forms of Anarchism are based on this model. [I can hear the howls of rage even now.]

No branch of marxism supports that the country should be run by a minority,wtf.
Even the bad stalinists aim for a workers' democracy, so i would like a source of two to support your claims.

Even stalinist communist parties aim for a leninist style communist party, and a democratic-centralism run socialist state..

[BobKKKindle$]

No branch of marxism supports that the country should be run by a minority,wtf.

Actually, in a country where the proletariat accounts for only a small minority of the population, such as Russia in 1917, Marxists do believe that this minority should assume the position of the ruling class and establish itself as the politically-dominant force, even if it governs as part of an alliance with other class forces such as the peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie. Marxism is not about conforming to an abstract vision of how democracy should operate.

[scarletghoul]

Oh yeah, who can forget cultural revolution!

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm still learning :blushing:
What are the major schools of thought about leftism and what are the differences between them?
I'm familiar with the names; Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Anarchism and Stalinism, but I'm not sure what seperates one from the other. I'm pretty sure I've missed some out too.
Anyone any good at using bullet points? :)
-Rachel

As you can see, you get a lot of bias and people misrepresenting each other positions when you ask for something like this, so you're pretty much stuck with having to read works of those people yourself. Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Everyotherism are all different Marxist schools of thought. I'd avoid reading anything other than Marx at first, so that you can come to your own conclusions instead of basing your views off of someone else's. Everyone throws in their own views on things and tend to misrepresent ideas to fit their purpose, so starting with anyone other than Marx can kind of corrupt your understanding of Marxism. I'd avoid anarchists until you have a good understanding of Marx as well. I know this isn't the kind of answer you were looking for, but unless you're getting your information straight from the horses mouth, there are bound to be problems.


Rosa:

No branch of marxism supports that the country should be run by a minority,wtf.
Even the bad stalinists aim for a workers' democracy, so i would like a source of two to support your claims.

Even stalinist communist parties aim for a leninist style communist party, and a democratic-centralism run socialist state..

What about Bordigism?

[revolution inaction]

Right, because the Bolsheviks were in power before the October Revolution. They came from above! :rolleyes:


The bolsheviks didn't make the Russian revolution the Russian workers did, when the bolsheviks came to power they took on a counter revolutionary roll, so the october revolution which enabled the bolsheviks to take state power was the beginning of the end of the Russian revolution.

[BobKKKindle$]

The bolsheviks didn't make the Russian revolution the Russian workers did, when the bolsheviks came to power they took on a counter revolutionary roll, so the october revolution which enabled the bolsheviks to take state power was the beginning of the end of the Russian revolution.If the October Revolution represented the Bolsheviks coming to power by undemocratic means, and establishing their political rule over the Russian proletariat in order to further the interests of the party elite, but then the proletariat also conducted its own revolution against capitalism at some point during the same time period, then when did this proletarian revolution actually take place, and how was it organized, given that the meaningful attacks against the bourgeoisie took place after the Bolsheviks had come to power with mass support? Before October, the means of production were still subject to the control of the bourgeoisie, even though the Tsar had been overthrown, and the proletariat was in the process of creating its own class-orientated structures in preparation for the seizure of power (hence Trotsky's term dual power, referring to the coexistence of the bourgeois state and embryonic Soviet democracy) and so it would seem that the October Revolution was the proletarian revolution - unless you are ignorant enough to believe that the February Revolution was an anti-capitalist revolution. You would disagree with the idea that the October Revolution was genuinely proletarian, and you reject the notion that the Bolsheviks were the vanguard of the proletariat, because the anarchist narrative of the events of 1917 is simplistic and moralistic in its approach - it seeks to portray the Bolsheviks as an evil force with no organic links with the proletariat, which gained popular support by lying to the workers, but then betrayed the proletariat as soon they came to power, as part of a conflict between the "good" proletariat and peasantry, and the "evil" authoritarian Bolsheviks. The narrative of this tale, the anarchists say, is never to trust a political party, beause the Russian workers were tricked (!!) into supporting the Bolsheviks. Unfortunately for our anarchists, history is a bit more complicated than this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RG:


Show that any kind of anarchism is from above

That's why I posted the link to Draper's article, but if you prefer not to read it, fine.

[manic expression]

The bolsheviks didn't make the Russian revolution the Russian workers did, when the bolsheviks came to power they took on a counter revolutionary roll, so the october revolution which enabled the bolsheviks to take state power was the beginning of the end of the Russian revolution.

Bobkindles already covered this quite well, but I thought I'd add my thoughts.

The Bolsheviks did make the Russian Revolution; the workers didn't storm the Winter Palace and take Moscow after weeks of bitter fighting without any organization, they did so through the vanguard party. The vanguard party, the Bolsheviks, was carrying out the interests of the working class. More importantly, the actions of the Bolsheviks were fully endorsed by the Congress of the Soviets, which duly became the central pillar of the new Soviet state. In short, the workers did make the revolution...because the Bolsheviks did. The Bolsheviks were simply the most politically advanced workers, and so they naturally led the way.

And the Russian Revolution consisted fully of the establishment of proletarian state power. Without this state, there would have been no revolution. Revolution is suppression, and that requires a state.

[StalinFanboy]

RG:



That's why I posted the link to Draper's article, but if you prefer not to read it, fine.
Lol wait. You're saying that MOST anarchists are for "from above" socialism because of an article written on two anarchists that have been dead for like... 150 years? And that article assumes that because anarchists are against democracy, then we are for a dictatorship?

You should read this.

http://crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/beyonddemocracy.php

[ZeroNowhere]

1) From Above: Socialism can only be built by an enlightened or super militant (sometimes conspiratorial, or militarised) elite (since the masses are either too divided, weak, stupid, or lazy to do it for themselves -- or they have been bought-off somehow).
I prefer to call this 'Blanquism'. As for Hal Draper's arguments, they're basically 'Bakunin and Proudhon were authoritarian racists, therefore most anarchists are authoritarian.' The rest is just as valid as 'Anarchists can't be revolutionaries, because revolution is a necessarily authoritarian action'. That is, not. Hell, most anarchists support either consensual or direct democracy. I haven't seen anybody that really fits either extreme exactly either, though. As for freedom, 'no rulers' does not mean 'no rules'.
"Anarchism is on principle fiercely anti-democratic, since an ideally democratic authority is still authority." Which is as silly as 'Anarchists are against people learning things in detail, as that makes them an authority on the subject'. No, anarchism is not on principle anti-democratic. Also, 'bureaucratic despotism' reminds me of the SLP's silly 'bureaucratic state despotism' theory.
Heh, that reminds me. When reading through older posts on this site, a guy was seeking to demonstrate how abortion could be decided through consensual democracy, and in the end showed that, even though you wouldn't get a consensus on 'Abortion should be totally legal', you could still get one on 'Abortion should only be legal in cases of rape and when the mother's life is endangered', because apparently only anti-abortionists need to be swayed, and the rest of us will just agree on anything. It was rather amusing. :)

[apathy maybe]

RG:



That's why I posted the link to Draper's article, but if you prefer not to read it, fine.

I did read it. Can you post links to any writings by anarchists written in the last 50 years that support your position? As I said, the writings which Draper talks about have long been discredited. No anarchist today is racist or sexist. Full stop.

I read the entire piece yesterday, and was quite unimpressed. I was unimpressed not just with the treatment of anarchism, but also the treatment of basically every other type of "socialism" mentioned. Draper doesn't convince.

But more on anarchism:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/6-fabians.htm

“Even some Socialists,” he wrote, “are apt to confuse the cooperative machinery towards which modern life is tending with the essence of Socialism itself.” This meant “the danger of the community falling into bureaucracy.” Therefore he expressed fear of a “collectivist bureaucracy” lying ahead. Reacting violently against state-socialism and reformism, he fell backwards into anti-parliamentarism but he did not fall into the anarchist trap:


... people will have to associate in administration, and sometimes there will be differences of opinion ... What is to be done? Which party is to give way? Our Anarchist friends say that it must not be carried by a majority; in that case, then, it must be carried by a minority. And why? Is there any divine right in a minority?

This goes to the heart of anarchism far more deeply than the common opinion that the trouble with anarchism is that it is over-idealistic.

The mistake comes from assuming that just because not A, therefore B, when actually, it is both not A and not B. We reject both rule by the minority, and also rule by the majority (and actually, as I and others have said above, not all anarchists reject "democracy"). The "anarchist trap" is not a trap, the trap is claiming to want "socialism-from-below", but believing that reformism can actually work, or that parliaments are worth standing for.

I assume that you would say that the SWP is a "from below" organisation yes? Well, do they stand for parliament? Is the organisation structured so that power always rests with the members (who elect, directly, every level of the hierarchy)? Can the hierarchy expel members just because (without reference to the rest of the membership)? What is the SWP's position on who should run the "workers state"?

Why is it that so many "Leninists" want a workers state that has a central executive that gets to decide everything without reference to the population at large? Etc.

[Cumannach]

They don't. They want a strong central state executive so that the state will actually be able to survive.

[Coggeh]

Why is it that so many "Leninists" want a workers state that has a central executive that gets to decide everything without reference to the population at large? Etc.
Name 2 Leninists on this board that want that .

[Q]

I'm still learning :blushing:
What are the major schools of thought about leftism and what are the differences between them?
I'm familiar with the names; Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Anarchism and Stalinism, but I'm not sure what seperates one from the other. I'm pretty sure I've missed some out too.
Anyone any good at using bullet points? :)
-Rachel

Some definitions:
Marxism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#marxist)
"Marxism-Leninism" (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#marxism-leninism) (the ideological framework of Stalinism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism) - which has nothing to do with the ideas of Marx or Lenin)
Maoism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#maoism)
Trotskyism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/t/r.htm#trotskyism)
Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n.htm#anarchism)

Hope it helps.

[CommieCat]

Some definitions:
Marxism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#marxist)
"Marxism-Leninism" (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#marxism-leninism) (the ideological framework of Stalinism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism) - which has nothing to do with the ideas of Marx or Lenin)
Maoism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#maoism)
Trotskyism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/t/r.htm#trotskyism)
Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n.htm#anarchism)

Hope it helps.

Sorry, but these aren't definitions; they are political OPINIONS, biased from a Trotskyist point of view. This doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them...opinions. The mere fact that you (and MIA) call them otherwise doesn't change this fact, but only presents yourself as someone who is unable to give a fair account of other ideologies to better present your own (especially to someone who is new to the revolutionary theory).

To the OP: If you truly want to understand all the different subsets of revolutionary theory, then you yourself are going to have to read through a myriad of books by the writers THEMSELVES & the history of those revolutionary movements. There are some okay books which summarize revolutionary theories, from memory, 'Marxists after Marx' is one which seemed okay.

[Black Dagger]

AM, and the rest:



Hey, stop being so authoritarian! I said "most forms of anarchism", not "all forms of anarchism". If your particular brand isn't one of these, good for you.

And yes, Leninism is all about 'socialism from below'. Read Draper if you don't believe me.

Rosa the thing is 'those brands' you're talking about either don't exist as tendencies today or never existed as tendencies (i.e. they were invented by critics of anarchism). It's like using pol pot to critique marxism - it's so fallacious as to be absurd. The major anarchist tendencies today, anarchist communism (and platformism), anarcho-syndicalism and insurrectionary anarchism are all predicated on the self-organisation of the class. If you're going to talk about anarchism you should talk about these tendencies as they comprise the vast majority of anarchists today, rather than some mythical 'Proudhonist' sect. That's a cheap, cheap fallacy.

[Q]

Sorry, but these aren't definitions; they are political OPINIONS, biased from a Trotskyist point of view. This doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them...opinions. The mere fact that you (and MIA) call them otherwise doesn't change this fact, but only presents yourself as someone who is unable to give a fair account of other ideologies to better present your own (especially to someone who is new to the revolutionary theory).
Ah yes, MIA is a Trotskyist plot.


To the OP: If you truly want to understand all the different subsets of revolutionary theory, then you yourself are going to have to read through a myriad of books by the writers THEMSELVES & the history of those revolutionary movements. There are some okay books which summarize revolutionary theories, from memory, 'Marxists after Marx' is one which seemed okay.
I support this notion: going back to the original source is always a good idea. It also takes time of course.

[Ismail]

Ah yes, MIA is a Trotskyist plot.They're chaired by a Trotskyist and they evidently supported the ETOL-MIA merger. (In the olden days, pre-2000 IIRC, they were separate sites) This doesn't mean that the MIA is only comprised of Trotskyists (I myself contributed to their Hoxha archive with that thing on Social-Democracy that he wrote) but they evidently play a large role.

[CommieCat]

Ah yes, MIA is a Trotskyist plot.

Actually, I said the site suffers from Trotskyist bias, but way to totally ignore a serious criticism with a pathetic strawman.

And let's see the sources you linked:

Stalinism...

'Stalinism had uprooted the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism.'

'In terms of the organization of a state, Stalinist policies are quite clear: democratic rights threaten the position of the bureaucracy, and hence democracy is incompatible with Stalinism. In basic terms on a world scale, the forces of Stalinism have done everything in their power to prevent socialist revolution.'

+ numerous Trotskyist quotes.

Versus, Trotskyism:

' Trotskyism is a Marxist theory whose adherents aim to be in the vanguard of the working class, particularly as opposed to Stalinism and Social Democracy.'

Now, you only have to read through their encyclopedia and come across typical Trotskyist slogans of 'ultra-leftist', their definition of anarchy, their hopeless definition of Marxism, 'totalitarian communism' etc, to see that the site is highly influenced by Trotskyists. I mean, some entries by (non-Trotskyist authors) have a preamble by the person who has copied that writer's work, attacking their viewpoint. Sorry, but that's bullshit, just like a bourgeoisie economist writing an introduction to Capital.

Seriously, what would you think if someone asked 'what is Trotskyism?' and I linked to one of Stalin's writings on Trotsky and claimed that it was an authoritative definition? You've got a recruitment mentality.

[Ismail]

Seriously, what would you think if someone asked 'what is Trotskyism?' and I linked to one of Stalin's writings on Trotsky and claimed that it was an authoritative definition? You've got a recruitment mentality."Stalinism is horrible and Trotskyism is God's gift to Marxism ergo the forces of objectivity and neutrality can go fuck themselves." - expected reply

[Q]

Now, you only have to read through their encyclopedia and come across typical Trotskyist slogans of 'ultra-leftist', their definition of anarchy, their hopeless definition of Marxism, 'totalitarian communism' etc, to see that the site is highly influenced by Trotskyists. I mean, some entries by (non-Trotskyist authors) have a preamble by the person who has copied that writer's work, attacking their viewpoint. Sorry, but that's bullshit, just like a bourgeoisie economist writing an introduction to Capital.
Or the site is as it claims, a Marxist Internet Archive, to which Trotskyism is indeed a genuine continuation and Stalinism is not?


Seriously, what would you think if someone asked 'what is Trotskyism?' and I linked to one of Stalin's writings on Trotsky and claimed that it was an authoritative definition?
Whether you like it or not, MIA is indeed an authoritative source, accepted by many currents here as legitimate. You're actually the first ones to make a fuzz about it as far as I know.


You've got a recruitment mentality.
You make it sound as if it was a bad thing to try to introduce people into the (real) ideas of Marxism and to organise people beyond this dotcommie business.

[Greenman]

Back to the original post, missed out were syndicalism/industrial unionism and the "new kids on the block" - Social Ecology and Ecosocialism.;)

It seems this thread was derailed by someone trying to smplify the whole of left politics down into an either/or. Be very wary of appealing simplification - it often conceals a whole bunch of errors and pitfalls and leads to a false sense of security. NO political currents on the left are exempt from the dangers of ossification, elitism and abuse IMO. Some are more prone than others, fair enough, but no leftist of any stripe can sit on a high horse and pontificate that they would never fall foul of the well documented historical pitfalls and errors that have led us to the (sometimes frankly desperate) state of affairs we now see globally as far as left progress is concerned.

[Lynx]

Closer moderation of Learning threads, please.

[ZeroNowhere]

Back to the original post, missed out were syndicalism/industrial unionism
Isn't industrial unionism pretty much shared between us De Leonites and the syndies?

[Greenman]

From a European standpoint, Syndicalism is a separate, though linked phenomenon to Anarcho-syndicalism. The left version, revolutionary syndicalism is not explicitly anarchist and leans more to Marxism. De Leonist is not a term with much meaning outside the US. (I am a fan of Connolly, and I would probably lean more towards Debs in one of the big relevant debates anyway!;)) Industrial Unionism, in the form of the IWW currently includes elements from all these currents, but deserves to be treated as a current in its own right as there are Wobs who would not indentify with any of the above mentioned ideologies, just Industrial Unionism.

[mikelepore]

the SLP's silly 'bureaucratic state despotism" theory

What's wrong with their term? It seemed to me that they were only making up phrases like that because they didn't like the term "state capitalism", and that they didn't recommend applying the term "capitalism" with an adjective placed in front because of the Soviet Union's absense of a stock market and similar elements that they felt that the word "capitalism" historically implies. But I didn't perceive it as an actual theory on the SLP's part, but just an instance of someone taking a stand on what terminology they thought would be better.

Reference:
http://www.deleonism.org/text/wwyc-63.htm

[el_chavista]

It seemed to me that they were only making up phrases like that because they didn't like the term "state capitalism",

Reference:
http://www.deleonism.org/text/wwyc-63.htm
I agree, it isn´t that easy to characterize the soviet downfall.