Marx & Lenin: Comrades, not leaders [Archive]

PCommie

12th March 2009, 22:28

This just started bugging me, so here I am to open my communist mouth. ;)

Everytime something is said about communism, we often quote Marx and/or Lenin. But doesn't that go against our very own ideology?

Think about it. We are communists. We want no political leaders, we will govern the state our way, allocate resources are way, and the bourgeoise and imperialist pigs can go to hell, right?

My point is this: Marx's and Lenin's writing are opinions, not the foundations of communism. We need no name, no standardized tags. Our diverse opinions make us strong. Every communist's own version of the ideology mix with the others', they tame each other, and create the ultimate happy medium, the unstoppable freedom-machine. Thus, Marx's and Lenin's views are useful, but should not be our foundation. Nothing except the ideal of the people's collective government and no bourgeoise should be.

Think about it.

-PC

Pogue

12th March 2009, 22:31

I agree wholeheartedly. I cirne when I see someone go:

'But as Lenin said...' before quoting a fat wall of text about what one man's opinion was.

He died nearly one hundred years ago, and was one man in one country at one time, and people quote him as if, if Lenin said it, it must be true.

Same goes with Marx, but its worse with Lenin if you ask me because he was one man. Theres a whole ideology based upon him, where they only belief what he said they should belief. Its insane, they act as if quoting Lenin wins an argument. Theres thousands of people it'd be better to quote, or you could type stuff yourself.

StalinFanboy

12th March 2009, 22:36

Don't let any Leninists catch you saying this stuff. That would make you counter-revolutionary.

JimmyJazz

12th March 2009, 22:47

There is certainly a bit of a fetish for Lenin simply because he led a successful revolution. However, he was a decent Marxist theorist.

As far as Marx, I don't really care about general statements like, "why focus so much on Marx, he's just one man!" If you've read him, and you're familiar with him, and you have specific criticisms of him, I'm all ears. Otherwise all you have is a feeling in your gut that he's overrated; well, I have a feeling in my gut that he isn't.

And if it's truly just an issue of whether you should quote him when you already know you 100% agree with him on a point, I certainly see the value of putting it in your own words, but otoh you don't always need to reinvent the wheel when someone already said something eloquently.

NecroCommie

12th March 2009, 23:19

I agree that as a man or a communist Lenin was just a one man. But if you had lived here in the times of Lenin, you would have realized that all the freedoms, expectations and joys of the working class were cultivated in Lenins speeches and writings, and he was thus one heck of a motivation for the revolution.

So was he an ultra-revolutionary? No!
Was he a powerful symbol? Hell yeah! Think of him as a human H&S.

And as to the numerous quotations of Lenin: What do you expect? He wrote a lot of stuff about communism, so some of it must contain phrases or articles a communist agrees with. Its not as much of a "Lenin said it, so it must be true!!! XDXDXD!!?!?" More like: "Lets see a communist source for this theory... ... ... Lenin... Should have guessed..."

Well at least thats the way I think. I cant really speak for other people now can I.

Edit: It seems JimmyJazz already dressed my thoughts into words well enough.

Kassad

12th March 2009, 23:31

I find it incredibly odd that you seem to find something wrong with ideologically aligning with the economic and scientific philosophy of someone. The majority of my ideological viewpoint is encompassed by the works of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin and I believe the only means of achieving and preserving revolution is through their scientific and economic theories. I'm not claiming they are totally perfect, but these figures, especially with recent contributions from revolutionaries like Mao Tsetung and Fidel Castro, become increasingly relevant as we see the rise of capitalism daily and the obvious failure of attempts of socialism. The failure of revolution comes when we revise these ideologies. I'm not one to cling to the words of Marx and Lenin just because they say it, but I could call myself a communist that ideologically aligns well with Marx and Lenin. Their writings provide a very detailed outline of how to preserve a revolution and most revolutions to date have failed by forsaking their theories. It's absurd to be forced into such a predicament.

Marxist-Leninists do not worship Marx and Lenin, just like Trotskyists don't bow before Trotsky. Anarchists don't bow before Bakunin and Chomsky either, but there is nothing wrong with holding a high regard for these figures that contributed significantly to the ideological application of revolutionary socialism. If you ever see me quoting Lenin and Marx as total justification, I will forsake all socialism at once, as it is contrary to everything revolutionaries stand for. I believe I just criticized a few fellow anti-revisionists for doing that exact thing (quoting Lenin repeatedly and assuming that sufficed as an argument). Revolution is not about a tiny elite group of men. It is about the entire proletarian class.

Pogue

13th March 2009, 10:42

Yehuda Stern

13th March 2009, 11:38

To the OP: It isn't. All Marxists should recognize that all great Marxists made mistakes, and shouldn't just follow their mistakes without thinking. But yes, mostly, these people made great contributions to our understanding of the capitalist system and the way in which it can be fought, and it is impossible to be a good Marxist without studying and knowing their work.

HLVS:

But if you're a Leninist, your ideology is restricted to what one man said.

This is obviously bullshit; even those who consider themselves Leninists and not Trotskyists have many other ideologues whom they learn from.

And I've noticed that 'Leninsts' or Trotskyists then become desperate to defend the person whose ideology they agree with even if they are wrong, i.e. Trots defend Trotsky and everything he said to the death even if its futile just because its Trotsky.

Yes, there are such people, and mostly the "deformed workers' states" current bases himself on such a conduct. However, people who mindlessly quote Trotsky at least attempt to base their arguments on something historical or theoretical, unlike yourself, who throws up all sorts of arguments without basis and expects other people to just accept them at face value.

Bilan

13th March 2009, 14:00

Everytime something is said about communism, we often quote Marx and/or Lenin. But doesn't that go against our very own ideology?

But why do we quote Marx? It's not biblical, or because of some sort of fetish for Marx, or Lenin, but because Marx was able to accurately analyse the history, and development of humanity, and the class struggle; as well identifying the nature of capitalism, its origins, etc. correctly.

Think about it. We are communists. We want no political leaders, we will govern the state our way, allocate resources are way, and the bourgeoise and imperialist pigs can go to hell, right?

What does this change? Theory is paramount to the development of communist politics, and to its success. If we act without thinking, we're aiming at a target without a bow (so to speak). There is no point in that. These are comrades who were able to help develop communist theory, and we continue that development, not ignore it.

My point is this: Marx's and Lenin's writing are opinions, not the foundations of communism.

You have to be able to substantiate that. Is Darwin's theory of evolution an opinion? No, Darwin's theory of evolution only holds weight because it is backed up by scientific study of the evolutionary process. In the same way, Marx's analysis was the scientific study of the development of humanity, the emergence of classes, and so forth.
It is a theory, not an opinion.

Our diverse opinions make us strong. Every communist's own version of the ideology mix with the others', they tame each other, and create the ultimate happy medium, the unstoppable freedom-machine.

No, disagreement leads to the correction of errors and the development of that theory, or the destruction of the incorrect and unfounded, replaced by the correct and founded. Us having opinions which remain uncorrected, un-analysed, un-criticised remain worthless.

Thus, Marx's and Lenin's views are useful, but should not be our foundation.

Marx's theories are an explanation of our foundations, and a development of our theories!

Nothing except the ideal of the people's collective government and no bourgeoise should be.

Well, that's not really what it is, though, is it?

Bilan

13th March 2009, 14:04

Same goes with Marx, but its worse with Lenin if you ask me because he was one man. Theres a whole ideology based upon him, where they only belief what he said they should belief. Its insane, they act as if quoting Lenin wins an argument. Theres thousands of people it'd be better to quote, or you could type stuff yourself.

To be fair, Leninism is a framework of organisation (which has developed and changed) and analysis (the continuation of Marx's scientific socialism), not in a belief that "he said it, its therefore true". Lenin's positions have to be based in reality for them to have any relevance, and if they're not, they're developed and change. Such is the origin of Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. These are continuations or breaks with Lenins theories, or adaptations to specific context's, and these changes manifest as changes in the practice and theory of revolution.
You sould read Lenin before criticising him outright. It's not a fair judgement.

Kassad

13th March 2009, 14:16

But if you're a Leninist, your ideology is restricted to what one man said. And I've noticed that 'Leninsts' or Trotskyists then become desperate to defend the person whose ideology they agree with even if they are wrong, i.e. Trots defend Trotsky and everything he said to the death even if its futile just because its Trotsky.

Lenin wasn't that great anyway, and his revolution ultimately failed. He himself re-introduced capitalism. Get over him.

No, it isn't. The clouds of ignorance are dark and ready to burst once again, it seems. I ideologically align with the revolutionary socialist theories of Marx and Lenin, but my philosophy isn't restricted to anything. I'm a person who claims that consistent human evolution and conditioning is the means of emanciption, which is an incredibly open, unrestricted idea, but you want to claim I'm restricted? Is this some kind of joke?

But here comes the usual ignorance. 'His revolution failed' is probably the most incredibly arrogant statement I've ever seen, not just because you're saying it, but because it's the exact argument used by capitalists to claim socialism is flawed. They claim that the ideological application of socialism fails, thus it is totally flawed. They ignore revisionism, imperialism and other factors, much like you are ignoring those very same factors.

Now, how does that make you feel?

Pogue

13th March 2009, 14:32

No, it isn't. The clouds of ignorance are dark and ready to burst once again, it seems. I ideologically align with the revolutionary socialist theories of Marx and Lenin, but my philosophy isn't restricted to anything. I'm a person who claims that consistent human evolution and conditioning is the means of emanciption, which is an incredibly open, unrestricted idea, but you want to claim I'm restricted? Is this some kind of joke?

But here comes the usual ignorance. 'His revolution failed' is probably the most incredibly arrogant statement I've ever seen, not just because you're saying it, but because it's the exact argument used by capitalists to claim socialism is flawed. They claim that the ideological application of socialism fails, thus it is totally flawed. They ignore revisionism, imperialism and other factors, much like you are ignoring those very same factors.

Now, how does that make you feel?

To be honest I'm so used to people like you I don't really care. Your post lacked substance anyway.

Yes, his revolution failed. After 3 years there was capitalism again and there was no workers control. Go cry.

Pogue

13th March 2009, 14:34

To the OP: It isn't. All Marxists should recognize that all great Marxists made mistakes, and shouldn't just follow their mistakes without thinking. But yes, mostly, these people made great contributions to our understanding of the capitalist system and the way in which it can be fought, and it is impossible to be a good Marxist without studying and knowing their work.

HLVS:

This is obviously bullshit; even those who consider themselves Leninists and not Trotskyists have many other ideologues whom they learn from.

Yes, there are such people, and mostly the "deformed workers' states" current bases himself on such a conduct. However, people who mindlessly quote Trotsky at least attempt to base their arguments on something historical or theoretical, unlike yourself, who throws up all sorts of arguments without basis and expects other people to just accept them at face value.

Well take for example democratic centralism. I see that concept used like gospel by the Leninists here. Why? It was from 100 years ago in Tsarist Russia, and every part thats used it has led a party dictatorship with a few right wing tossers at the top. It doesn't work, but Lenin said it so it must be true.

Bilan

13th March 2009, 14:37

Saying its from a 100 years ago is not an argument, comrade. It's just a statement of fact. And even so, relative to the development of human history, 100 years is not that long. It's a spec.

Kassad

13th March 2009, 14:39

To be honest I'm so used to people like you I don't really care. Your post lacked substance anyway.

Yes, his revolution failed. After 3 years there was capitalism again and there was no workers control. Go cry.

You're probably the best figurehead for bourgeoisie propaganda and capitalist elitism on this forum. You can ignore substance and scientific reasoning if you wish, but that's your choice. Honestly, I wonder if you've read anything by Lenin before, or for that matter, anything on Russian history that wasn't from this forum.

Bilan

13th March 2009, 14:45

You're probably the best figurehead for bourgeoisie propaganda and capitalist elitism on this forum. You can ignore substance and scientific reasoning if you wish, but that's your choice. Honestly, I wonder if you've read anything by Lenin before, or for that matter, anything on Russian history that wasn't from this forum.

That's not true, either. The fact that he disagrees with your position doesn't mean he is a figurehead for bourgeois propaganda, it means he disagrees with your position. Whether or not he consistently defend his position is another thing, but at this point, it is not defense of bourgeois propaganda so much as a brutal criticism (unfounded or not) of the Bolsheviks.
Though at present it remains undeveloped and largely unexplained.

Kassad

13th March 2009, 14:49

That's not true, either. The fact that he disagrees with your position doesn't mean he is a figurehead for bourgeois propaganda, it means he disagrees with your position. Whether or not he consistently defend his position is another thing, but at this point, it is not defense of bourgeois propaganda so much as a brutal criticism (unfounded or not) of the Bolsheviks.
Though at present it remains undeveloped and largely unexplained.

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that it's incredibly ironic that someone who has displayed no grasp of Leninist theory or scientific principles is making a judgment on the Bolshevik Revolution; his prime justification being "It didn't work." A real logical argument, there. Makes Chomsky look like a little schoolgirl with pigtails. I'm saying that his arguments are strikingly similar to that of bourgeoisie scholars and figures, which unconditionally criticize socialist development, notably in the Soviet Union, while totally ignorant to the primary contributing factors.

Bilan

13th March 2009, 14:54

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that it's incredibly ironic that someone who has displayed no grasp of Leninist theory or scientific principles is making a judgment on the Bolshevik Revolution; his prime justification being "It didn't work." A real logical argument, there. Makes Chomsky look like a little schoolgirl with pigtails. I'm saying that his arguments are strikingly similar to that of bourgeoisie scholars and figures, which unconditionally criticize socialist development, notably in the Soviet Union, while totally ignorant to the primary contributing factors.

The key difference being that he is obviously a socialist, and that one of his main objections was the absence of "workers control". I'm sure the bourgeoisie were up in arms about this latter point.

Nevertheless, you can't make such an assertion without an actual substantial post to base it on - which in this case, does not exist.
He rejects Lenin and the Russian revolution, but that doesn't mean its for the same reasons as the bourgeoisie, or that he is parroting bourgeois propaganda. That is simply slander on your part.

Yehuda Stern

13th March 2009, 14:55

Well take for example democratic centralism. I see that concept used like gospel by the Leninists here. Why? It was from 100 years ago in Tsarist Russia, and every part thats used it has led a party dictatorship with a few right wing tossers at the top. It doesn't work, but Lenin said it so it must be true.As usual, you make all sorts of statements, but as usual they are not backed by any analysis or historical information, and as usual they are on the level of a drunken football hooligan ("tossers" and whatnot). The reason why the principle of democratic centralism is used is because it allows for a democratic debate inside the party without paralyzing it as a fighting organization. Of course, people for whom politics' aim is not to create an organization capable of defeating capitalism but to just throw around baseless opinions cannot understand such concepts.

Cumannach

13th March 2009, 14:57

Everytime something is said about communism, we often quote Marx and/or Lenin. But doesn't that go against our very own ideology?

Think about it. We are communists. We want no political leaders, we will govern the state our way, allocate resources are way, and the bourgeoise and imperialist pigs can go to hell, right?

My point is this: Marx's and Lenin's writing are opinions, not the foundations of communism. We need no name, no standardized tags. Our diverse opinions make us strong. Every communist's own version of the ideology mix with the others', they tame each other, and create the ultimate happy medium, the unstoppable freedom-machine. Thus, Marx's and Lenin's views are useful, but should not be our foundation. Nothing except the ideal of the people's collective government and no bourgeoise should be.

Think about it.

-PC

We don't quote Marx or Lenin on some point because their word is gospel, we quote it because they were the first to work out and formalise that point. It's not a matter of 'believing' something because Lenin said it, it's a matter of stating the solution to a problem that Lenin was the first to solve, and why not do it in his own words.

Communists do have leaders. In fact Communists are leaders, by definiton, leaders of the working class. You're confusing Communism with Anarchism.

Marx's views are and must be the foundation because his ideas are correct. There is only one correct analysis of Capitalism, and that is Marxism. Specific theories and ideas have to have specific names, like Darwinian natural selection, Newtonian Mechanics, or Marxist Economics. If different things have the same names nobody knows what anybody is talking about and communication breaks down.

Bilan

13th March 2009, 14:57

Thank you for the patronising sectarianism, Yehuda. If you're intention was to lower yourself in this thread, you're doing a good job.

Pogue

13th March 2009, 14:58

As usual, you make all sorts of statements, but as usual they are not backed by any analysis or historical information, and as usual they are on the level of a drunken football hooligan ("tossers" and whatnot). The reason why the principle of democratic centralism is used is because it allows for a democratic debate inside the party without paralyzing it as a fighting organization. Of course, people for whom politics' aim is not to create an organization capable of defeating capitalism but to just throw around baseless opinions cannot understand such concepts.

If I ever meet one of those people I'll tell them to get their act together, for you, mate.

Its not about open debate its about rigour, discipline and obedience, which is why all the parties who apparently used it when in power became authoritarian and or capitalist, without fail.

I'd elaborate but I'm off to kick some Arsenal tosser's head in, its how I get after I've had a few.

CHELSEA CHELSEA etc.

Bilan

13th March 2009, 15:08

Come on, HLVS...

Led Zeppelin

13th March 2009, 18:13

Personally, I only quote from people when they elaborate or explain something better than I could. It seems pretty pointless to write an argument for something that was argued way better by someone else just to show that you are able to repeat something in your own words. It reminds me of some classes I have in school where the answers to questions need to be written down "in your own words", even though the answer is literally to be found in the textbooks.

Also, I quote people when someone claims they had a certain position on something or believed something which is not true. The quote in question would disprove that claim.

For example, some douche says that Marx considered communism to be a society run by an authoritarian state-machinery dominated by a single Communist Party. I quote Marx on what he really meant by "communism", and that will be that.

But yes, I agree that people who solely base their positions on the positions of others, not due to the merit of the position but because of the person who held that position, are doing exactly what they shouldn't be doing as "Marxists": mindlessly taking things over from others without critically analyzing it themselves.

Yehuda Stern

13th March 2009, 18:30

Thank you for the patronising sectarianism, Yehuda. If you're intention was to lower yourself in this thread, you're doing a good job.

My intention was to tell a person who has no political arguments, but just throws around statements without basis, what I think of him. It's not that all anarchists are like HLVS; it's just that he is that way, and there's little point arguing against someone like him using facts when it's pretty clear that all he's interested in is not letting anyone even try to convince him he's wrong. Taking that into account, the stupid accusation of 'sectarianism' has even less basis used against me than usual.

Rebel_Serigan

13th March 2009, 20:34

To follow one person's views and thier views alone is just narrow-minded and a quick rout to destruction. Wiether we are talking about Lenin or Marx or Stalin, the reason why most people quote them is to show that someone who has either had more success than they have had or perhaps they created the foundations of communism because they need some basis. I Feel that extremism is a poor choice in any situation. I do know people who think that just because Lenin or Marx said it must be right. I also know people who think the holocaust never happened, but they are the exception, not the rule. I call myself a Leninist because he acted as the voice of the people and he led a revelution against a tyrant. i feel he was a great man, but a man none the less, he was not perfect or infoulable. Those who view past revelutionaries as god-like figures do so because they may not know enough about what they are doing, or because they are easy to manipulate sheep. Every man, woman, child who was ever born is just that a man, woman, or child. We must take everything said with a grain of salt, don't become a "It's true because (insert revelutionary here) said/did it"

On another note what makes less sense is using arguments that have backing, at least a quote from some big headed revelutionary might help at least a little bit.

Invincible Summer

14th March 2009, 03:14

As usual, you make all sorts of statements, but as usual they are not backed by any analysis or historical information, and as usual they are on the level of a drunken football hooligan ("tossers" and whatnot). The reason why the principle of democratic centralism is used is because it allows for a democratic debate inside the party without paralyzing it as a fighting organization. Of course, people for whom politics' aim is not to create an organization capable of defeating capitalism but to just throw around baseless opinions cannot understand such concepts.

You do realize that these "football hooligans" or "tossers" make up a good portion of the working class?

So if you're going to limit debate to pompous douchebags who are going to throw around fancy Marxist-Leninist jargon, then that's nothing more than authoritarianism.

Communists do have leaders. In fact Communists are leaders, by definiton, leaders of the working class. You're confusing Communism with Anarchism.

Most Anarchists are Communists...

Yehuda Stern

14th March 2009, 09:58

You do realize that these "football hooligans" or "tossers" make up a good portion of the working class?

That you have a patronizing attitude which allows you to identify hooligans with workers is your problem, not mine. "Tossers," anyway, was a word used by HLVS. So, why not think for 5 minutes before jumping on the opportunity for an apparent cheap shot.

robbo203

14th March 2009, 10:11

Communists do have leaders. In fact Communists are leaders, by definiton, leaders of the working class. You're confusing Communism with Anarchism.

Communists do NOT have leaders. You go on about Marx but Marx and Engels were pretty clear on this score. The emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself. They strongly objected to the approach of some in the German SPD who talked about the need for an elite . This same elitist idea is to be found in the Fabians and of course most famously, Lenin´s theory of the vanguard. It is totally against the whole thrust of the marxian approach which advocates worlking class self emancipation. Engels wrote forthrightly on this subject and said that the time for revolutions carried out by a small minority at the head of an unconscious mass, is over. The majority must be involved in the revolution, must understand what is stake.

This is why communists oppose leadership. It is an anti-democratic principle of organisation which can only lead to one or other form of capitalist dictatorship

Tower of Bebel

14th March 2009, 12:42

Well take for example democratic centralism. I see that concept used like gospel by the Leninists here. Why? It was from 100 years ago in Tsarist Russia, and every part thats used it has led a party dictatorship with a few right wing tossers at the top. It doesn't work, but Lenin said it so it must be true.
In before Jacob Richter;

Democratic centralism was not devised by Lenin. He took it from the SPD. The Russian experience, however, made changes to the application of the model.

But if you're a Leninist, your ideology is restricted to what one man said. And I've noticed that 'Leninsts' or Trotskyists then become desperate to defend the person whose ideology they agree with even if they are wrong, i.e. Trots defend Trotsky and everything he said to the death even if its futile just because its Trotsky.

Lenin wasn't that great anyway, and his revolution ultimately failed. He himself re-introduced capitalism. Get over him.
Why do you keep on generalizing? Your interpretation ignores more healthy attitudes like that of Led Zeppelin who "quote[s] from people when they elaborate or explain something better".

ZeroNowhere

14th March 2009, 12:51

Communists do have leaders. In fact Communists are leaders, by definiton, leaders of the working class.
I'm not entirely sure what the fuck you're talking about. What the fuck are you talking about?
Also, anarchists are communists.

This same elitist idea is to be found in the Fabians and of course most famously, Lenin´s theory of the vanguard.
The Blanquists too, don't forget the Blanquists.
Oh, wait, you didn't.

14th March 2009, 13:07

Also, anarchists are communists.

NOT everyone!!I remember that we talked this again..Not all Anarchists are Communists, and i cant understand why you insist on this!

Communists do not have leaders, leaders=/=communism!There might be some "important" persons that will help on their "subject", but that doesnt make them "leaders"!

Fuserg9:star:

ZeroNowhere

14th March 2009, 13:24

NOT everyone!!I remember that we talked this again..Not all Anarchists are Communists, and i cant understand why you insist on this!
I've already gone over this, of course. While 'anarcho-communism' is a separate current, I use 'communism' and 'socialism' as synonyms, and all anarchists are certainly socialists.

Yehuda Stern

14th March 2009, 14:34

benhur

14th March 2009, 14:48

Well, no matter how much you throw around the word "fuck," which you seem to like very much, socialism and communism are not synonyms to anyone but you. So it's perfectly fair and factual to say that not all anarchists are communists (some won't define themselves as socialists, either).

Anarchists and communists both believe in the common ownership of the means of production. So where's the problem in treating them as one?

ZeroNowhere

14th March 2009, 15:36

Well, no matter how much you throw around the word "fuck," which you seem to like very much, socialism and communism are not synonyms to anyone but you.
As well as the WSM. Also the SLP. Also Marx and Engels. Also a fair amount of other 'libertarian socialists' (one would expect anarchists not to call themselves 'socialists' when that's apparently their major conflict with Marxists). Still, if you say so.

Edit: Also, technically, I've only used the word 'fuck' thrice in my last 25 posts.

Yehuda Stern

14th March 2009, 17:36

Anarchists and communists both believe in the common ownership of the means of production. So where's the problem in treating them as one?

Please read my post and then see if you need me to answer that.

As well as the WSM. Also the SLP. Also Marx and Engels.

So, two of the smaller and more obscure socialist tendencies in the world, as well as their (distorted) version of Marx and Engels. That's hardly impressive.

Dave B

14th March 2009, 18:37

Well I think the WSM and the SLP have their differences but we share a lot of common ground when it comes to basic principles I think. Perhaps it is just an accident that they are the two oldest and perhaps traditional Marxist parties.

As to the distortion of Marx and Engels I think the World Socialist Movement and the SPGB would be fairly happy with lets say Engels last major work;

The Class Struggles In France, Introduction by Frederick Engels

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm)

Which for a Leninist must read like an SPGB forgery.

And for that matter;

The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm)

Cumannach

14th March 2009, 21:43

manic expression

14th March 2009, 22:28

There's nothing wrong with leaders just get over it. You sound like a pack of little brats having a tantrum because you think someone else is in charge. Well he's not the boss of me!:mad: Authority =/= oppression for christ sakes.

Well-said. Saying communists can't be leaders is beyond immature. Revolutions need leaders, and all of history confirms this position.

As well as the WSM. Also the SLP. Also Marx and Engels.

:lol: Marx and Engels, yeah, the guys who kind of had that first definitive split with the anarchists over a range of issues were totally...anarchists. :lol: Oh, and Marx also described feudalists and the utopianists as "socialists", so I guess we can call them communists, too! The fun never ends when you bend definitions to impossibly useless degrees!

Pogue

14th March 2009, 22:54

Pogue

14th March 2009, 22:55

My intention was to tell a person who has no political arguments, but just throws around statements without basis, what I think of him. It's not that all anarchists are like HLVS; it's just that he is that way, and there's little point arguing against someone like him using facts when it's pretty clear that all he's interested in is not letting anyone even try to convince him he's wrong. Taking that into account, the stupid accusation of 'sectarianism' has even less basis used against me than usual.

What 'facts'? And I thought the basis of an argument was that you think you're right, the other person is wrong, and you're going to prove this. I don't know what arguments you get into, except whether or not your the sole representative of the working class in the world and everyone else is misguided or a sell-out.

Yehuda Stern

14th March 2009, 23:11

Pogue

14th March 2009, 23:18

The point of my post is that you never talk about what actually happened in history, but always put your position in the style of "this and that is wrong, because it's bad." No analysis, no facts, no proofs. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to be interested or to believe in positions achieved through this methodology, and indeed, no one does - except for positions that you have merely copied from people more serious politically than yourself.

How is what I say any less valid then what you, or anyone else says? Is it because I'm an anarchist, and thus come to different conclusions? Or are you just arogant and condescending?

You know, the very nature of history is that you analyse it and come to conclusions. There are differing conclusions, and certain ones are favoured by some, other ones favoured by others. You happen to have conclusions which I disagree with. By and large, that is why you're a Trotskyist and I'm an Anarchist. You can't win by dismissing my opinion as flase, just because its not the same as yours. You do anyway, because thats you're style, which is why everyone here calls you sectarian. But its stupid.

I've noted that all criticisms of my analysis of history or events comes from people on the authoritarian left tendency, basically those who fetishise leaders with blood on their hands such as Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc. This is not suprising, and is why I continue to not be initmidated or upset by repeated claims that I'm a clueless liberal or whatever shite the Lenin loving brigade come out with.

What parts of my worldview do you excactly find annoying? Maybe we can have a chat about them.

Bilan

14th March 2009, 23:22

HLVS, to be fair, you haven't actually responded with any criticisms of substance in this thread toward Lenin or the Russian Revolution.

Pogue

14th March 2009, 23:23

HLVS, to be fair, you haven't actually responded with any criticisms of substance in this thread toward Lenin or the Russian Revolution.

Ok, so I'll ask Yehuda Stern now to pose direct questions towards me.

manic expression

15th March 2009, 02:15

Erm, yes it is. And look at what it leads too.

Right, it leads to revolution. No revolution can hope to take power without decisive leadership, and that is what communists recognize from history and experience.

PCommie

15th March 2009, 03:59

[quote]Communists do have leaders. In fact Communists are leaders, by definiton, leaders of the working class.[quote]

Umm... communists ARE supposed to be the working class. This statement is senseless.

Quoting Lenin/Marx is fine, but sometimes it seems like, you know, we either follow them to the grave, or we'll fail. In fact, someone said that, I forget if it was here or my other thread, I think here, but I'm not digging for the quote. They said communist revolutions have failed because Marxism-Leninism was always strayed from. That is self-imposed authoritarianism, the worst kind.

-PC

robbo203

15th March 2009, 09:50

There's nothing wrong with leaders just get over it. You sound like a pack of little brats having a tantrum because you think someone else is in charge. Well he's not the boss of me!:mad: Authority =/= oppression for christ sakes.

There is EVERYTHING wrong with the concept of leadership in the context of revolutionary political change. It is a fundamentally anti-democratic principle. You clearly do not understand what is meant by leadership in this context or we are talking at cross purposes - but leadership is not the same thing as authority. When Marxists refer to the concept of leadership what we mean by this is the notion of a small minority seeking to bring about revolutionary change on behalf of the great majority as if this were remotely possible. This is why we oppose the Leninists with their arrogant theory of the vanguard elite and their notion that our fellow workers are incapable of coming to a communist consciousness on their own. Marx and Engels had no time for the elitists of the German SPD who argued along these lines. Modern day marxists have no time for the Leninists who adopt a similar line., The revoilñution has to involve the SELF-emancipation of the working class, and not via so called leaders. If you reject that you reject Marxism amongst other things

Bilan

15th March 2009, 10:26

Umm... communists ARE supposed to be the working class. This statement is senseless.

Communists are the vanguard of the proletariat.

Yehuda Stern

15th March 2009, 11:12

HLVS, please don't try to look like a victim here. You throw around words like "sectarian" and "arrogant" because you know I'm right. My problem with you isn't that you're an anarchist - I do have a pretty low opinion of anarchism, but I have no problem debating serious anarchists. It's just a fact that you aren't serious at all; you don't analyze anything, certainly not history, and therefore your beliefs aren't "conclusions" from anything. They are merely articles of faith, like those of a religious man. "Lenin is bad." "He re-introduced capitalism." Just statements. No analysis whatsoever.

So it's not that I dismiss your opinions as false; it's that I dismiss them as lacking any basis in reality, most of all because on all counts you fail to bring evidence from reality supporting them.

So, please, stop feeling sorry for yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, debate seriously. Also, Bilan was the only one besides you in this thread to call me a sectarian, and he already understood his mistake and apologized on my visitor page. It might have been appropriate to indicate that here.

PCommie

16th March 2009, 23:34

Zerg, I don't dismiss them. I have already stated their opinions and theories are useful, but I will state it again, for the third time, just for you, in bold, italicized underlined text:

I am opposed to quoting them as if what they say is right because they say it. I am opposed to "leaders" in communism other than the proletariat itself.
I am opposed to Leninists because they are in favor of his authoritarianism.

Do read before accusing me of anything, ZK. And I liked how that turned out in perfect column setup while I still said everything I wanted to. :cool:

-PC

Bilan

17th March 2009, 01:14

Erm, yes it is. And look at what it leads too.

Why does it lead to that? Does it always? Can it ever not? If so, why?

PCommie

17th March 2009, 02:47

Therefore when you build a communist organization you inevitably have a layer of leadership , which is of course voted in by its members(if we are talking about a genuine communist organization).

Communism is based on the rule of the proletariat... we don't have a government per say, elected or not. Of course, I may well be an anarchist, I really and truly don't know.

-PC

LOLseph Stalin

17th March 2009, 03:50

Everytime something is said about communism, we often quote Marx and/or Lenin. But doesn't that go against our very own ideology?

Think about it. We are communists. We want no political leaders, we will govern the state our way, allocate resources are way, and the bourgeoise and imperialist pigs can go to hell, right?

My point is this: Marx's and Lenin's writing are opinions, not the foundations of communism. We need no name, no standardized tags. Our diverse opinions make us strong. Every communist's own version of the ideology mix with the others', they tame each other, and create the ultimate happy medium, the unstoppable freedom-machine. Thus, Marx's and Lenin's views are useful, but should not be our foundation. Nothing except the ideal of the people's collective government and no bourgeoise should be.

Actually, you're a little off. Yes, the general idea of Communism existed even before Marx wrote it down, but he extended on it and laid a foundation for people like us. Because of this, I would exactly say his writings are opinions, but the most practical way as to how things would work to achieve a Communist society. Same goes for Lenin. He extended on the ideas further and even created the idea of vanguardism in contrast to Marx who felt the workers would gain the right conciousness on their own to oppose the Bourgeoisie.

And yes, we advocate the idea of a Stateless society in the end, but you have to keep in mind that this won't happen overnight. We need to go through transition. During this time there is still leaders. The leaders are the Communist vanguard who guide the working class.

Rawthentic

17th March 2009, 05:24

I think you're wrong on all counts, InsertNameHere.

What was the "general idea of Communism before Marx existed"?

It surely wasn't the comprehensive and scientific methodology it is today. It was a utopian movement with no basis amongst the oppressed, those who lead communist revolutions.

In addition, Lenin did not develop a "vanguardism" opposed to that of Marx's conception of communist leadership. Marx clearly understood that communists were the political representatives of the proletariat, and Lenin developed how the consciousness of the people is transformed (ever read What is to Be Done?)

I'd get into the 2nd point more, but I'd rather you read and comment on my thead titled "On the Consciousness of the People and Revolution: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=99545&highlight=rawthentic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?t=99545&highlight=rawthentic)

Die Neue Zeit

17th March 2009, 05:39

^^^ The "general idea of Communism before Marx" existed in Plato's Republic. You should read it. It may not have had the scientific methodology, but at least it was philosophical and not utopian.

LOLseph Stalin

17th March 2009, 05:39

What was the "general idea of Communism before Marx existed"?

It surely wasn't the comprehensive and scientific methodology it is today. It was a utopian movement with no basis amongst the oppressed, those who lead communist revolutions.

By the idea existing before Marx I mean that even before he wrote it down the general idea was there, but it was seen more as a utopia as you've mentioned.

(ever read What is to Be Done?)

And no I haven't actually.

LOLseph Stalin

17th March 2009, 05:56

What the hell are you talking about? Plato's republic was the most idealist, elitist , utopian shit I've ever read.

I haven't actually studied Plato in depth, but I do know his ideas were quite Utopian.

PCommie

18th March 2009, 00:43

We need to go through transition. During this time there is still leaders. The leaders are the Communist vanguard who guide the working class.

True. Those who fall for the imperialist propaganda are not going to take to us and especially us governing. It's going to take a hell of a lot of doing, very careful doing. Very careful policy.

-PC

PCommie

19th March 2009, 01:36

True. Those who fall for the imperialist propaganda are not going to take to us and especially us governing. It's going to take a hell of a lot of doing, very careful doing. Very careful policy.

I can't believe I said something that authoritarian. It totally goes against everything I'm always advocating. I absolutely retract this statement. We don't need vanguard. We've got to let the people vote on what to do from the start, to prove we're for them.

May I never be such a fool again.

-PC

Charles Xavier

19th March 2009, 18:56

Why Marx and Lenin? Not because they are gods but because they were the first answered important questions that the working class movement had in its infancy. Their answers still help guide us today, sure certain questions were left unanswered or they didnt come to a head at that point, a working class answer to Fascism wasn't properly developed until the 1930s. Other questions arised during ww2, an imperialist war yet the same war was an attack on socialism.

Marxism-Leninism is an evolving science. Just as if we were to accept Darwin and then say the scientific understanding of evolution stopped with Darwin, or that Darwin was right about Evolution at that time yet now its irrelevant, it would be easy to disprove.

Pogue

19th March 2009, 19:16

I can't believe I said something that authoritarian. It totally goes against everything I'm always advocating. I absolutely retract this statement. We don't need vanguard. We've got to let the people vote on what to do from the start, to prove we're for them.

May I never be such a fool again.

-PC

Mate, this is an internet forum, not confession.

PCommie

20th March 2009, 04:09

... I wasn't using it as a confession...

I want to say that I didn't mean what I said so people:

1. Can't use that as ammo against me in other debates and
2. I don't look like a fool.

Calm down, and think before you speak, comrade.

-PC

Pogue

20th March 2009, 08:37

Bilan

20th March 2009, 08:39

Stop.

Invincible Summer

21st March 2009, 01:37

That you have a patronizing attitude which allows you to identify hooligans with workers is your problem, not mine. "Tossers," anyway, was a word used by HLVS. So, why not think for 5 minutes before jumping on the opportunity for an apparent cheap shot.

Perhaps being in N. America, the word "hooligan" doesn't have any serious negative connotations. Besides, "hooligans" can be workers. So can robbers, child molesters, the mentally ill, etc.

And I'm not being patronizing. My point is that there are many different types of people who make up the working class, many of which may not necessarily be "educated" in the required theory and background to participate in your idea of democracy.

Poison

21st March 2009, 04:03

Thank you! I agree completely. Too often do Marxists, Leninists and the like treat those who came before them as idols and prophets, refusing to acknowledge they were equals. It lessens the sincerity of their beliefs greatly.

Yehuda Stern

21st March 2009, 10:05

Perhaps being in N. America, the word "hooligan" doesn't have any serious negative connotations.

But then, Israel is not in North America, last time I checked.

Besides, "hooligans" can be workers.

Sure. Some workers are hooligans and some hooligans are workers. The problem is that you were pretty much equating the too, and that seems to me like a clearly anti-working class view.

My point is that there are many different types of people who make up the working class, many of which may not necessarily be "educated" in the required theory and background to participate in your idea of democracy.

And where did say anything about education or knowledge in theory, Mr. cheap shot?