Forgive me, as I am young and inexperianced.

[GuerrillaBrad]

I am positive I am a socialist. But as I don't have a great understanding of the different variations of socialism, I am having a difficult time really figuring out where I fit in. So I am asking you all for help.

If some nice person could come along and explain to me the distinguishing factors between Lenninsm, Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Luxembourgism, he/she would have my undying gratitude.

I am currently under the impression that I am an anarcho-socialist/anarcho-syndicalist, which would put me a ways away from any of those ideologies (right?), but I would much rather be educated on what exactly it is that I am not.

So...yeah.

Thanks in advance?

[Oneironaut]

We've already got you covered!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-left-dictionary-t22628/index.html

[GuerrillaBrad]

Woah.

That is probably one of the most helpful things I have ever seen.

But there doesn't appear to be anything about good 'ol Miss Luxembourg?

[BIG BROTHER]

Yes unfortunatelly Rosa died before she could develop much of her ideas. :( but in some aspects you could consider her more of a left communist, in others more of a social-democrat(back when it was still revolutionary)

[MarxSchmarx]

If some nice person could come along and explain to me the distinguishing factors between Lenninsm, Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Luxembourgism, he/she would have my undying gratitude.

I am currently under the impression that I am an anarcho-socialist/anarcho-syndicalist, which would put me a ways away from any of those ideologies (right?), but I would much rather be educated on what exactly it is that I am not.
It depends on your view of what should be done with institutions of teh capitalist state like the regulatory agencies, teh military, rules of the road, etc...

If you are a serious anarchist then presumably you don't believe that the state is a viable means to further socialism. So yeah, you can't be a Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinist/Maoist.

If you believe the state should play a major role in developing socialism, then all bets are off.

You could be basically any other kind of non-leninist MaRxist like a DeLeonist or a council communist, and an anarcho-syndacalist.

But at that point it's like arguing over whether the eiffel tower is "really a sky-scraper". I mean, it doesn't get us very far in the big scheme of things. It's really splitting hairs IMHO, I mean, at this stage of history none of these differences seem to matter much to me personally. Leninism/Non-Leninism and Marxian/Non-Marxian analyeses are useful axes, but whether one is a "council communist" or "anarcho-syndicalist" is in my view something of a red herring.

BUT all sorts of non-leninist leftis will insist on different things.



Yes unfortunatelly Rosa died before she could develop much of her ideas. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif but in some aspects you could consider her more of a left communist, in others more of a social-democrat(back when it was still revolutionary)
At the end of the day I agree, RL is something of a gestalt, people see in her what they themselves are. It is telling that the most "Luxembourgist" leftist groups are alos the most "big tent" that urge ideological tolerance rather than division. Which actually I quite agree with, but it is an open question whtehr this is really a view RL held or something that most interpreters believe to be in her

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hang around this forum for a while. You'll learn more about the theoretical minutiae of the revolutionary left than you ever wanted to.

[Oktyabr]

Guerilla, don't be worried, I'm the exact same way, except I can't figure out if I am a marxist, a trotskyist, a titoist or an anarcho-communist.

I just posted my introduction yesterday, so I suppose we're both very new.
Partly because of my confusion as to my tendency, and partly because I hate when we argue instead of actually doing something, I don't try to side with any particular group. There is something to be gained from everyone.

[JohnnyC]

I suggest just reading wikipedia entries and this forum for a start.After you get familiar with basics of communism there are loads of free Marxist and anarchist literature on www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/)

[Bilan]

Woah.

That is probably one of the most helpful things I have ever seen.

But there doesn't appear to be anything about good 'ol Miss Luxembourg?

You should just read her stuff.
The Mass Strike and Reform or Revolution are two fantastic works.

[Invariance]

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with being young and inexperienced; everyone starts somewhere and its nothing to be sorry about.

On Luxemburg, she had a number of important stances. I will divide these up into her views on (1) Social reform and revolution (2) Views on the Mass Strike (3) Views on Imperialism (4) Views on Lenin and Organisational Questions (5) Views on the Russian Revolution.

1. The link between social reform and revolution.

Bernstein (a revisionist, whom promoted an 'evolutionary' approach to socialism) was only concerned with the means (social reform), not with the ends (revolution). Luxemburg pointed out that Bernstein's notion of reform meant abandoning the theory that capitalism will break down: 'if one admits, with Bernstein, that capitalist development does not move in the direction of its own ruin, then socialism ceases to be objectively necessary.'

Further, Bernstein's notion of class was horribly vague: ‘By transporting the concept of ‘capitalist’ from the relations of production to property relations, and by speaking of ‘men’ instead of speaking of ‘entrepreneurs’ Bernstein moves the question of socialism from the realm of production into the realm of relations of fortune – from the relation between capital and labour to the relation between rich and poor.’

Some groups, particularly Third World Maoists, have the same approach as Bernstein on this issue.

So far as Trade Unions are concerned, she thought they were necessarily limited by the process of proletarianisation and the growth in productivity of labour, both which would lead to increasing unemployment. The Trade Union struggle became a ‘sort of labour of Sisyphus.’

Democratic institutions had ‘largely played out their role as aids in bourgeoisie development.’ The very ineffectiveness of parliamentary struggle would convince the proletariat that, for any fundamental change, the conquest of political power was essential. Capitalist society was characterised by the fact that wage labour was not a juridical but an economic relation: ‘in our whole juridicial system, there is not a single legal formula for the present class domination.’ This meant that the kind of political and legal reforms advocated by Bernstein could not possibly tackle the problem.

So, whilst Luxemburg clearly saw the often ineffectiveness of these sorts of struggles, 'through them the awareness, the consciousness of the proletariat becomes socialist, and it is organised as a class.’

[Invariance]

2. Views on the Mass Strike.

The Mass Strike had previously been of anarchist origins, Luxemburg reformulated its role from a Marxist perspective.

Briefly, she struggled against the SPD whom only viewed it as a defensive weapon. The Trade Union leaders opposed it for obvious reasons.

In the Mass Strike, Party and Trade Unions, Luxemburg argued that principle lesson of the Russian Revolution was that ‘the mass strike is not artificially ‘made’, not ‘decided’ out of the blue, not ‘propagated’, but rather that it is an historical phenomenon which at a certain moment follows with historical necessity from the social relations.’

There were three lessons from the mass strikes of Russia 1905.

Firstly, the mass strike was not an isolated action: it was rather ‘the sign, the totality-concept of a whole period of the class struggle lasting for years, perhaps decades.’

Secondly, the economic and political elements in the mass strike were inseparable: ‘The economic struggle is that which leads the political struggle from one nodal point to another; the political struggle is that which periodically fertilizes the soil for the economic struggle. Cause and effect here continually change places. Thus, far from being completely separated or even mutually exclusive, as the pedantic schema sees it, the economic and political moments in the mass strike period form only two interlacing sides of the proletarian class struggle in Russia. And their unity is precisely the mass strike.’

Thirdly, instead of the mass strike leading to revolution, it was the other way round: it was the revolution which created conditions enabling the fusion of the economic and political elements in the mass strike: ‘If the mass strike does not signify a single act but a whole period of class struggles, and if this period is identical with a period of revolution, then it is clear that the mass strike cannot be called at will, even if the decision to call it comes from the highest committee of the strongest Social Democratic party. As long as Social Democracy is not capable of staging and countermanding revolutions according to its own estimation of the situation, then even the greatest enthusiasm and impatience of the Social Democratic troops will not suffice to call into being a true period of mass strikes as a living, powerful movement of the people.’

[Invariance]

3) Views on Imperialism.

This is a big topic and complex. Luxemburg was interested in the problems of the reproduction and accumulation of capital, and addressed this in The Accumulation of Capital. She began with Marx’s models for simple and extended reproduction set out in Capital Volume Two. Her criticism was that once technical change was introduced into his model for expanded reproduction, there was no explanation as to how the consequent surplus product could be absorbed within the closed system: there was no reason for there to be any demand for the accumulation of surplus value.

Luxemburg’s conclusion was that it was necessary to abandon the idea of a closed system: the surplus was realised by sales to non-capitalist countries: ‘The decisive fact is that the surplus value cannot be realised by sale either to workers or capitalists, but only if it is sold to such social organisations or strata whose mode of production is not capitalistic.’ Hence, colonial expansion, and the economic function of militarism. Capitalism could grow just as long as there were precapitalist societies to be exploited.

When all these societies had been absorbed into the process of capitalist accumulation, the capitalist system would collapse since ‘it proceeds by assimilating the very conditions which alone can ensure its own existence.’ Thus: ‘the more ruthlessly capital sets about the destruction of non-capitalist strata at home and in the outside world, the more it lowers the standard of living for workers as a whole, the greater also the change in the day-to-day history of capital. It becomes a string of political and social disasters and convulsions, and under these conditions, punctuated by periodical economic catastrophes or crises, accumulation can go on no longer...At a certain stage of development there will be no other way out than the application of socialist principles.’

Luxemburg's views on imperialism were linked to her rejection of national self-determination.

[Invariance]

4) Views on Lenin and the Organisational Questions:

Luxemburg had criticized Lenin’s One Step Forwards, Two Steps Backwards in her article on ‘Organisational Questions of Russian Social Democracy’ published in 1904. She emphasised dialectical relationship between leaders and masses against the mechanical control by a Central Committee.

Lenin’s ideas seemed to her ‘a mechanistic transfer of the organisational principles of the Blanquistic movement of conspiratorial groups to the Social Democratic movement of the working class.’

Hence, she emphasised spontaneous nature of Russian working class demonstrations. Centralism ‘can be nothing but the imperative summation of the will of the enlightened and fighting vanguard of the working class as opposed to its individual groups and members. This is, so to speak, a ‘self centralism’ of the leading stratum of the proletariat; it is the rule of the majority within its own party organisation.’

I think you have to understand her views in their historical context. In Germany, decentralism had helped the Revisionist movement, but that wasn’t an argument for centralism in Russia. Luxemburg was also writing from a perspective where she considered the masses (and rightly so) to be more radical than the leadership (German SPD).

Just as Bernstein separated the movement from the goal, Lenin separated the party from the masses. Its also important to note that Lenin too was influenced by events in Russia, that a centralized party was essential under an autocracy, that he was struggling against elements that wanted the party to cooperate with petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie fronts.

‘Moreover, in this anxious attempt of a part of Russian Social Democracy to protect the very promising and vigorously progressing Russian labour movement from error through the guardianship of an omniscient and omnipresent central committee we see the same subjectivism which has already played more than one trick on the socialist movement in Russia... But now the ‘ego’ of the Russian revolutionary quickly turns upside down and declares itself once again as the all-powerful directors of history – this time as his majesty the central committee of the Social Democratic labour movement. However, the nimble acrobat fails to see that the true subject to whom this role of director falls is the collective ego of the working class, which insists on its rights to make its own mistakes and to learn the historical dialectic by itself. Finally, we must frankly admit to ourselves that errors made by a truly revolutionary labour movement are historically infinitely more fruitful and valuable than the infallibility of the best of all possible ‘central committees.’

Luxemburg categorised the role of leadership as follows: ‘To give the slogans, the direction of the struggle; to organise the tactics of the political struggle in such a way that in every phase and in every moment of the struggle the whole sum of the available and already released active power of the proletariat will be realised and find expression in the battle stance of the party; to see that the resoluteness and acuteness of the tactics of the Social Democracy never fall below the level of the actual relation of forces but rather rise above it – that is the most important task of the ‘leadership’ in the period of the mass strike.’

[Invariance]

5) Views on the Russian Revolution.

Luxemburg was generally very supportive of the revolution, and generally supportive of the Bolsheviks, of whom some of them had formerly been in the same Polish party as her, for example, Dzerzhinsky and Parvus from memory. Here are some relevant comments made by Luxemburg from a former post of mine:
Thus it is clear that in every revolution only that party capable of seizing the leadership and power which has the courage to issue the appropriate watch-words for driving the revolution ahead, and the courage to draw all the necessary conclusions from the situation. This makes clear, too, the miserable role of the Russian Mensheviks, the Dans, Zeretellis, etc., who had enormous influence on the masses at the beginning, but, after their prolonged wavering and after they had fought with both hands and feet against taking over power and responsibility, were driven ignobly off the stage.

The party of Lenin was the only one which grasped the mandate and duty of a truly revolutionary party and which, by the slogan – “All power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry” – insured the continued development of the revolution.

Thereby the Bolsheviks solved the famous problem of “winning a majority of the people,” which problem has ever weighed on the German Social-Democracy like a nightmare. As bred-in-the-bone disciples of parliamentary cretinism,these German Social-Democrats have sought to apply to revolutions the home-made wisdom of the parliamentary nursery: in order to carry anything, you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to a revolution: first let’s become a “majority.” The true dialectic of revolutions, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority – that’s the way the road runs.

Only a party which knows how to lead, that is, to advance things, wins support in stormy times. The determination with which, at the decisive moment, Lenin and his comrades offered the only solution which could advance things (“all power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry”), transformed them almost overnight from a persecuted, slandered, outlawed minority whose leader had to hid like Marat in cellars, into the absolute master of the situation.

Moreover, the Bolsheviks immediately set as the aim of this seizure of power a complete, far-reaching revolutionary program; not the safeguarding of bourgeois democracy, but a dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of realizing socialism. Thereby they won for themselves the imperishable historic distinction of having for the first time proclaimed the final aim of socialism as the direct program of practical politics.

Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honor of international socialism.
She writes later:
Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion – in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.
and later:
In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to “Bolshevism.”She had criticisms of the Bolsheviks (i.e. land reform, national self-determination and censorship, for example). But she didn't attack the Bolsheviks for being 'authoritarian' communists who wanted all power to themselves - on the contrary, she praised them for being decisive, for arguing for all power to the Soviets, for not shying away from leadership etc.

[Invariance]

I guess if you wanted to read her most important works:

Reform or Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)

Organisational Question of the Russian Social Democracy. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm)

The Mass Strike (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm)

The National Question. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm)

The Accumulation of Capital. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/index.htm)

The Accumulation of Capital: An Anti-Critique (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/index.htm)

The Junius Pamphlet (The Crisis of Social Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/index.htm)) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/index.htm)

The Russian Revolution. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm)

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm)The Socialisation of Society. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/20.htm)

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)

[bellyscratch]

Guerilla, don't be worried, I'm the exact same way, except I can't figure out if I am a marxist, a trotskyist, a titoist or an anarcho-communist.

I just posted my introduction yesterday, so I suppose we're both very new.
Partly because of my confusion as to my tendency, and partly because I hate when we argue instead of actually doing something, I don't try to side with any particular group. There is something to be gained from everyone.

I've been into revolutionary politics for about 2 years and I'm still confused about my tendency :lol:

[Pogue]

I am positive I am a socialist. But as I don't have a great understanding of the different variations of socialism, I am having a difficult time really figuring out where I fit in. So I am asking you all for help.

If some nice person could come along and explain to me the distinguishing factors between Lenninsm, Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Luxembourgism, he/she would have my undying gratitude.

I am currently under the impression that I am an anarcho-socialist/anarcho-syndicalist, which would put me a ways away from any of those ideologies (right?), but I would much rather be educated on what exactly it is that I am not.

So...yeah.

Thanks in advance?

Anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-socialism would put you far awat from Stalinism Lenninsm and Trotskyism certainly, although arguably not quite as much Luxemburgism.

If you consider yourself an anarcho-socialist/syndicalist feel free to PM me with any questions you have about the ideology, or ask them here, whatever suits you. I'd call myself an anarcho-syndicalist and would be active to that respect but I still am open to other ideas, and I am by no means entirely static in my thought. I think Luxemburg and her ideas of the Mass Strike are interesting, for one. I constantly debate in my hea dnad think about things and I think thats a good place to be.

I could only generally say I'm a libertarian socialist and thats after considering myself a socialist or leftist for about 4-5 years. I don't think you need to be bound too much - I'm an anarcho-syndicalist in so far as I believe in an revolutionary decentralised worker run union acting as a school for the revolution, but that doesn't mean I am dogmatically like this in my thought. I am open to ideas of spontaneity and I'd consider myself to have alot in common with any libertarian socialist. So just sort of chill, think about it a bit more, debate, read, etc. Don't start threads with grovelling titles either, we're not your masters, no one is ;)

[GuerrillaBrad]

Thanks everyone for the quick responses, and thanks especially to vinne for supplying me with just the comprehensive guide to Luxembourgism I needed x]

I am honestly leaning more and more towards the anarchist side of the leftist spectrum. The more I learn about Lenninsm etc. the more I realize it really runs counter my beliefs. Seems to me that Luxembourg was right about the vanguard party.

Oh ...and the groveling title was just to get people's attention. People like to read things where it is assumed that they are the superior x]

[Rawthentic]

Don't apologized for being young and inexperienced. How do you think the great communists of past began? They weren't born revolutionaries.

Becoming a communist requires patience, study, and dedication. I suggest that you don't worry about pigeonholing yourself into one "ism." Instead, participate in discussions, read all you can, talk with weathered revolutionaries, etc.

Revleft is not the best place, in my opinion, for a learner. It's a place that (besides being dominated by trotskyists and anarchists) is highly sectarian. The level of discussion here is quite low. But, if you do continue here, which I assume you will, maintain an open mind and don't let yourself be easily swayed by the (seemingly) big shots on this board.

[#FF0000]

Revleft is not the best place, in my opinion, for a learner. It's a place that (besides being dominated by trotskyists and anarchists) is highly sectarian. The level of discussion here is quite low.

That's because all the Maoists and Marxist-Leninists run off and whine about the anarchists and the "level of discussion".


But, if you do continue here, which I assume you will, maintain an open mind and don't let yourself be easily swayed by the (seemingly) big shots on this board.[/

Good advice. It is important to remember that anarchists, Trotskyists, and Left-Communists are overrepresented here, and so it's important to remember to look into Maoism and Marxist-Leninism (stalinism) without being swayed too much by the opinions of everyone else on the board.

[Rawthentic]

That's because all the Maoists and Marxist-Leninists run off and whine about the anarchists and the "level of discussion".
That's exactly why.

To the OP (and all) I highly recommend you check out the discussion on the Kasama site (kasamaproject.org) and compare the discussions there with the discussions here.