Anarcho-Leninists?

[anticap]

Ha! OK, now that I have your attention...

Having not read much Lenin (just bits and pieces, nothing complete that I can recall), I'm wondering if there's anything by him that might be of general value to anarchists (like Marx's works on political economy are). I thought perhaps Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, but I've only skimmed it (it seems awfully dry, but I suppose dry economics is about the only area where there might be common ground).

It's a bizarre request, I know. As someone who defaults to anarchism, I don't foresee myself identifying as "Leninist" any time soon, but I believe strongly in taking wisdom where I find it, and I know enough about Lenin to know that he was very wise.

[Pogue]

I don't think there is anything really.

[Bandito]

Oxymoron.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Anarchism and Leninism are completely incompatiable ideologies, considering Lenin was more on the authoritarian side and supported such ideas as a vanguard party to lead the revolution and Democratic Centralism.

[anticap]

Oxymoron.

I'm aware of that pervasive sentiment, yes. The thread title is tongue-in-cheek.


Anarchism and Leninism are completely incompatiable ideologies, considering Lenin was more on the authoritarian side and supported such ideas as a vanguard party to lead the revolution and Democratic Centralism.

Right, but like I said, I try very hard to be open to wisdom wherever I find it, because I want to avoid the sort of rigid dogmatism that rejects P because X said it -- even though P may contain some truth value. If Lenin wrote something that can be fitted into the broad anti-capitalist arsenal so that anarchists can make use of it, then I don't want to be without the benefit of it.

And like I also said, I don't expect there to be much common ground, if any, beyond critique of capitalism.

[Ismail]

The only Trotsky quote I really like sums up the Leninist view of the state nicely:

The bourgeoisie says: don’t touch the state power; it is the sacred hereditary privilege of the educated classes. But the Anarchists say: don’t touch it, it is an infernal invention, a diabolical device, don’t have anything to do with it. The bourgeoisie says, don’t touch it, it’s sacred. The Anarchists say: don’t touch it, because it’s sinful. Both say: don’t touch it. But we say: don’t just touch it, take it in your hands, and set it to work in your own interests, for the abolition of private ownership and the emancipation of the working class.From: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch34.htm

Anyway, yeah, not much to gain from Lenin if you're an Anarchist. I suppose his condemnations of Kautsky, but that's more of a general thing.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/index.htm

[Pogue]

I'm aware of that pervasive sentiment, yes. The thread title is tongue-in-cheek.



Right, but like I said, I try very hard to be open to wisdom wherever I find it, because I want to avoid the sort of rigid dogmatism that rejects P because X said it -- even though P may contain some truth value. If Lenin wrote something that can be fitted into the broad anti-capitalist arsenal so that anarchists can make use of it, then I don't want to be without the benefit of it.

I just don't see what he said which was of any use, his writings were not very impressive. Anything he said vaguley anarchistic was opputunism which he didn't put into practice and was better and more genuine coming from proper socialists.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Right, but like I said, I try very hard to be open to wisdom wherever I find it, because I want to avoid the sort of rigid dogmatism that rejects P because X said it -- even though P may contain some truth value. If Lenin wrote something that can be fitted into the broad anti-capitalist arsenal so that anarchists can make use of it, then I don't want to be without the benefit of it.

Well I'm just saying that I doubt you'll find what you're looking for in the works of Lenin if you're already a self-identified Anarchist.

[anticap]

The only Trotsky quote I really like:
(Leon Trotsky, How The Revolution Armed, Vol. 1, 1918 (London: New Park, 1979), 400–401.)

Anyway, yeah, not much to gain from Lenin if you're an Anarchist. I suppose his condemnations of Kautsky, but that's more of a general thing.



That quote nicely sums up part of the reason for my frequent flip-flopping between the two camps. :unsure:


I just don't see what he said which was of any use, his writings were not very impressive. Anything he said vaguley anarchistic was opputunism which he didn't put into practice and was better and more genuine coming from proper socialists.

I guess I wasn't clear, despite my best efforts. I don't expect anything from Lenin to read even remotely as anarchist. I know at least that much. :lol: I'm interested in where there is at least partial common ground (anti-capitalism).


Well I'm just saying that I doubt you'll find what you're looking for in the works of Lenin if you're already a self-identified Anarchist.

I don't identify as anything, per se. My position is way too complicated to go into at length (and I've learned to intentionally leave it fuzzy around the edges, because truth is elusive), but the gist of it is that I default to a position of demanding justification for any and all "archons." If my demand can be satisfied, then fine.

However, another aspect of my fuzzy position is that any archons that appear necessary might just as easily be reformulated so as not to appear as archons at all. So for example when "anarcho"-capitalists exclude me from the anarchist camp (as if they have that privilege :laugh:) and call me a Marxist for wanting to "forcibly abolish private property," I can just as easily turn it around and call it a matter of self-defense against their aggressive imposition of private property. Very often the difference between anarchism and Marxism is one of perspective, I find. (Although this is certainly much less the case when we start talking political action. But even then, it is possible to blur the lines somewhat; for example I take much wisdom from Maoism, which doesn't necessarily require concession to archons, if you smudge it a little.)

In a bind, I'm happy to call myself "anarchist"; but my enemies have called me everything under the sun, and I'm not fond enough of any label to bother defending it (except anti-capitalist, since all revolutionary leftism hinges on that). In fact I'm just as happy to be labeled a Marxist.

Well I'm probably boring you. I tend to disappear for a while, then post in flurries of inane drivel. :lol:

[Pogue]

I understood what you were saying, I'm just replying, no, none of it is useful for us.

[JimmyJazz]

Lenin's view on mass participation vs. dedicated cadres of professional revolutionaries fluctuated throughout his political life. In Leninism Under Lenin, Marcel Liebman identifies five such distinct periods. What Is To Be Done?, he claims, was written during a period (the second of the five) when Lenin's view was very much in favor of clandestine organizing by a small group of dedicated revolutionaries. State and Revolution, on the other hand, was written in the wake of the February Revolution, and is practically anarchistic in its focus on the spontaneous action of the masses. In general, during times of major repression against the Bolsheviks by either the tsarist governments or the White counterrevolutionaries, Lenin favored centralization; while during periods of great activity of the masses, like 1905 and 1917, Lenin tended to believe fervently in the democratic possibilities of mass participation.

If you want to see some very "anarchistic" writing by Lenin, I'd suggest that you check out State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/).

If you want to understand how Lenin's view fluctuated on this issue, check out Leninism Under Lenin by Liebman. For a taste of Liebman's writings about Lenin, check out "Lenin in 1905: The Revolution Shook A Doctrine (http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Liebman.html)". It's one example of the many turning points that Liebman identifies in Lenin's outlook on this issue.

[ComradeOm]

Having not read much Lenin (just bits and pieces, nothing complete that I can recall), I'm wondering if there's anything by him that might be of general value to anarchists (like Marx's works on political economy are). I thought perhaps Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, but I've only skimmed it (it seems awfully dry, but I suppose dry economics is about the only area where there might be common ground)Well it depends on just how much you are willing to take on board. Lenin's two seminal works, in my opinion, are Imperialism and State and Revolution. Obviously the latter is going to be of limited use to someone who holds the typical anarchist conception of the state, while even Imperialism is underpinned by certain notions regarding the role of the state that anarchists might reject. I suppose that if you're one of those anarchists who accepts Marx's theories of class struggle while completely bowdlerising his analyses to remove the state then you could do the same with Lenin

But then I'd advise you to read both works anyway. If you agree with them then good, if not then at least you're the wiser for it and there's no harm done. In short, judge a book on the ideas contained within and not the author

[Nwoye]

Well it depends on just how much you are willing to take on board. Lenin's two seminal works, in my opinion, are Imperialism and State and Revolution. Obviously the latter is going to be of limited use to someone who holds the typical anarchist conception of the state, while even Imperialism is underpinned by certain notions regarding the role of the state that anarchists might reject. I suppose that if you're one of those anarchists who accepts Marx's theories of class struggle while completely bowdlerising his analyses to remove the state then you could do the same with Lenin

But then I'd advise you to read both works anyway. If you agree with them then good, if not then at least you're the wiser for it and there's no harm done. In short, judge a book on the ideas contained within and not the author
I think State and Revolution is a great book for anarchists actually, as it explains pretty well why a transitory stage before actual communism must exist, and why it will resemble a state. That being I thought its justification for the withering away of the state was a little weak.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Hahaha. Anarcho-Leninist. They are completely contradictory terms.

[ComradeOm]

I think State and Revolution is a great book for anarchists actually, as it explains pretty well why a transitory stage before actual communism must exist, and why it will resemble a state. That being I thought its justification for the withering away of the state was a little weak.Its a great work no question, but a number of its presuppositions - well, pretty much the Marxist conception of the state and the role of classes in the formation of the state, etc - run contrary to typically cherished anarchist notions regarding the inherent tyranny of hierarchical states. I mean, its not just a matter of substituting "transitory stage" for the state

But if you read it and agree with some/most of its conclusions then more power to you

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think State and Revolution is a great book for anarchists actually, as it explains pretty well why a transitory stage before actual communism must exist, and why it will resemble a state. That being I thought its justification for the withering away of the state was a little weak.

We do not question that there must be a transitionary stage before true communism.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm aware of that pervasive sentiment, yes. The thread title is tongue-in-cheek.
Right, but like I said, I try very hard to be open to wisdom wherever I find it, because I want to avoid the sort of rigid dogmatism that rejects P because X said it -- even though P may contain some truth value. If Lenin wrote something that can be fitted into the broad anti-capitalist arsenal so that anarchists can make use of it, then I don't want to be without the benefit of it.
And like I also said, I don't expect there to be much common ground, if any, beyond critique of capitalism.
I totally get what you're saying. Personally, I think that specific thinkers within "the Leninist tradition" have a lot of useful things to say, but I can't think of anything especially good by Lenin himself. I do like his line about supporting the Labour Party "like the rope supports a hanging man", tho.
But yeah, Gramsci, De Beauvoir, Walter Benjamin, Slavoj Zizek and others all identified (or identify) in some way with the Leninist revolutionary project but have ideas that, as an anarchist, I think are useful. Lenin himself, not so much. And I've heard good things about Lukacs, but never read him myself.

[Misanthrope]

Stick to reading sane thinkers. I would rather read Hobsbawm for polisci or if you're looking for something on imperialism. Imperialism: A Study is good, it influenced Lenin's work on imperialism actually..


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Imperialism%3A+A+study&go=Go

" Hobson argued that imperialism is unnecessary and immoral; seeing imperialism as a result of the maldistribution of wealth in a capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) society that created a desire to spread markets in search of profit."

[Ismail]

Stick to reading sane thinkers.I fail to see how Lenin is not sane.

[Nwoye]

We do not question that there must be a transitionary stage before true communism.
but you do disagree that this transitory state qualifies as a state.

[Pogue]

but you do disagree that this transitory state qualifies as a state.

Yes, and certainly a state in the Leninist way.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

but you do disagree that this transitory state qualifies as a state.

Yes I disagree. It should not qualify as a state.

[Random Precision]

Offtopic line between Pogue and Ismail trashed. Please try desperately to stay on topic.

And the spam post by scarlet ghoul trashed as well, you may consider yourself warned for spamming.

[anticap]

Lenin's view on mass participation vs. dedicated cadres of professional revolutionaries fluctuated throughout his political life. In Leninism Under Lenin, Marcel Liebman identifies five such distinct periods. What Is To Be Done?, he claims, was written during a period (the second of the five) when Lenin's view was very much in favor of clandestine organizing by a small group of dedicated revolutionaries. State and Revolution, on the other hand, was written in the wake of the February Revolution, and is practically anarchistic in its focus on the spontaneous action of the masses. In general, during times of major repression against the Bolsheviks by either the tsarist governments or the White counterrevolutionaries, Lenin favored centralization; while during periods of great activity of the masses, like 1905 and 1917, Lenin tended to believe fervently in the democratic possibilities of mass participation.

If you want to see some very "anarchistic" writing by Lenin, I'd suggest that you check out State and Revolution.

If you want to understand how Lenin's view fluctuated on this issue, check out Leninism Under Lenin by Liebman. For a taste of Liebman's writings about Lenin, check out "Lenin in 1905: The Revolution Shook A Doctrine". It's one example of the many turning points that Liebman identifies in Lenin's outlook on this issue.

Thanks for the tips.


Well it depends on just how much you are willing to take on board. Lenin's two seminal works, in my opinion, are Imperialism and State and Revolution. Obviously the latter is going to be of limited use to someone who holds the typical anarchist conception of the state, while even Imperialism is underpinned by certain notions regarding the role of the state that anarchists might reject. I suppose that if you're one of those anarchists who accepts Marx's theories of class struggle while completely bowdlerising his analyses to remove the state then you could do the same with Lenin

But then I'd advise you to read both works anyway. If you agree with them then good, if not then at least you're the wiser for it and there's no harm done. In short, judge a book on the ideas contained within and not the author

And to you.


Hahaha. Anarcho-Leninist. They are completely contradictory terms.

*sigh* I know this, as I've stated explicitly.


I totally get what you're saying. Personally, I think that specific thinkers within "the Leninist tradition" have a lot of useful things to say, but I can't think of anything especially good by Lenin himself. I do like his line about supporting the Labour Party "like the rope supports a hanging man", tho.
But yeah, Gramsci, De Beauvoir, Walter Benjamin, Slavoj Zizek and others all identified (or identify) in some way with the Leninist revolutionary project but have ideas that, as an anarchist, I think are useful. Lenin himself, not so much. And I've heard good things about Lukacs, but never read him myself.

Ha! great quote. Thanks.


Stick to reading sane thinkers. I would rather read Hobsbawm for polisci or if you're looking for something on imperialism. Imperialism: A Study is good, it influenced Lenin's work on imperialism actually..


en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Imperialism%3A+A+study&go=Go

" Hobson argued that imperialism is unnecessary and immoral; seeing imperialism as a result of the maldistribution of wealth in a capitalist society that created a desire to spread markets in search of profit."

And to you.

P.S. I'll be glad to get to 25 posts so I don't have to redact the links from quotes. (Maybe I should be quoting everyone separately until then. :sneaky:)

[Misanthrope]

I fail to see how Lenin is not sane.

Hijacking a bonafide proletariat revolution and then guiding it to a state capitalist dictatorship and then killing off revolutionaries (anarchists) is sane?

[Nwoye]

Hijacking a bonafide proletariat revolution and then guiding it to a state capitalist dictatorship and then killing off revolutionaries (anarchists) is sane?
can we at least keep the unsupported one-sentence condemnations of Lenin to one thread?

[Misanthrope]

can we at least keep the unsupported one-sentence condemnations of Lenin to one thread?

Oh I'm sorry. This is more realistic, right?

http://www.iisg.nl/landsberger/images/vil01.jpg

I'll just go ahead and forget the third Russian Revolution, prodrazvyorstka, Cheka, Kronstadt and the Tambov Rebellion. Crushing peasant uprisings is reactionary, the majority of the people killed at the hands of Lenin weren't White guards, priests or spies. They were socialist revolutionaries, Mensheviks, sailors and kulaks . Read a few of his books and agree with him on theory, fine. But stop playing apologetics and forming a personality cult around him.

[Ismail]

Weren't most of the Anarchists, y'know, anti-worker peasants like Makhno, or the agrarianist groups like the Social-Revolutionaries who undermined themselves due to terrorism?

Also the Bolsheviks did lead the proletarian revolution. They didn't hijack it, unless you'd like to show me examples of the Mensheviks abandoning their prior views and fighting to overthrow the bourgeoisie?

And what's wrong with fighting the rural bourgeoisie? (AKA kulaks)

As Lenin noted (see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/x01.htm)

In launching their attack on peaceful Russia the British and Japanese capitalist robbers are also counting on alliance with the internal enemy of the Soviet government. We all know who that internal enemy is. It is the capitalists, the landowners, the kulaks, and their offspring, who hate the government of the workers and working peasants-the peasants who do not suck the blood of their fellow-villagers.

A wave of kulak revolts is sweeping across Russia. The kulak hates the Soviet government like poison and is prepared to strangle and massacre hundreds of thousands of workers. We know very well that if the kulaks were to gain the upper hand they would ruthlessly slaughter hundreds of thousands of workers, in alliance with the landowners and capitalists, restore back-breaking conditions for the workers, abolish the eight-hour day and hand back the mills and factories to the capitalists.

That was the case in all earlier European revolutions when, as a result of the weakness of the workers, the kulaks succeeded in turning back from a republic to a monarchy, from a working people’s government to the despotism of the exploiters, the rich and the parasites. This happened before our very eyes in Latvia, Finland, the Ukraine and Georgia. Everywhere the avaricious, bloated and bestial kulaks joined hands with the landowners and capitalists against the workers and against the poor generally. Everywhere the kulaks wreaked their vengeance on the working class with incredible ferocity. Everywhere they joined hands with the foreign capitalists against the workers of their own country. That is the way the Cadets, the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks have been acting: we have only to remember their exploits in “Czechoslovakia”. That is the way the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, in their crass stupidity and spinelessness, acted too when they revolted in Moscow, thus assisting the whiteguards in Yaroslavi and the Czechs and the Whites in Kazan. No wonder these Left Socialist-Revolutionaries were praised by Kerensky and his friends, the French imperialists.

There is no doubt about it. The kulaks are rabid foes of the Soviet government. Either the kulaks massacre vast numbers of workers, or the workers ruthlessly suppress the revolts of the predatory kulak minority of the people against the working people’s government. There can be no middle course. Peace is out of the question: even if they have quarrelled, the kulak can easily come to terms with the landowner, the tsar and the priest, but with the working class never.

That is why we call the fight against the kulaks the last, decisive fight. That does not mean there may not be many more kulak revolts, or that there may not be many more attacks on the Soviet government by foreign capitalism. The words, the last fight, imply that the last and most numerous of the exploiting classes has revolted against us in our country.
The kulaks are the most brutal, callous and savage exploiters, who in the history of other countries have time and again restored the power of the landowners, tsars, priests and capitalists. The kulaks are more numerous than the landowners and capitalists. Nevertheless, they are a minority.

Let us take it that there are about fifteen million peasant families in Russia, taking Russia as she was before the robbers deprived her of the Ukraine and other territories. Of these fifteen million, probably ten million are poor peasants who live by selling their labour power, or who are in bondage to the rich, or who lack grain surpluses and have been most impoverished by the burdens of war. About three million must be regarded as middle peasants, while barely two million consist of kulaks, rich peasants, grain profiteers. These bloodsuckers have grown rich on the want suffered by the people in the war; they have raked in thousands and hundreds of thousands of rubles by pushing up the price of grain and other products. These spiders have grown fat at the expense of the peasants ruined by the war, at the expense of the starving workers. These leeches have sucked the blood of the working people and grown richer as the workers in the cities and factories starved. These vampires have been gathering the landed estates into their hands; they continue to enslave the poor peasants.

Ruthless war on the kulaks! Death to them! Hatred and contempt for the parties which defend them-the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and today's Left Socialist-Revolutionaries! The workers must crush the revolts of the kulaks with an iron hand, the kulaks who are forming an alliance with the foreign capitalists against the working people of their own country.

The kulaks take advantage of the ignorance, the disunity and isolation of the poor peasants. They incite them against the workers. Sometimes they bribe them while permitting them to "make a bit", a hundred rubles or so, by profiteering in grain (at the same time robbing the poor peasants of many thousands of rubles). The kulaks try to win the support of the middle peasants, and they sometimes succeed.

But there is no reason why the working class should quarrel with the middle peasant. The workers cannot come to terms with the kulak, but they may seek, and are seeking, an agreement with the middle peasant. The workers' government, the Bolshevik government, has proved that in deed.
We proved it by passing the law on the "socialisation of land" and strictly carrying it into effect. That law contains numerous concessions to the interests and views of the middle peasant.

We proved it (the other day) by trebling grain prices"; for we fully realise that the earnings of the middle peasant are often disproportionate to present-day prices for manufactured goods and must be raised.

Every class-conscious worker will explain this to the middle peasant and will patiently, persistently, and repeatedly point out to him that socialism is infinitely more beneficial for him than a government of the tsars, landowners and capitalists.

The workers' government has never wronged and never will wrong the middle peasant. But the government of the tsars, landowners, capitalists and kulaks not only always wronged the middle peasant, but stifled, plundered, and ruined him outright. And this is true of all countries without exception, Russia included.

The class-conscious worker’s programme is the closest alliance and complete unity with the poor peasants; concessions to and agreement with the middle peasants; ruthless suppression of the kulaks, those bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who batten on famine. That is the policy of the working class.


Also, yes, "war communism" (like prodrazvyorstka) was abandoned for obvious reasons (no more war) in favor of the NEP, which was designed to mend relations between workers and peasants and unite peasants against the kulaks.

[Nwoye]

Oh I'm sorry. This is more realistic, right?

I'll just go ahead and forget the third Russian Revolution, prodrazvyorstka, Cheka, Kronstadt and the Tambov Rebellion. Crushing peasant uprisings is reactionary, the majority of the people killed at the hands of Lenin weren't White guards, priests or spies. They were socialist revolutionaries, Mensheviks, sailors and kulaks . Read a few of his books and agree with him on theory, fine. But stop playing apologetics and forming a personality cult around him.
I'm definitely not an "apologist" for the crimes of Lenin, nor have I formed a personality cult around him. If you disagree with his tactics, or if you think he was too authoritarian, then you're preaching to the choir. But just saying "he was a reactionary capitalist fap fap fap" does not accomplish anything, and is a rather counter-productive and sectarian attitude.

Now, if you don't mind could you expand on your criticisms listed here? and please back them up with legitimate sources. It would probably be best if you did it in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-anti-revolutionary-t113105/index.html) though (which is really what my first post was referring to).

[Misanthrope]

Weren't most of the Anarchists, y'know, anti-worker peasants like Makhno, or the agrarianist groups like the Social-Revolutionaries who undermined themselves due to terrorism?

Also the Bolsheviks did lead the proletarian revolution. They didn't hijack it, unless you'd like to show me examples of the Mensheviks abandoning their prior views and fighting to overthrow the bourgeoisie?

And what's wrong with fighting the rural bourgeoisie? (AKA kulaks)

Explain the bolded please. Because Makhno and self proclaimed Makhnovists drove out opposing armies and organized into communes, assemblies and councils in opposition to statism and capitalism. Granted many say he did commit atrocities against kulaks but why do you have a problem with that? I surely have a problem with that but Lenin was doing the very same thing, to justify Lenin's actions by saying Makhno did it as well is just simply showing Lenin's hypocrisy and disregard for human life.

Obviously Russia was in prerevolutionary stages before Lenin even entered Russia after his exile, one man cannot start a revolution such as the Russian Revolution, no matter how much of a demi-god he is to you.

Oh and I don't see the violence towards the kulaks as justified, they aren't a ruling social class. Nor do I see the killing of the Tsar's children and wife as justified. Do you propose as Leftists, we kill all non-workers, anyone associated with a government member, any political counterpart, during a revolutionary period?




use of hired labour;
ownership of a mill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_%28grinding%29), a creamery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creamery) (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor;
systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities;
involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labour income".

1) Fiscal exploitation on a minimal scale, wrong but not worthy of death.
2) The ownership would most likely lead to fiscal exploitation of others, which is wrong but again I don't see it worthy of death.
3+4) Basically just voluntary interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak

excuse the source but that is what constitutes a Kulak.

[Ismail]

Explain the bolded please. Because Makhno and self proclaimed Makhnovists drove out opposing armies and organized into communes, assemblies and councils in opposition to statism and capitalism. Granted many say he did commit atrocities against kulaks but why do you have a problem with that? I surely have a problem with that but Lenin was doing the very same thing, to justify Lenin's actions by saying Makhno did it as well is just simply showing Lenin's hypocrisy and disregard for human life.http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

Despite once sending a hundred train cars of wheat to Moscow that he captured from the Whites, Makhno generally had a distrustful attitude toward the cities, calling them “a poison.” His vision for worker and peasant relations was based on barter between the two. But humanity cannot build a viable system of production on the chance that peasants will have a surplus they are willing to trade.

When they occupied towns, the Makhnovists would declare null and void all laws and state structures. In the midst of a civil war, they emptied all the prisons and jails. Then they would hand out all the money and food until it was gone. They destroyed the existing economic and political structures and then denied responsibility for the consequences. There was no thought of rationing the resources because there was no consideration of problems of production beyond small-scale family agriculture.

When local railway and telegraph workers who had not been paid for months asked for help, Makhno told them, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.” In reality, the Makhnovists did need the railways. But Makhno declared his army exempt from rail charges. In the context of civil war and mass famine, his was less a call for workers’ power and more a prescription for starvation.

Makhno issued a currency that carried the text: “feel free to forge this.” He also declared valid all currencies, including those of defunct governments. While this may just seem like Abbie Hoffman-style antics, the ensuing mass inflation was devastating for workers. Unlike the peasants who grew their own food, the workers were dependent on a wage to eat and desperately needed price controls. But they could not look to Makhno for help, who later told the workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armored car, I will take this armored car for free and pay nothing.”

Makhno was anti-worker in effect, I didn't say he was anti-kulak. He was, however, anti-kulak, and it is good that he was.


Obviously Russia was in prerevolutionary stages before Lenin even entered Russia after his exile, one man cannot start a revolution such as the Russian Revolution, no matter how much of a demi-god he is to you.The Bolsheviks still organized the revolution. When did I say Lenin single-handedly caused a revolution?


Oh and I don't see the violence towards the kulaks as justified, they aren't a ruling social class. Nor do I see the killing of the Tsar's children and wife as justified. Do you propose as Leftists, we kill all non-workers, anyone associated with a government member, any political counterpart, during a revolutionary period?If they are exploiters yes. The kulaks were the ruling class as far as the peasants were concerned. Besides the Tsar, there was the kulak. Also the killing of the Tsar and his family was because of an impending brigade of White officers who wanted to free him. Killing him and his family effectively ended the monarchist faction of the White Army.


1) Fiscal exploitation on a minimal scale, wrong but not worthy of death.
2) The ownership would most likely lead to fiscal exploitation of others, which is wrong but again I don't see it worthy of death.
3+4) Basically just voluntary interactions.Read this: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node19.html#SECTION00700000000000000000

Regardless what you think of Stalin or collectivization or whatever, this does a good job explaining the role of the kulak in Russian peasant society and how they interacted with the Soviet government. They often ruled like warlords, they weren't harmless well-to-do peasants in smurf villages. They would bully peasants, sabotage cooperatives, hoard agricultural produce to force the Soviet government to agree to pay more for it, and basically kept the peasants in check. Ludo Martens (the author of the book) also quotes bourgeois sources for most of his information, so yeah.

[Misanthrope]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml


Makhno was anti-worker in effect, I didn't say he was anti-kulak. He was, however, anti-kulak, and it is good that he was.

The Bolsheviks still organized the revolution. When did I say Lenin single-handedly caused a revolution?

If they are exploiters yes. The kulaks were the ruling class as far as the peasants were concerned. Besides the Tsar, there was the kulak. Also the killing of the Tsar and his family was because of an impending brigade of White officers who wanted to free him. Killing him and his family effectively ended the monarchist faction of the White Army.

Read this: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node19.html#SECTION00700000000000000000

Regardless what you think of Stalin or collectivization or whatever, this does a good job explaining the role of the kulak in Russian peasant society and how they interacted with the Soviet government. They often ruled like warlords, they weren't harmless well-to-do peasants in smurf villages. They would bully peasants, sabotage cooperatives, hoard agricultural produce to force the Soviet government to agree to pay more for it, and basically kept the peasants in check. Ludo Martens (the author of the book) also quotes bourgeois sources for most of his information, so yeah.

But humanity cannot build a viable system of production on the chance that peasants will have a surplus they are willing to trade.

Those who sold off their surplus would be Kulaks, are you implying that Makhno went through all that trouble to kill Kulaks but then wanted everyone to become Kulaks so he could be in command of a well to do economic system.


"When they occupied towns, the Makhnovists would declare null and void all laws and state structures"

Makes sense, they were anti-statists.

In the midst of a civil war, they emptied all the prisons and jails. Then they would hand out all the money and food until it was gone.

So?

They destroyed the existing economic and political structures

Because they opposed them, seeing as they were authoritarian.


When local railway and telegraph workers who had not been paid for months asked for help, Makhno told them, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.”

I really can't believe this, they just let Makhno and his group of anarchist thugs waltz on to a train and use it for a couple months, for free? There has to be some sort of force behind this which there isn't because it obviously would have been mentioned in the article. What worker performs a service free of charge for months on end without any sort of physical force being used against them?

Makhno issued a currency that carried the text: “feel free to forge this.” He also declared valid all currencies, including those of defunct governments. While this may just seem like Abbie Hoffman-style antics, the ensuing mass inflation was devastating for workers

I honestly don't think Makhno was that well versed in economics to know the concept that money eventually devalues when there is more of it artificially pumped into the economy. Besides that, paper money is whatever you make of it, intersubjective consensus. I'm sure the workers were in the majority; they could easily stop using the money or recalculate the value of the notes in relation to products and labor. If Makhno was in fact an economic intellect and planned this out while realizing the consequences the working class would feel, than yeah I guess you could justify killing Makhno.

Let me just get this out there, I am not defending Makhno as much as I am criticizing Lenin.

I'm sorry for inferring that, you can't blame me because we are after all discussing Lenin's atrocities not the Bolshevik's atrocities.

I would also like to know how you feel about seredniaks, the middle income peasant class, are they a class enemy?

The fiscal exploiters didn't just die at the hands of Lenin. Like I said, Kulaks (those who rented various things, sold their surplus, owners of mills, hired labor) sailors and Makhnovists were the majority of people that died. To solve the Kulak problem in regards to fiscal exploitation, wouldn't a more sensible, proactive solution be that the workers take what they make and eventually try to seize the means of production. Rather than the Red Army killing the Kulak?

[Ismail]

Those who sold off their surplus would be Kulaks, are you implying that Makhno went through all that trouble to kill Kulaks but then wanted everyone to become Kulaks so he could be in command of a well to do economic system.Are you implying that peasants do not create surplus? How do they manage to sell then?


I really can't believe this, they just let Makhno and his group of anarchist thugs waltz on to a train and use it for a couple months, for free? There has to be some sort of force behind this which there isn't because it obviously would have been mentioned in the article. What worker performs a service free of charge for months on end without any sort of physical force being used against them?There was force used, Makhno led an army.


I would also like to know how you feel about seredniaks, the middle income peasant class, are they a class enemy?IIRC Lenin supported them against the kulaks since they still were anti-kulak to some extent. I think the seredniaks responded to collectivization in a way similar to the lower peasants.


wouldn't a more sensible, proactive solution be that the workers take what they make and eventually try to seize the means of production. Rather than the Red Army killing the Kulak?About as sensible as suggesting that workers peacefully pool together their resources and buy out all the factories from the bourgeoisie.

Once again, the kulak were the rural bourgeoisie, they wouldn't just sit around and let lower peasants overcome them. The kulaks themselves reacted negatively (obviously) to collectivization and burned grain, shot pro-Soviet peasants, etc. And as Martens notes (and I've noted), the kulaks already sabotaged cooperatives and such, which is one of the reasons the collectivization campaign had so much force attached to it.

[More Fire for the People]

They call themselves Makhnovites or anarcho-syndicalists.

[Misanthrope]

Are you implying that peasants do not create surplus? How do they manage to sell then?

There was force used, Makhno led an army.

IIRC Lenin supported them against the kulaks since they still were anti-kulak to some extent. I think the seredniaks responded to collectivization in a way similar to the lower peasants.

About as sensible as suggesting that workers peacefully pool together their resources and buy out all the factories from the bourgeoisie.

Once again, the kulak were the rural bourgeoisie, they wouldn't just sit around and let lower peasants overcome them. The kulaks themselves reacted negatively (obviously) to collectivization and burned grain, shot pro-Soviet peasants, etc. And as Martens notes (and I've noted), the kulaks already sabotaged cooperatives and such, which is one of the reasons the collectivization campaign had so much force attached to it.

Well if they did sell their surplus they would be considered a kulak.

Force used against the railroad workers and telegraph workers? Forced labor? The article didn't say so.

Not really, I am suggesting that they forcefully seize the means of production.

Kulaks like business owners are the minority but the Kulaks didn't have state support like business owners have today. I think the workers forcefully ceasing the means of production with the help of the Red Army perhaps, would be a more efficient and just all around better alternative than just simply killing them.

You support autogestion don't you?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Hijacking a bonafide proletariat revolution and then guiding it to a state capitalist dictatorship and then killing off revolutionaries (anarchists) is sane?
It's certainly sane and rational from a state-capitalist standpoint.


Also the Bolsheviks did lead the proletarian revolution. They didn't hijack it, unless you'd like to show me examples of the Mensheviks abandoning their prior views and fighting to overthrow the bourgeoisie?

There's more to the Russian working class than just Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

[ComradeOm]

There's more to the Russian working class than just Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.Name another working class party that could even approach the size or influence of the RSDLP. And no, the SRs were a peasant party

[Misanthrope]

Name another working class party that could even approach the size or influence of the RSDLP. And no, the SRs were a peasant party

The working class isn't a political party nor does it need to be represented by a political party. Why are you excluding peasants from the movement? They relied on their own labor, they didn't exploit anyone.

I'm sorry but genuine worker struggle > opportunist consolidation of power

[ComradeOm]

The working class isn't a political party nor does it need to be represented by a political partyNice in theory, absolute nonsense in practice. Parties, be they political or economic, are expressions of class consciousness and they give shape to mass movements. It is natural for the militant elements of a class to organise themselves into a party in order to further the interests of their class. Which is exactly what happened in Russia 1917 and indeed every revolution of note since 1789

The reality, and this cannot be repeated enough, is that the Bolsheviks in 1917 were a mass party precisely because they were an extremely popular vehicle of proletarian revolution. No one organisation - be it Menshevik, anarchist, or even SR - can compare in that regard. So the uncomfortable truth for you and others is simple - to march against the Bolsheviks in 1917 was to march against a revolutionary proletariat on the move


Why are you excluding peasants from the movement? They relied on their own labor, they didn't exploit anyoneAnd nor was their labour exploited by the bourgeoisie in turn. Welcome to class analysis

[More Fire for the People]

That quote nicely sums up part of the reason for my frequent flip-flopping between the two camps.
Are you shitting me? How many left-anarchists do you know who have opened up a burger king?

[Black Sheep]

maybe the organization of the New Type Party?
Platformism and stuff.

[anticap]

Are you shitting me? How many left-anarchists do you know who have opened up a burger king?

I'm afraid that went over my head, but I'll respond to say that the "left-" in "left-anarchist" is redundant.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

maybe the organization of the New Type Party?
Platformism and stuff.

Nope because Platformism has nothing to do with Democratic Centralism. Power is not in the hands of a Central Committee or anything like that. There is no vertical working structure in Platformism. All that it entails in similarity is for each memeber to believe in the things the group stands for.

[Black Sheep]

Power is not in the hands of a Central Committee or anything like that.
Neither it is in democratic centralism.


There is no vertical working structure in Platformism.
No?
How about the executive committees,who guide ideologically the cell-groups of the general anarchist union, and check if the GAU line is being upheld?


All that it entails in similarity is for each memeber to believe in the things the group stands for.
which is really all that d.m. stands for.Discipline and mass support of the line.