The State and Revolution

[Howard509]

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

The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin is one of the most anarchist texts ever written. It explains how a future without government and exploitation is possible.

[Manifesto]

This is going to start something.

[Howard509]

The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point.

[Lolshevik]

Then in what way are you an anarchist?

[ZeroNowhere]

So why is this in Learning?

[Manifesto]

So why is this in Learning?
Most likely for a beginner to read it.

[Howard509]

Then in what way are you an anarchist?

Chomsky and Zinn are anarchists and they appreciate Lenin's libertarianism in State and Revolution. Too bad that Lenin didn't practice it to the fullest.

[ZeroNowhere]

Most likely for a beginner to read it.
But it's already here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/reading-list-beginners-t112763/index.html), for whatever reason. This is apparently a place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues, rather than a one-line review of some book.

[Nwoye]

The State and Revolution certainly has libertarian undertones and tends to support a decentralized and directly democratic view of the state (a view totally opposed to the state that developed during the Civil War and the bureaucratic nightmare it became after Lenin's death), but it's also a pretty damning critique of anarchism.

[Howard509]

A dictator was an ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency. The dictatorship of the proletariat is such a temporary rule, but with the majority, the working class, in power.

[Lolshevik]

Chomsky and Zinn are anarchists and they appreciate Lenin's libertarianism in State and Revolution. Too bad that Lenin didn't practice it to the fullest.

You could rephrase that by saying, too bad Lenin and the whole Russian Empire didn't exist in a vacuum apart from the class dynamics of the rest of the world, and still be saying basically the same thing.

I know what you're getting at, though. The State & Revolution is a priceless text of Marxism because it really gets at the meat & potatoes of how the state is to wither away under socialism, but if you want to learn why the Soviet state didn't develop the way that S&R would suggest a socialist republic should, you can't just write it off as "Well Lenin never really meant any of that", it's not like the man had a brain transplant the day after the October Revolution, and it's false to think that individuals control the fate of whole nations like that anyway. You have to look at why & how the Russian Revolution degenerated from its early democratic form, which in my opinion DID embody the ideas of State and Revolution quite well.

[Manifesto]

But it's already here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/reading-list-beginners-t112763/index.html), for whatever reason. This is apparently a place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues, rather than a one-line review of some book.
I know, I was merely suggesting why it was put here.

[BobKKKindle$]

The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin is one of the most anarchist texts ever writtenI'd be interested to know what criteria you use to decide whether a text is anarchist or not, and how one text can be more anarchist than another. If you mean that State and Revolution is anarchist in the sense that it promotes an anarchist analysis of the state then you are mistaken; the text's central thesis is that the state always functions as an instrument in the hands of the ruling class, as a means to retain the rule of that class by enforcing the dominant property relations, and on the basis of this analysis Lenin argues that the overthrow of capitalism will involve the destruction of the bourgeois state alongside the spontaneous creation of a workers state representing the interests of the vast majority of humanity, in contrast to previous state apparatuses which have represented the interests of only the exploiters and their allies, with the task of defending the rule of the working class from the remnants of the bourgeoisie and other elements intent on restoring capitalism. This differs from the anarchist analysis obviously in that anarchists do not advocate the existence of a workers state (although it's significant that the structures and institutions that Marxists would recognize as a workers state could be accepted by anarchists and yet be seen as the absence of a state, because anarchists do not regard the state as being synonymous with government, and acknowledge the necessity of using force to defend revolutionary gains) but this is also underpinned by a more fundamental difference, as a position of absolute opposition to all states can only be made coherent if the state, taken as a historical entity, is regarded as being oppressive in a way that is independent of its role in enforcing a given set of social relations as part of the superstructure, i.e. if the state is held to be something more than just a device that the ruling class uses to defend its class rule. Marxists say that the state is not an independent source of oppression in this sense. This means that anarchism involves an ahistorical conception of the state whereas Marxism (and indeed State and Revolution) situates the state in the context of class struggle, and acknowledges that there is nothing inherently reactionary about the state from the viewpoint of the working class, because workers will also require their own state to defend their class rule, a state, which, because it represents the interests of the vast majority and not a privileged minority, will not involve the separation of armed bodies of men from the general population (a key feature of the state under capitalism) but will derive its power and legitimacy from the participation of the working population.


The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point. It's all very well to say that everything would have been fine "if not for Stalin" but this does suggest a rather superficial analysis - in your opinion, who was Stalin? Was he just an individual seeking to gain power? If so then surely we have no choice but to accept that history is not driven by class struggle (as Marx maintained) but can and indeed does depend on conflicts between individuals, and the decisions undertaken by individuals, in which case it would seem that bourgeois history, focusing on events at the apex of societies, such as the rise and fall of different monarchs, may be more accurate than the social history with which people on the left have generally associated themselves. Or, did Stalin represent the interests of a particular group within Soviet society? If this is so then we have to ask what was this group, what was its relationship with the working class, and what material conditions allowed it to become dominant.


a decentralized and directly democratic view of the state It does not support a decentralized state. Neither do Marxists.

[Howard509]

I agree with Lenin that there should be a workers' state to transition into a stateless, classless society. I just believe it should be much more libertarian than what Lenin did in practice.

[Howard509]

Libertarian Marxism and anarchism overlap:



Marxists who adhere to the principles of the Paris Commune and anarchists have much more in common than they think. Strip away the polemical exaggerations, strip away the fallacious arguments, and you have two groups who seek Popular Power for the working masses.

It seemed to 19th Century revolutionaries that they could defeat other revolutionary tendencies through polemics, and these were often of dubious honesty. Criticism of genuine weaknesses and errors are to be desired, as they help develop our practice. False or polemically exaggerated statements do nothing but exacerbate division and animosity. Tendencies can be almost obliterated by violence – witness anarchism in the 1930's and 40's as it was stamped out by fascism and Stalinism. But when the ground is fertile they are reborn. A tendency will only be permanently reduced to insignificance when it is totally disconnected from the reality of the times and the needs of the people. Witness the Socialist Labor Party which has been dying since 1900 and experienced no significant growth during any of the periods of revolt of the last century. 150 years of polemics between Marxists and Anarchists, and guess what? Both of us are still here, in most cases more alive than in several generations.

More important than tendency or ideology is practice, or desired practice. If you believe in worker and neighborhood assembles with recallable delegates, self-management and multi-tendency direct democracy, these common principles should take precedence over the quarrels of 150 years ago.
http://porkupineblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/state-and-revolution-anarchist.html

[The Feral Underclass]

The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point.

No it wouldn't. Trotsky was wrong.

[Old Man Diogenes]

The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point.

"Pure" Communism in the Russia was ruined long before Stalin, it was Lenin who prevented it, it was he destroyed the functioning Soviet democracy. Any libertarian ideas Lenin had, in my opinion, he must have readily abandoned when he realised he had a chance at seizing power. As Mikhail Bakunin said, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tzar himself."

[BobKKKindle$]

I agree with Lenin that there should be a workers' state to transition into a stateless, classless society. I just believe it should be much more libertarian than what Lenin did in practice.

Firstly, I don't think that Lenin believed there "should" be a workers state any more than Newton thought there "should" be three laws of motion - his analysis of the state was derived from Marx's own analysis and was designed to combat those in the socialist movement who believed that the state under capitalism was a neutral institution or that the creation of parliamentary regimes in capitalist countries could allow for a peaceful transition to socialism without the overthrow of existing political institutions. The basic principle of Lenin's analysis (and the Marxist theory of the state) is that the state is an instrument of class rule, in contrast to the views described above, and so the notion that the working class will require its own state, and that the state will whither away once classes have ceased to exist, or as class antagonisms become less intense, is simply the logical conclusion of this scientific analysis, and not a normative proposition. Secondly, I'd be interested to know what you understand the term "libertarian" to mean and why you believe that the state which emerged out of the Russian Revolution was too authoritarian, or nor libertarian enough. Thirdly, you seem to imply that this state was Lenin's creation, and that Lenin could freely have changed the state's format if he had wanted to. This is not so, as the Soviet state (at least in its initial stages, until the counter-revolution during the late 1920s) was rooted in the Soviets which had first made their appearance as a spontaneous response to economic deprivation and political oppression during the 1905 revolution, and became more widespread during the period of dual power, after the February Revolution, with power being concentrated in the hands of regional and urban Soviets, which drew their power and representatives from Soviets representing smaller units, such as districts and individual factories. This state was in a sense spontaneous because it was not the artificial design of any party or political leader, and when Lenin and other members of the Bolsheviks assumed positions (such as chairman of Sovnarkom in the case of Lenin) they did so as a result of being elected, and served alongside members of other political parties, such as the Left-SRs, with laws being passed by a body - the Congress of Soviets - comprised of delegates from a wide range of political organizations, and subject to instant recall. For this reason it is wrong to assume that Lenin could freely have changed the functioning of Soviet politics if he had wished and the only way to understand the tendency towards bureaucratization and the convergence of the Bolsheviks and the state in the late 1920s is to examine changes in material conditions, and the international situation, instead of relying on idealist accusations of personal authoritarianism on Lenin's part.


it was Lenin who prevented it, it was he destroyed the functioning Soviet democracyMaybe you could offer some more explanation this point.


in my opinion, he must have readily abandoned when he realised he had a chance at seizing power.So are you saying that the Russian Revolution failed because Lenin as an individual was intent on gaining power at the expense of popular democracy? Putting aside the facts that contradict this, this seems to suggest a philosophy of history that gives individuals the power to shape the course of events, instead of vesting historical agency in the hands of classes, and recognizing the fundamental role of material conditions. Do you think this is problematic in any way?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally Posted by Howard509
The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point."Pure" Communism in the Russia was ruined long before Stalin, it was Lenin who prevented it, it was he destroyed the functioning Soviet democracy. Any libertarian ideas Lenin had, in my opinion, he must have readily abandoned when he realised he had a chance at seizing power. As Mikhail Bakunin said, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tzar himself."

Bobkindles pretty much nailed this issue of Stalin. Russia could not escape it's fate of isolation and so Stalin provided an alternate path (definitvely away from socialsim) - if he had not existed, some other person would have come to try and meet the needs of the social forces that Stalin represented.

It is an equally shallow analysis to say that what happened in the early years after the revolution came because Lenin suddenly had power. This is reality, there are no cursed rings that make people greedy when you wear it.

Makhno went from leading a egalitarian army at the beginning to becoming a autocratic warlord - was this because he suddenly became greedy or because his army was unsustainable and he was isolated and under attack? Most anarchists will say the circumstances made the untimate difference, not some failing of personality or character. This is also the situation the Russian workers and Bolsheviks were in after the Revolution.

[ComradeOm]

The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin is one of the most anarchist texts ever written. It explains how a future without government and exploitation is possibleThe suggestion that State & Revolution is 'anarchistic' is something that I've heard before; from anarchists naturally. It echoes the opinions of actual anarchists in 1917 that Lenin was somehow "retreating from Marxist dogma" and "applying anarcho-syndicalist methods of struggle". Both views are naturally nonsense and born of a fundamental misunderstanding of both Lenin and Marxism


As Mikhail Bakunin said, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tzar himself."Wow. Its a good thing that Lenin never possessed "absolute power" then, isn't it?

[The Feral Underclass]

The suggestion that State & Revolution is 'anarchistic' is something that I've heard before; from anarchists naturally. It echoes the opinions of actual anarchists in 1917 that Lenin was somehow "retreating from Marxist dogma" and "applying anarcho-syndicalist methods of struggle". Both views are naturally nonsense and born of a fundamental misunderstanding of both Lenin and Marxism

I absolutely agree. Anyone who thinks that Lenin stood for actual workers power and democracy is clearly misguided.

[revolution inaction]

The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point.

you should read this http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

edit: and this http://libcom.org/library/my-disillusionment-in-russia-emma-goldman

[ComradeOm]

I absolutely agree. Anyone who thinks that Lenin stood for actual workers power and democracy is clearly misguided.Which just demonstrates that some attitudes never really change. Lenin was either at times an anarchist (or anarchist influenced) or he was a worker eating monster. In the traditional anarchist critique there is little room for subtleties

[The Feral Underclass]

Which just demonstrates that some attitudes never really change. Lenin was either at times an anarchist (or anarchist influenced) or he was a worker eating monster. In the traditional anarchist critique there is little room for subtleties

I am quite confident that you haven't the faintest idea what the "traditional anarchist critique" actually is.

And let's not get all hyperbolic. I am not suggesting for one minute that Lenin was a worker eating monster. He was simply wrong.

[BobKKKindle$]

I am quite confident that you haven't the faintest idea what the "traditional anarchist critique" actually is.

And let's not get all hyperbolic. I am not suggesting for one minute that Lenin was a worker eating monster. He was simply wrong.

There seems to be an inconsistency in the anarchist narrative of the Russian Revolution. On the one hand many anarchists seem to argue that Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks cynically used revolutionary slogans to win the confidence of the working class and then grabbed power as soon as they had the opportunity for their own benefit, discarding whatever support for workers control they might have, and using state violence to contain working-class resistance. But now you're saying that it was because "he was wrong", i.e. that the failure of the revolution was the result of a mistake on an intellectual level, isolated from praxis. Both of these explanations lack historical evidence and are based on the assumption that Lenin exercised a complete hegemony over both the Bolsheviks and the Soviet state but if you're going to have a simplistic explanation for a complex process you should at least make sure you have a coherent line of argument. I and other Marxists of course recognize that the Bolsheviks were an intensely democratic party and we pay attention to the material conditions and events that led to the Bolsheviks being the only party in government as well as the eventual degeneration of the revolution, but I don't expect anarchists to reach that level of sophistication. It's both amusing and unsurprising that the anarchist narrative of the revolution bears strong similarities to the accounts of right-wing historians as in both cases the revolution is characterized as a coup (in complete ignorance of the fact that the revolution was initiated by the MRC of the Petrograd Soviet, with the decision being passed by a number of different organizations, including the Left SRs, as well as a large number of independent delegates) and there is an unquestioning acceptance of the continuity thesis - with Lenin's authoritarianism being "proven" with quotes from WITBD, without any attention to either textual context or the broader intellectual and historical context in which that text was written.

[The Feral Underclass]

There seems to be an inconsistency in the anarchist narrative of the Russian Revolution. On the one hand many anarchists seem to argue that Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks cynically used revolutionary slogans to win the confidence of the working class and then grabbed power as soon as they had the opportunity for their own benefit, discarding whatever support for workers control they might have, and using state violence to contain working-class resistance. But now you're saying that it was because "he was wrong", i.e. that the failure of the revolution was the result of a mistake on an intellectual level, isolated from praxis.

We're talking about State and Revolution...Aren't we?

[anticap]

Chomsky and Zinn are anarchists and they appreciate Lenin's libertarianism in State and Revolution. Too bad that Lenin didn't practice it to the fullest.

He didn't practice it at all, according to this (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech17). (last section, H.1.7)

[Nwoye]

The suggestion that State & Revolution is 'anarchistic' is something that I've heard before; from anarchists naturally. It echoes the opinions of actual anarchists in 1917 that Lenin was somehow "retreating from Marxist dogma" and "applying anarcho-syndicalist methods of struggle". Both views are naturally nonsense and born of a fundamental misunderstanding of both Lenin and Marxism
Well as has been pointed out before on this site and elsewhere, Lenin and the Bolsheviks' original support for worker control through factory committees and their insistence on localized democracy (soviets) was very close in practice to anarcho-syndicalism.

[Old Man Diogenes]

This is reality, there are no cursed rings that make people greedy when you wear it.

Thanks for throwing a joke in there. That made me chuckle. :thumbup1:




Makhno went from leading a egalitarian army at the beginning to becoming a autocratic warlord - was this because he suddenly became greedy or because his army was unsustainable and he was isolated and under attack? Most anarchists will say the circumstances made the untimate difference, not some failing of personality or character. This is also the situation the Russian workers and Bolsheviks were in after the Revolution.

Fair point.

[Old Man Diogenes]

So are you saying that the Russian Revolution failed because Lenin as an individual was intent on gaining power at the expense of popular democracy?

What I'm saying is that the revolution failed when political and economic power became centralized.

[robbo203]

The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point.

You gotta be kidding. Heard of the NEP for instance. In any case, the Soviet capitalist class had become increasingly consolidated over time using its stranglehold on the state to augment its power and wealth - whatever lip service might have been paid to "communism". No ruling class is ever going to just meekly relinguish its position for the sake of an ideal. It require a bottom up working class revolution to overthrow both state and private capitalism for communism ever to stand a chance of being realised

[KC]

I absolutely agree. Anyone who thinks that Lenin stood for actual workers power and democracy is clearly misguided.

Why would you conclude this, based on State & Revolution?

[BobKKKindle$]

What I'm saying is that the revolution failed when political and economic power became centralized.

It's quite possible to argue that the revolution was always heavily centralized. The decision to carry out the overthrow of the Provisional Government wasn't taken by each individual factory or district Soviet, it was taken by the military-revolutionary committee of the Petrograd Soviet, which represented an entire city, with the seizure of power being organized in a similar way in other cities, including Moscow. This was undoubtedly a centralized approach, and the toppling of Kerensky and his fellow ministers, in terms of the physical taking-over of important buildings, was likewise carried out in a structured fashion, with detachments of the Red Guard being ordered to take control of strategic locations such as railway stations and telegraph exchanges at appointed times. In much the same way, the major laws of the Soviet state (including the decree on land, which abolished private property in the countryside, and various other laws passed during the first days of Soviet government, leading to the enforcement of the minimum wage, the eight-hour day, and the granting of rights to women, and national minorities) were not carried out by a large number of individual Soviets acting independently of one another - they were passed by the All-Russia Congress of Soviets when it was in session, and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in between sessions, which had the authority to pass laws on behalf of the entire territory under Soviet control, and consisted of delegates from a range of organizations, with each delegate representing a large area, and a significant number of people. In the economic sphere, the Supreme Economic Council was created in December 1917, democratically, of course - two months after the revolution - to coordinate the economy and carry out the nationalization of major enterprises.

So given that the revolution and the post-revolutionary government were always centralized (something which I endorse totally as a Marxist) it seems that the only conclusions you can accept in order to remain coherent with your opinion on when the revolution failed was that the revolution failed immediately or that there was never a revolution in the first place. This begs the question of why you see centralization as a bad thing and necessarily in conflict with Soviet democracy.


We're talking about State and Revolution...Aren't we? Yes, and?

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, and?

And he was wrong.

[ComradeOm]

Well as has been pointed out before on this site and elsewhere, Lenin and the Bolsheviks' original support for worker control through factory committees and their insistence on localized democracy (soviets) was very close in practice to anarcho-syndicalism.It requires a complete ignorance of Marxist theory however to suggest that this was anarcho-syndicalism or that Lenin had suddenly started reading, or otherwise become influenced by, anarchist literature. To state that "much that passes for 'Marxism' in State and Revolution is pure anarchism", to quote Bookchin from anticap's link above, is just nonsense. State & Revolution is pure Marxism, just not the same Marxism that anarchists have been knocking for over a century

[BobKKKindle$]

And he was wrong.

So are you saying that the Russian Revolution failed because Lenin made an intellectual error (the exact nature of which you haven't outlined) or because he and his comrades were intent on accumulating power for themselves and never cared about the future of the Russian proletariat? It seems to me that it has to be one or the other, because both of these characterizations rely on totally different interpretations of Bolshevik ideology - the former sees it as something that was flawed but genuinely believed-in by members of the Bolsheviks including Lenin, whereas the latter sees it as a discourse that was used cynically to manipulate workers into supporting a party that was interested only in power for itself, especially its leadership. I've found that many anarchist accounts tend to rely heavily on the second characterization but I'd be interested to see what you think, as at the moment you tend to be saying that Lenin was simply wrong in an intellectual sense and that if he had been right then there might never have been any problems in Russia. This is a strange way to view history I think, because my understanding of history is rooted in class struggle, and not the decisions of individuals, and I don't regard ideas as existing independently of material conditions. Nonetheless, tell me what you think.

One more thing - it's important that both of the anarchist narratives I outlined above rely on the assumption that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had the ability to seize all power for themselves without encountering either institutional constraints or mass resistance from below. This is an unfounded assumption.

[The Feral Underclass]

So are you saying that the Russian Revolution failed because Lenin made an intellectual error (the exact nature of which you haven't outlined) or because he and his comrades were intent on accumulating power for themselves and never cared about the future of the Russian proletariat?

A bit of both. But primarily neither.

[BobKKKindle$]

A bit of both. But primarily neither.

Ok, maybe you could outline your understanding of what led the revolution to fail, and explain in a bit more detail in what way you see Lenin as being "wrong". I'm asking with genuine curiosity.

[The Feral Underclass]

Ok, maybe you could outline your understanding of what led the revolution to fail, and explain in a bit more detail in what way you see Lenin as being "wrong". I'm asking with genuine curiosity.

I'm not interested in having this conversation with you. Sorry.

[Dowshy]

I'm not interested in having this conversation with you. Sorry.


Why not?

[Tower of Bebel]

The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish he state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after theproletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.Kautsky's controversy with Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch06.htm#s3)

[The Feral Underclass]

Why not?

Because clearly I'd like to talk more about why I won't have the conversation.

Erm, because it would be a drawn out, convaluted and pointless exchange between two immovable opinions.

[Howard509]

"Pure" Communism in the Russia was ruined long before Stalin, it was Lenin who prevented it, it was he destroyed the functioning Soviet democracy. Any libertarian ideas Lenin had, in my opinion, he must have readily abandoned when he realised he had a chance at seizing power. As Mikhail Bakunin said, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tzar himself."

I have mixed feelings about Lenin and Trotsky. I need to learn more about them both, but I can say for certain that I'd never be a fan of Stalin.

[Howard509]

The suggestion that State & Revolution is 'anarchistic' is something that I've heard before; from anarchists naturally. It echoes the opinions of actual anarchists in 1917 that Lenin was somehow "retreating from Marxist dogma" and "applying anarcho-syndicalist methods of struggle". Both views are naturally nonsense and born of a fundamental misunderstanding of both Lenin and Marxism


I should have used the term libertarian rather than anarchist.

[Dowshy]

Because clearly I'd like to talk more about why I won't have the conversation.

Erm, because it would be a drawn out, convaluted and pointless exchange between two immovable opinions.

Weak.

[anticap]

I should have used the term libertarian rather than anarchist.

Same difference, really: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian

[Howard509]

Same difference, really: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian

Every anarchist is libertarian but not every libertarian is anarchist. I think there are libertarian socialists who disagree with anarchism. I use the term "left-libertarian" for myself, because "socialism" has too many negative connotations.

[anticap]

Every anarchist is libertarian but not every libertarian is anarchist. I think there are libertarian socialists who disagree with anarchism. I use the term "left-libertarian" for myself, because "socialism" has too many negative connotations.

Did you read the piece? It's true that "libertarian" has been taken in any number of directions over time, but it isn't true that we should accept that.

"Libertarian" is short for "anti-authoritarian," which is the fundamental core of anarchism. Does this mean that all libertarians are anarchists? Well, that depends how lax you are when applying the "libertarian" label. If you allow right-"libertarians" to get away with using that label to refer to their ultra-capitalism, then I'd agree with you that "not every libertarian is anarchist." But why would you be so lax? Pro-capitalists are, by definition, not anti-authoritarians.

So it really is the same difference: if "libertarian" means what it says, then it means the same thing that "anarchist" does.

[Old Man Diogenes]

drawn out, convaluted and pointless exchange between two immovable opinions.

So are most the threads made here, Anarchists and Council communists saying the Russian revolution failed, Marxist-Leninists and some Marxists defending it. And both think they're right. :confused:

[Howard509]

I honestly don't understand how this forum exists. What's the concept behind it? Do authoritarian communists and anarchists belong on the same forum?

[anticap]

I honestly don't understand how this forum exists. What's the concept behind it? Do authoritarian communists and anarchists belong on the same forum?

I don't see the problem. The concept behind the forum is stated in the upper left corner: to provide a "home" for "the revolutionary left," which describes both Marxists and anarchists. If the concept were to provide a home for the reactionary right, then there would likewise be a range of opinion.

[chegitz guevara]

The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point.

That is non-materialist thinking. It wasn't Stalin's personality that created what the USSR became. It was the USSR's isolation and lack of development. Trotsky would have faced the same conditions. Perhaps the USSR wouldn't have been so ruthless and it wouldn't have eaten itself, but it's not as if Trotsky was known as a democrat himself. Look at how he ran the Fourth International.

[Nwoye]

That is non-materialist thinking. It wasn't Stalin's personality that created what the USSR became. It was the USSR's isolation and lack of development. Trotsky would have faced the same conditions. Perhaps the USSR wouldn't have been so ruthless and it wouldn't have eaten itself, but it's not as if Trotsky was known as a democrat himself. Look at how he ran the Fourth International.
I understand that you're coming from a genuinely materialist perspective here, but I think in keeping with that analysis we have to put blame on Stalin for how the USSR degenerated (hell we have to put blame on Lenin and Trotsky and all the Bolsheviks). Yes all decisions made were comprehensible given the material conditions facing Russia and the Bolsheviks (isolation, civil war, opposing reactionary parties, etc etc) but we still must acknowledge the the error in the various policies or actions taken by the Bolshevik party.

[Misanthrope]

The Soviet state would have transitioned into pure communist anarchism if not for Stalin. I agree with Trotsky on this point.

Yeah...:rolleyes: Anyway..

I could care less about Lenin's works. Actions speak louder than words.

[chegitz guevara]

but we still must acknowledge the the error in the various policies or actions taken by the Bolshevik party.

That is true, but irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. One should not engage in magical thinking that simply by replacing Stalin with Trotksy, rainbows would have ushered forth from Moscow and commissars riding unicorns leading an army of bunnies would have liberated the world. Post-Stalin USSR wasn't really that bad, compared to what came before, but it was certainly no stateless society. The only way for the USSR to become a free society was for the revolution to spread. That might have been more likely with Trotsky in charge, but we can only speculate. It's possible there might have been a revolution in Germany, rather than a Nazi takeover, but we can never know how probable that was.

Rakunin asked about Trotsky being an autocrat. Lenin noted it even back in 1923, in his "testament." As for how he ran the Fourth International, the acrimony in the Trotskyist movement, even while the old man was alive was apparent even then. Being part of the 4I basically meant agreeing with Trotsky. If you didn't, you left.

[Tower of Bebel]

Rakunin asked about Trotsky being an autocrat. Lenin noted it even back in 1923, in his "testament." As for how he ran the Fourth International, the acrimony in the Trotskyist movement, even while the old man was alive was apparent even then. Being part of the 4I basically meant agreeing with Trotsky. If you didn't, you left.If this is true its possibly another case of ealry militarization in preparation for a period of (civil) wars and revolutions? Or maybe because someone also wanted to kill him.

However, in the Transitional Programme he retraces his steps and demands the political independence of soviets and trade unions in the Soviet Union.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not trying to demonize Trotsky. I'm just saying he wasn't perfect and that it isn't necessarily the case that everything would have been hearts and rainbows if he'd won the power struggle instead of Koba.