Who is the more true revolutionary? Revisionists or Anti-revisionists?

[palooko]

I am pulling together statements to compare and contrast on what you think is the proper path to achieve true Revolutionary Communism. Will it be that of the Revisionists, who believe in the teachings of Trotsky and the leftist communist movements that revolution should be focused on the workers and/or by the workers, etc? Or would it be anti-revisionists, who believe that Marx - Lenin - Stalin - Mao is the correct line and favor a central vanguard as well as Mao's mass line? Or is it somewhere in between?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Can we maybe not make threads that'll transform into a massive tendency war? :rolleyes:

[Искра]

They all suck... viva la anarchy :laugh:

[Durruti's Ghost]

Are anarchists considered revisionist, or does the revisionist/anti-revisionist dichotomy only apply to Marxist tendencies?

[Искра]

I think that we are out of this division.
But, this is kind of anarchistic, don't you think?


Revisionists, who believe in the teachings of Trotsky and the leftist communist movements that revolution should be focused on the workers and/or by the workers, etc?

[Kibbutznik]

The divide isn't so much a divide between vanguard or no vanguard, the divide is between popular revolution from below vs. revolution imposed from above.

Before the Third Period in the Comintern, the word "vanguard" carried a very different connotation then it often does. Even anarchists considered a well organized vanguard, educating, agitating and organizing the proletariat in the class struggle an important pre-condition for revolution.

The difference is what form that vanguard will take: will it be an insular cadre of intellectuals who will merely put themselves at the head of the bourgeois state, or an open and diverse group of revolutionaries who seek to promote authentically socialist forms of organization?

[palooko]

Insertnamehere, I'm not really asking for a chaotic debate. Just single statements focused directly on the question at hand. I do know this is a difficult question, but I was hoping to collect a wealth of responses for an informative project site I'm working on.

Durruti's ghost, I specified at the begininning "Revolutionary Communism," albeit all input is welcome as long as it is not purposely only to encourage arguments. Anarcho-communism is considered reformist or revisionist.

Kibbutznik - I was referring to Vanguard in the sense of Leninism. A vanguard which is a collection of the most advance elements and intellectuals of the revolutionary proletariat.

[red cat]

I am pulling together statements to compare and contrast on what you think is the proper path to achieve true Revolutionary Communism. Will it be that of the Revisionists, who believe in the teachings of Trotsky and the leftist communist movements that revolution should be focused on the workers and/or by the workers, etc? Or would it be anti-revisionists, who believe that Marx - Lenin - Stalin - Mao is the correct line and favor a central vanguard as well as Mao's mass line? Or is it somewhere in between?

Every other tendency(except possibly the Clandestine Communist Party of Colombia) has been unable to continue the practice of armed struggle, which is central to the revolutionary goal of the working class seizing power.

Hence...

VIVA MAOISMO !

[LOLseph Stalin]

Are anarchists considered revisionist, or does the revisionist/anti-revisionist dichotomy only apply to Marxist tendencies?

From what I know, the Revisionism/Anti-Revisionism thing only applies to Marxist tendencies. Anarchism is separate as a person can be Anarchist while not being Marxist.

And Palooko, these threads always transform into tendency wars since one tendency will try to discredit the other.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Durruti's ghost, I specified at the begininning "Revolutionary Communism," albeit all input is welcome as long as it is not purposely only to encourage arguments. Anarcho-communism is considered reformist or revisionist.


Do you mean to say that anarchist communism is not revolutionary communism? How so? We aim to achieve communism via a revolution; does this not make us revolutionary communists?

Anyway, as far as I know, Lenin's conception of the vanguard party was not meant to be a group above and separate from the proletariat itself; nor was it supposed to attempt to impose its will on the proletariat. I don't think this is actually how the Bolsheviks acted during the Russian Revolution, but that doesn't mean he intended it to turn out that way. Obviously, there's going to be a "vanguard" whether we like it or not--not all elements within the working class will not achieve the same level of consciousness at the same time. However, I would say that the vanguard should not attempt to seize/smash the State on its own; the revolution itself should be an act of the entire proletariat, with the vanguard element simply working to raise consciousness among the workers to the necessary level.

[Искра]

Do you mean to say that anarchist communism is not revolutionary communism? How so? We aim to achieve communism via a revolution; does this not make us revolutionary communists?

Anyway, as far as I know, Lenin's conception of the vanguard party was not meant to be a group above and separate from the proletariat itself; nor was it supposed to attempt to impose its will on the proletariat. I don't think this is actually how the Bolsheviks acted during the Russian Revolution, but that doesn't mean he intended it to turn out that way. Obviously, there's going to be a "vanguard" whether we like it or not--not all elements within the working class will not achieve the same level of consciousness at the same time. However, I would say that the vanguard should not attempt to seize/smash the State on its own; the revolution itself should be an act of the entire proletariat, with the vanguard element simply working to raise consciousness among the workers to the necessary level.

Wow, comrade... I can't say that I agree with you. Especially with your Bolshevik analysis.
I'm coplitley against vanguard elements. Off course, there will always be comrades which are more educated, and which are familiar with ideology and stuff, but these people are not vanguard, they are not above proletariat. They are same as proletariat (they are part of proletariat) and they can only suggest proletariat... nothing more. As, you said the revolution itself should be an act of the entire proletariat.

Down with leaders and vanguard.

[palooko]

Durruti's Ghost - I wasn't excluding anarcho-communism, but anarchism as I thought you were solely making a reference to just general anarchism. I view anarcho-communism as revolutionary and is open to the discussion.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Off course, there will always be comrades which are more educated, and which are familiar with ideology and stuff, but these people are not vanguard, they are not above proletariat.

Yes, but as far as I know, the more educated, more revolutionary elements of the proletariat ARE the vanguard, at least in theory.

Like I said, I don't believe the Bolsheviks behaved in the manner the vanguard was supposed to, perhaps because they attempted to carry out the revolution as a group separate from the proletariat, which was possibly in itself a result of attempting the revolution in a society where the proletariat was not a majority of the general population.

[n0thing]

Please show where Marx wrote about a vanguard, a cult of personality, a literal dictatorship, etc.

Here is what you can expect from a "anti-revisionist" regime: 40-80 years of a miserable, bureaucratic dictatorship disguised as a socialist democracy, then a painful transition back to capitalism.

All of Eastern Europe, Russia, China and Vietnam already ran the course. Cuba looks well on it's way to the final leg, North Korea and Laos will probably finish themselves off within the next few decades.

That ideology is poison.

[Искра]

Yes, but as far as I know, the more educated, more revolutionary elements of the proletariat ARE the vanguard, at least in theory.
But that dosen't make them a vanguard, because they are the same as proletariat when it comes to making decisions.

[palooko]

From what I understand, this is because in the beginning during the revolution, the Bolsheviks were mainly composed of left communists, until they started growing more into power and got corrupted by bureaucracy. I think the left communists use the term vanguard loosely as an open and collective group of ideas and theories albeit totally opposing the meaning from Leninists who use it to refer to a centralized party of advanced revolutionaries and intellectuals.


Yes, but as far as I know, the more educated, more revolutionary elements of the proletariat ARE the vanguard, at least in theory.

Like I said, I don't believe the Bolsheviks behaved in the manner the vanguard was supposed to, perhaps because they attempted to carry out the revolution as a group separate from the proletariat, which was possibly in itself a result of attempting the revolution in a society where the proletariat was not a majority of the general population.

[Durruti's Ghost]

But that dosen't make them a vanguard, because they are the same as proletariat when it comes to making decisions.

I'm just going by what some of the Marxists on the forum have said they mean by the term "vanguard".

[Durruti's Ghost]

From what I understand, this is because in the beginning during the revolution, the Bolsheviks were mainly composed of left communists, until they started growing more into power and got corrupted by bureaucracy. I think the left communists use the term vanguard loosely as an open and collective group of ideas and theories albeit totally opposing the meaning from Leninists who use it to refer to a centralized party of advanced revolutionaries and intellectuals.

That would explain the differences in terminology. I'm not as familiar as I should be with the history of the Russian Revolution, unfortunately. However, if this is correct, I would have no objection to the left-communist conception of the vanguard. I would be far more suspicious of a vanguard that was more formally organized, and I would be outright hostile to a vanguard organized along hierarchical lines.

[Искра]

I'm just going by what some of the Marxists on the forum have said they mean by the term "vanguard".

Well, everybody says something different. It's like you are talking with philosophy students (which is my worst nightmare).

To me vanguard means group of people which is here to lead "stupid proletariat". They are above and proletariat can't control it.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well, everybody says something different. It's like you are talking with philosophy students (which is my worst nightmare).

To me vanguard means group of people which is here to lead "stupid proletariat". They are above and proletariat can't control it.

And that, I think, is what the Bolsheviks ended up becoming, despite some of the members' best intentions. I obviously oppose such an organization.

[Искра]

And that, I think, is what the Bolsheviks ended up becoming, despite some of the members' best intentions. I obviously oppose such an organization.
I think that they were that from the start, especially Lenin who's always been one shrewd bastard.

[Bright Banana Beard]

A anti-revisionist is more true revolutionary due to maintaining and fighting for international socialism and opposing private property at utmost.

A revisionist, in my opinion, can be applied to anyone who strays from Marxism to reconciles with the imperialism, promoting or maintaining private property, and/or not fighting for international socialism. Such people as this is Deng, Tito, Khrushchev, etc.

This applied to Marxism. However, but it depends on different tendency such as Marxist-Leninist, Autonomous Marxist, Trotskyist, etc.

[JohannGE]

I am pulling together statements to compare and contrast on what you think is the proper path to achieve true Revolutionary Communism. Will it be that of the Revisionists, who believe in the teachings of Trotsky and the leftist communist movements that revolution should be focused on the workers and/or by the workers, etc? Or would it be anti-revisionists, who believe that Marx - Lenin - Stalin - Mao is the correct line and favor a central vanguard as well as Mao's mass line? Or is it somewhere in between?

There's only one way to find out:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6gyUb0E7o

---
(edit...just noticed the heading:-

Theory A place for indepth discussions on Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Leninism, anarchism, and other politically theoretical topics.

If any mod considers my reply is too shallow (in the context of this thread?) please remove)

[n0thing]

Please show where Marx wrote about a vanguard, a cult of personality, a literal dictatorship, etc.

Here is what you can expect from a "anti-revisionist" regime: 40-80 years of a miserable, bureaucratic dictatorship disguised as a socialist democracy, then a painful transition back to capitalism.

All of Eastern Europe, Russia, China and Vietnam already ran the course. Cuba looks well on it's way to the final leg, North Korea and Laos will probably finish themselves off within the next few decades.

That ideology is poison.
I've just been informed that Laos is basically a capitalist country as of recently, and is setting up a stock market next year.

There goes another one.

[Devrim]

I think that the problem with this thread is in the OP's question.

It is a bit like asking "Which is more ambidextrous, a goldfish bowl or Wednesday"?

None of the Stalinists are revolutionary, they are as Bordiga called Stalin to his face in 1926, the gravediggers of the revolution.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

None of the Stalinists are revolutionary, they are as Bordiga called Stalin to his face in 1926, the gravediggers of the revolution.

He really did that? Could you elaborate on this event?

[Devrim]

He really did that? Could you elaborate on this event?
He attended his last meeting of the Executive Committee of the Comintern in 1926, the same year in which he confronted Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin face-to-face. In his final confrontation with Stalin in Moscow in 1926, Bordiga proposed that all the Communist Parties of the world should jointly rule the Soviet Union, as a demonstration of the supra-national reality of the workers' movement. This proposal was, needless to say, coolly received by Stalin and his friends. Bordiga accused Stalin of betraying the Revolution calling him "the gravedigger of the revolution"; he was the last person to do such a thing and survive.
Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

he was the last person to do such a thing and survive.
Not that too many who did it before him survived too.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think that the problem with this thread is in the OP's question.

It is a bit like asking "Which is more ambidextrous, a goldfish bowl or Wednesday"?

None of the Stalinists are revolutionary, they are as Bordiga called Stalin to his face in 1926, the gravediggers of the revolution.
That, of course. I almost feel as reading a thread about another planet. Who's more revolutionary, Stalin or Khruschev, who believed in the Trotskyist teachings that revolution should "be focused" in the workers?

Who's more Christian, Muhammad or Epicurus, who believed in Maimonides' teachings that God is a pink unicorn?

Luís Henrique

[cenv]

If we talk about which is the "true revolutionary" current of thought, it presupposes a pure revolutionary ideal detached from material reality.

A better question would be: which is more effective -- 'revisionist' or 'anti-revisionist' praxis? So far, the answer seems to be 'neither.'