Why we won't succeed

[index]

This is just my opinion and I hope I am posting in the correct section.

We won't succeed in revolution and spreading socialism if we all have different tendencies. Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and the others... We're just in a constant fight with each other when we have the same goal. does anybody agree with this?

[Revy]

Emphatically. But we also need clarity in our ideas.

[Robocommie]

I agree with the spirit of your comments, and I hate sectarianism, generally. And without a doubt I think it's frustrating the extent to which leftists will imbue disagreements over policy and strategy with a moral fault so that people who disagree with them are not just merely wrong, they are 'bad communists' or even bad people.

That said, the tendencies did not merely arise out of bickering, they arose as a result of disagreements over key issues. While on one hand it may seem like people are merely picking a team and then bashing every other team, very frequently the tendency wars represent legitimate differences of opinion.

[Antifa94]

How about a united coalition of diverse ideologies?

[which doctor]

The most significant part of fighting for communism occurs at the level of proletarian consciousness, thus theoretical differences should be emphasized, not played down. Of course 'sectarianism' is a problem insofar as you have a myriad bunch of tiny left groups hurling insults at each other while the masses continue with their daily business, but the struggle in the realm of theory is one of the most important ones, because it is your theory which informs your practice, and the extent to which it can succeed. Honestly, I think calls for a 'united left' are a horrible idea.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But here's the thing. Who here is ready to look past what happened in the past. As a Marxist-Leninist who supports Maoist views as well, I have no problem whatsoever to fight with Trotskyists or Anarchists. They are comrades of mine. The reason I get critical on them is because they tend to be critical on me & my beliefs. To me, I say let the "stalinists" & trotskyists find common ground & learn that they're not really that all different, especially when it comes to the end goal. Same thing goes with Leninists & Anarchists. I went from an Anarchist to a Marxist-Leninist, because I saw a belief that I could support, in which was gained through understanding common grounds. Until the Trots & "Stalinists" get together, until the Leninists & Anarchists get together, we will lose the revolution. It's that simple.

[Robocommie]

To me, I say let the "stalinists" & trotskyists find common ground & learn that they're not really that all different, especially when it comes to the end goal.

Hah, I said that to some Trotskyist here once, not too long ago, I don't even remember who. But they got pretty pissed off about it. Said the difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism was the difference between socialism and state capitalism, or something like that.

[blackwave]

I refer you to my recent post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/manifesto-united-lefti-t134437/index.html?p=1743092#post1743092

And my new group:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=461

[Hexen]

The only thing we can do is go back to the main source material.

[blake 3:17]

How about a united coalition of diverse ideologies?

I've been part of revolutionary pluralist groups for the past 15 years or so. Some of the hairsplitting is just destructive -- sometimes lines are drawn around issues of real principle. For those involved in left groups/parties and in movements, tensions arise between the actuality of movements and parties. I've tended to be involved in what some might term movementist groups and perhaps downplaying the importance of theoretical cohesion. Within pluralist organizations, differences may be over or underplayed. Simply getting along to get along, doesn't always get us far, and can breed dangerous factionism. What can make sense in a city or a region, or on one campus or workplace can make no sense someplace else not too faraway.


To me, I say let the "stalinists" & trotskyists find common ground & learn that they're not really that all different, especially when it comes to the end goal. Same thing goes with Leninists & Anarchists. I went from an Anarchist to a Marxist-Leninist, because I saw a belief that I could support, in which was gained through understanding common grounds. Until the Trots & "Stalinists" get together, until the Leninists & Anarchists get together, we will lose the revolution. It's that simple.

There are good questions about how to get together. Does that mean building common movements? Building a common press? Do we need common action around specific campaigns or elections? In my neck of the woods, we're coming up to a couple of significant elections in which the Left (that's including moderate social democracy) is very very weak. A good number of us are assuming a basic abstensionist position -- not out of principle from on high, but that there's no one really to support.

That pushes folks on the radical Left in two directions -- the first being lesser evilism, defeat the Right, and the second being a less coherent fuck em all approach. I'm inclined to the latter but realize it's got its shakey points...

[MaoTseHelen]

Divisiveness and getting so caught up in ideology we forget what actually matters to the working class.

[Uppercut]

We all have more in common than we have in difference, as I highly doubt that anybody here wants a totalitarian police state where everybody is monitored up the ass. As I understand it, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists/Maoists want the exact same thing, including:


A democratically planned economy
A workers' democracy where the people directly take part in elections, as well as in planning the economy.
An end to all discrimination and racial/class barriers.
Freedom to voice opinions and the freedom to hold public debates about where to take their community.
Democracy in the army
International solidarity and an intense opposition to national chauvinism.
Equality among men and women
Encouragement among the youth to get involved in politics and decision-making about things that actually matter.
Replace the current social values with new, more logical values.

I say we'd be better off to just knock off the tendencies and offshoots, and just form a massive united front with a neutral party or organizational name. Of course, this is coming from someone who calls himself a Maoist, although I wouldn't mind just considering myself simply a Communist. As long as the workers are free, and they have a strong defense and consciousness, that's what matters.

[Victory Of The People!]

We all have more in common than we have in difference, as I highly doubt that anybody here wants a totalitarian police state where everybody is monitored up the ass. As I understand it, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists/Maoists want the exact same thing, including:


A democratically planned economy
A workers' democracy where the people directly take part in elections, as well as in planning the economy.
An end to all discrimination and racial/class barriers.
Freedom to voice opinions and the freedom to hold public debates about where to take their community.
Democracy in the army
International solidarity and an intense opposition to national chauvinism.
Equality among men and women
Encouragement among the youth to get involved in politics and decision-making about things that actually matter.
Replace the current social values with new, more logical values.

I say we'd be better off to just knock off the tendencies and offshoots, and just form a massive united front with a neutral party or organizational name. Of course, this is coming from someone who calls himself a Maoist, although I wouldn't mind just considering myself simply a Communist. As long as the workers are free, they have a strong defense and consciousness, so long as artistic expression and freedom of choice is permitted, I don't care what I call myself. I just want an end to capitalism and a beginning of a brotherhood/sisterhood of men and women, young and old.

You are absolutely right that we have FAR MORE in common with one another than with our class enemies and we should never forget that.

If you want to see the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of a planned economy run by and for the workers/peasants, and you are a true internationalist then you are a
COMMUNIST!

How about instead of calling each other "Trotskyists," "Maoists," "Marxist-Leninists," and so on we call each other what we ought to be called... COMRADES!

LONG LIVE THE WORLDWIDE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION!

[Niccolò Rossi]

Why do we have to have these same threads every week?

Nic.

[Astinilats]

Unity with Trots and Anarchists would spell the death of any possible revolution in America. Trotskyites are almost universally counter-revolutionary in the extreme and wedded to meaningless forms of "struggle" that amount to selling people newspapers. Anarchists are stupid and smelly idiots.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Unity with Trots and Anarchists would spell the death of any possible revolution in America. Trotskyites are almost universally counter-revolutionary in the extreme and wedded to meaningless forms of "struggle" that amount to selling people newspapers. Anarchists are stupid and smelly idiots.

We all have our roles within the revolution. To knock off fellow comrades who have certain hands within such revolution would be highly detrimental to our movement.

[Foldered]

Unity with Trots and Anarchists would spell the death of any possible revolution in America. Trotskyites are almost universally counter-revolutionary in the extreme and wedded to meaningless forms of "struggle" that amount to selling people newspapers. Anarchists are stupid and smelly idiots.
Hey man, I shower.

[Agnapostate]

None of those tendencies, if they had a coherent ideology and united followers, would be implemented in the first world in our lifetimes anyway.

[Invincible Summer]

The only thing we can do is go back to the main source material.

IMO that risks orthodox Marxism that is sort of a turn-off. An example would be the notion that anyone who isn't clearly in either the proletariat or bourgeoisie (e.g. middle-management), despite their sympathies, is "reactionary" and judged harshly.

Plus, it's antiquated as hell and makes the left seem like religious nuts who rely on some dusty text as their shining light

[Chambered Word]

We all have more in common than we have in difference, as I highly doubt that anybody here wants a totalitarian police state where everybody is monitored up the ass. As I understand it, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists/Maoists want the exact same thing, including:


A democratically planned economy
A workers' democracy where the people directly take part in elections, as well as in planning the economy.
An end to all discrimination and racial/class barriers.
Freedom to voice opinions and the freedom to hold public debates about where to take their community.
Democracy in the army
International solidarity and an intense opposition to national chauvinism.
Equality among men and women
Encouragement among the youth to get involved in politics and decision-making about things that actually matter.
Replace the current social values with new, more logical values.

I say we'd be better off to just knock off the tendencies and offshoots, and just form a massive united front with a neutral party or organizational name. Of course, this is coming from someone who calls himself a Maoist, although I wouldn't mind just considering myself simply a Communist. As long as the workers are free, they have a strong defense and consciousness, so long as artistic expression and freedom of choice is permitted, I don't care what I call myself. I just want an end to capitalism and a beginning of a brotherhood/sisterhood of men and women, young and old.

Didn't know there were so-called Marxist-Leninists who liked that shit. If you want workers' democracy, then you're a comrade of mine.


Unity with Trots and Anarchists would spell the death of any possible revolution in America. Trotskyites are almost universally counter-revolutionary in the extreme and wedded to meaningless forms of "struggle" that amount to selling people newspapers. Anarchists are stupid and smelly idiots.

Go and fuck yourself. Seriously.

[revolution inaction]

I think this idea of a united movement comes from a failure to understand the politics of the different groups, i don't see how any one who understood both anarchism and leninism could possibly think that we are part of the same movement, or that our differences are insignificant.
I think it also come from a failure to recognise that we need to orientate our activity towards the working class not the left. The revolution is not going to be carried out by the left, it will be the workers that make the revolution. So having a bigger organisation doesn't mean we are any closer to revolution, what matters is the consciousness and activity of the working class as a whole.

[AK]

Unity with Trots and Anarchists would spell the death of any possible revolution in America. Trotskyites are almost universally counter-revolutionary in the extreme and wedded to meaningless forms of "struggle" that amount to selling people newspapers. Anarchists are stupid and smelly idiots.
What. A. Prick.

Truth be told, it is pretty impossible for the revolutionary left to unite. Whilst we all want the same end-product, there are a few major differences in our strategies of how to acheive it that ultimately divide us indefinitely.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Didn't know there were so-called Marxist-Leninists who liked that shit. If you want workers' democracy, then you're a comrade of mine.


Why would we not want a workers democracy?

[The Red Next Door]

Unity with Trots and Anarchists would spell the death of any possible revolution in America. Trotskyites are almost universally counter-revolutionary in the extreme and wedded to meaningless forms of "struggle" that amount to selling people newspapers. Anarchists are stupid and smelly idiots.

We are not going to achieve nada with that attitude.

[The Red Next Door]

Why would we not want a workers democracy?
Marxist Leninist= state capitalists= state control the factories instead of workers under centralism.

[Uppercut]

Marxist Leninist= state capitalists= state control the factories instead of workers under centralism.

You need to do some more research on democratic centralism and how workers can still have significant control and say in their workplace through nationalization. The whole Marxism-Leninism=state capitalism needs to stop.

[Stand Your Ground]

We all have more in common than we have in difference, as I highly doubt that anybody here wants a totalitarian police state where everybody is monitored up the ass. As I understand it, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists/Maoists want the exact same thing, including:


A democratically planned economy
A workers' democracy where the people directly take part in elections, as well as in planning the economy.
An end to all discrimination and racial/class barriers.
Freedom to voice opinions and the freedom to hold public debates about where to take their community.
Democracy in the army
International solidarity and an intense opposition to national chauvinism.
Equality among men and women
Encouragement among the youth to get involved in politics and decision-making about things that actually matter.
Replace the current social values with new, more logical values.
I say we'd be better off to just knock off the tendencies and offshoots, and just form a massive united front with a neutral party or organizational name. Of course, this is coming from someone who calls himself a Maoist, although I wouldn't mind just considering myself simply a Communist. As long as the workers are free, and they have a strong defense and consciousness, that's what matters.
This is what we need. We should think of a new name that unites all of us. Like the New World Communist Party or something.

[index]

We all have more in common than we have in difference, as I highly doubt that anybody here wants a totalitarian police state where everybody is monitored up the ass. As I understand it, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists/Maoists want the exact same thing, including:


A democratically planned economy
A workers' democracy where the people directly take part in elections, as well as in planning the economy.
An end to all discrimination and racial/class barriers.
Freedom to voice opinions and the freedom to hold public debates about where to take their community.
Democracy in the army
International solidarity and an intense opposition to national chauvinism.
Equality among men and women
Encouragement among the youth to get involved in politics and decision-making about things that actually matter.
Replace the current social values with new, more logical values.

I say we'd be better off to just knock off the tendencies and offshoots, and just form a massive united front with a neutral party or organizational name. Of course, this is coming from someone who calls himself a Maoist, although I wouldn't mind just considering myself simply a Communist. As long as the workers are free, and they have a strong defense and consciousness, that's what matters.
Can we just make a new name... Screw Bolshevik-Leninist/Trotskyist,Maoist,Marxist-Leninist... Let's just make ONE name: Communist.

[Revy]

Can we just make a new name... Screw Bolshevik-Leninist/Trotskyist,Maoist,Marxist-Leninist... Let's just make ONE name: Communist.

There are people that already do that. The solution isn't "uniting the different tendencies" it's forgetting them. I don't belong to any of those tendencies.

[The Red Next Door]

You need to do some more research on democratic centralism and how workers can still have significant control and say in their workplace through nationalization. The whole Marxism-Leninism=state capitalism needs to stop.
Already did, you do know i am with the PSL, i was just stating what others thinks.

[Q]

There are people that already do that. The solution isn't "uniting the different tendencies" it's forgetting them. I don't belong to any of those tendencies.
No, the solution is not to forget differences, but to discuss them openly. The key to unity, in my opinion, is twofold: programmatical unity (as opposed to theoretical unity) and the open right to disagree, declare tendencies, openly discuss your differences. Open discussion is important to come to an effective programme of action, a successful programme of action is important to ensure unity. Programmatical unity furthermore is about accepting, not agreeing, with the programme.

[blackwave]

Why do we have to have these same threads every week?

Nic.

Because it's important. We really need to start a united front! I am absolutely adamant about it.
I can provide some webspace and a subdomain if anyone wants to start something.

Oh, and even I, a relative newcomer, know that Leninists only support 'state capitalism', if you will, as a means to an end. And that end is anarchy, egalitarian communism, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

And we should neither 'forget' tendencies, nor obsess over them. We should temporarily put them aside for the sake of mass organisation. Once we are fully organised and united, then we can return to the details of means.

[bcbm]

Because it's important. We really need to start a united front!

why?


Oh, and even I, a relative newcomer, know that Leninists only support 'state capitalism', if you will, as a means to an end. And that end is anarchy, egalitarian communism, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

yeah, how has that worked out so far?

[Astinilats]

Go and fuck yourself. Seriously.This person belongs to a Trotskyite group that is a perfect example of what I was talking about. During the big anti-war march recently, members of Socialist Alternative were trying to sell their ridiculous fucking paper. They even fucking were standing in the middle of the god damn march itself trying to sell it. It looked like to one interested person a guy was passing it out, and so he tried to take this shit paper from him without realizing he was trying to sell it, and they got into a tugging match for this ridiculous piece of shit garbage. It was probably the most despicable thing I saw the entire day, even worse than the nonsense the RCP cultists were doing.

Your group is fucking worthless. Why would anyone want to unite with you, when you think doing shit like selling papers in the middle of a march is appropriate? You know that a lot of working class people in the labor movement associate Marxism with peddling newspapers because of ridiculous fucking morons like Socialist Alternative, right?

As far anarchists (in America, at least), anyone who has ever worked in an organization dominated by anarchists knows exactly what I am talking about. They promote the stupidest tactics imaginable, they are all petty-bourgeois white children who don't shower because of their ridiculous lifestyle politics. Anarchism is almost not even a fucking ideology, but a lifestyle associated with terrible music that only rich white children have ever heard of. If they don't dominate your group, you can probably steer them out of this shit, but if they do, there is no point in even associating yourselves with them, unless you prefer the facade of 'Left Unity' over the masses.

[Victory Of The People!]

Unity with Trots and Anarchists would spell the death of any possible revolution in America. Trotskyites are almost universally counter-revolutionary in the extreme and wedded to meaningless forms of "struggle" that amount to selling people newspapers. Anarchists are stupid and smelly idiots.

Astinilats, If you are trying to make a point about the impossibility of uniting extremely different tendencies such as trotskyism and anarchism then please do so by presenting a clear, logical argument against such a formation, but do not just insult two leftist tendencies by calling them idiots and extremists and then make the strong statement that the are "counter-revolutionaries."

I know we all have our differences, and I am not personally attacking you, but we should be able to have a civil debate without hurling insults at one another. Sweeping insults against different tendencies simply leads to further fragmentation of the left.

However, in your defense, i think you bring up (albeit very indirectly) two important questions.

1. How can tendencies as different as say "Trotskyists" and "Anarchists" form a United Front?
Here is my answer. Firstly, before calling for broad unity on the left (which i think is needed) I would limit my calls to a United Front to include only those of the same basic ideology (i.e. a United Communist Front ). Then, as a broad Left (i.e. Anti-Capitalist) Coalition that would work together only toward common goals. Let each group (Communists, Anarchists, Socialists, etc.) do its own thing, but come together and fight as one against our common class enemy in an organized fashion when the need arises. In order to do this all the different parties and tendencies would need to be in communication with one another and be willing to work with each other on an as-needed basis. This requires forming new United Front organizations.

I for one am a Communist and would therefore call for a United Communist Front here in the United States, because as i said before, we have far more in common than we have differences.

2. Are sectarian, dogmatic, newspaper-sellers doing anything to further a Communist Revolution in the United States?

Here are my thoughts on the subject. For one, not all Trotskyists are of this type, and to paint them all with the same brush is not right. I myself agree with many of Trotsky's theories (although i do not worship him as a demi-god as some do). Many different tendencies have organizations of this kind, which do nothing but preach to themselves and sell newspapers that workers use to line their kitty-litter boxes.

That being said, they are still our Comrades and we should treat them as such even if we find their methods to be "less-than-effective". Many of these organizations simply have poor leadership coupled with authoritarian practices, which subject the lower cadres to the incompetent policies of consistently unsuccessful elder cadres who occupy unchallengeable positions of power within the party.

Many of the "newspaper-sellers" you are referring to (i.e. the ones actually out there doing the selling for hours in the cold) are young, impressionable, revolutionary-minded individuals who had he misfortune of being sucked into one of these organizations believing them to be true vehicles of revolution. They are oftentimes the hardest working and most eager amongst us and are simply being mislead and/or used by their party or group.

Rather than bashing them as "idiots" and "counter-revolutionaries", we as Communists should try and reach out to these individuals and form genuinely revolutionary organizations with them. Talk to them. Engage in conversation with them. Become their friends. If you belong to a truly revolutionary organization try to win them over to your side by showing them, through good example, what methods work and which do not. Help them to realize that they belong to organizations which are using them as pawns if that is the case. In these cases it is important to engage with them PRIVATELY, and not in the presence of their party, as they will be intimidated into falling into line. It will take time, just be patient with your fellow comrade, as misguided as he/she may be and you will hopefully see results. One defection is usually followed by many more and in this way we can fill the ranks of genuinely revolutionary organizations with those who would otherwise have been led astray.

Remember, none of us were born with our political beliefs. It took us a long time to formulate our ideas and distinguish fact from fiction. Just as people were patient in teaching us, so must we be patient with others.

[Glenn Beck]

I'm all for uniting all the sectarians in one big lefty get together

In GULAG

[khad]

In GULAG
You mean you'll find them all jobs in the department of corrections?

[Glenn Beck]

You mean you'll find them all jobs in the department of corrections?

Oh yes. Great jobs. It's a close knit family in there. Plenty of job-security, most of them are in the business for life.

[The Red Next Door]

This person belongs to a Trotskyite group that is a perfect example of what I was talking about. During the big anti-war march recently, members of Socialist Alternative were trying to sell their ridiculous fucking paper. They even fucking were standing in the middle of the god damn march itself trying to sell it. It looked like to one interested person a guy was passing it out, and so he tried to take this shit paper from him without realizing he was trying to sell it, and they got into a tugging match for this ridiculous piece of shit garbage. It was probably the most despicable thing I saw the entire day, even worse than the nonsense the RCP cultists were doing.

Your group is fucking worthless. Why would anyone want to unite with you, when you think doing shit like selling papers in the middle of a march is appropriate? You know that a lot of working class people in the labor movement associate Marxism with peddling newspapers because of ridiculous fucking morons like Socialist Alternative, right?

As far anarchists (in America, at least), anyone who has ever worked in an organization dominated by anarchists knows exactly what I am talking about. They promote the stupidest tactics imaginable, they are all petty-bourgeois white children who don't shower because of their ridiculous lifestyle politics. Anarchism is almost not even a fucking ideology, but a lifestyle associated with terrible music that only rich white children have ever heard of. If they don't dominate your group, you can probably steer them out of this shit, but if they do, there is no point in even associating yourselves with them, unless you prefer the facade of 'Left Unity' over the masses.
Here a fact check comrade, I know a white anarchist who really like her showers and she is poor as hell. she comes from a working class family, her father lose his job, they almost lost their house. You are just generalizing.
base on probably a bad experience and that just stupid of you, to do so.

[Astinilats]

Astinilats, If you are trying to make a point about the impossibility of uniting extremely different tendencies such as trotskyism and anarchism then please do so by presenting a clear, logical argument against such a formation, but do not just insult two leftist tendencies by calling them idiots and extremists and then make the strong statement that the are "counter-revolutionaries."

I don't think I need to elaborate why in a very detailed manner. Anyone who has been active very long in American radical politics knows this is impossible, even if they believe in other reasons for why it is. I suspect the only people who actually want 'Left Unity' are people who are young, isolated, and very inexperienced in practical struggle.


I know we all have our differences, and I am not personally attacking you, but we should be able to have a civil debate without hurling insults at one another. Sweeping insults against different tendencies simply leads to further fragmentation of the left.I have no problem "fragmenting" myself away from the vast majority of Trots and anarchists. I would never join a group that put these people in the same organization with me in the first place. I already know what working with Trotskyites and anarchists is like both when they are in the leadership and when they are not.

However, in your defense, i think you bring up (albeit very indirectly) two important questions.


1. How can tendencies as different as say "Trotskyists" and "Anarchists" form a United Front?
Here is my answer. Firstly, before calling for broad unity on the left (which i think is needed) I would limit my calls to a United Front to include only those of the same basic ideology (i.e. a United Communist Front ). Then, as a broad Left (i.e. Anti-Capitalist) Coalition that would work together only toward common goals. Let each group (Communists, Anarchists, Socialists, etc.) do its own thing, but come together and fight as one against our common class enemy in an organized fashion when the need arises. In order to do this all the different parties and tendencies would need to be in communication with one another and be willing to work with each other on an as-needed basis. This requires forming new United Front organizations.Most Trotskyite organizations have a rule-or-ruin approach to coalitions. They either exist to promote their politics and their line, or they simply try to destroy them. How do you expect groups like the ISO, which is essentially a Amyway-like book publishing company, to want to do any real practical work? ISO exists to turn profits for the top few who run that organization, and nothing more. If they can't use the coalition group to do that, they will not take part in it. It's that simple.

Most anarchists are also so intensely anti-communist that they shy away from joining coalitions with them. They prefer to be around other white children into their same music scene, not people who actually want to struggle.


I for one am a Communist and would therefore call for a United Communist Front here in the United States, because as i said before, we have far more in common than we have differences.The differences are far more vast than you realize, probably stemming from your youth and inexperience. The difference between Marxist-Leninist groups and Trotskyites is the difference between night and day. Most Trotskyite groups are literally cults. There is a figure at the top that replaces the "Old Man" Trotsky, and his line is correct and will lead to revolution if you trust in him enough. There is no real culture of debate or anything in these groups, there is no focus on struggle, it is simply about getting more people to follow this particular old white dude who used to be in the SWP.

Anarchism is simply a music-scene. Most people who hang around these groups haven't even the foggiest clue about politics. It is usually one loud-mouth white guy they follow who read some shitty book on the Spanish Civil War and got involved because Food Not Bombs gave him some moldy fucking bread at a concert once.

How are Marxist-Leninists supposed to ever unite with this? Why in the hell would we?


2. Are sectarian, dogmatic, newspaper-sellers doing anything to further a Communist Revolution in the United States?

Here are my thoughts on the subject. For one, not all Trotskyists are of this type, and to paint them all with the same brush is not right. I myself agree with many of Trotsky's theories (although i do not worship him as a demi-god as some do). Many different tendencies have organizations of this kind, which do nothing but preach to themselves and sell newspapers that workers use to line their kitty-litter boxes.Not a single Trotskyite group I know of gives away their paper, unless you count PSL and WWP (which I don't, they long ago distanced themselves from the rest of the Trotskyites and are essentially Marxist-Leninist groups). Trotskyite papers are not written for the masses to understand. You have to be well versed in Marxist theory to understand it, and even then, most of their papers are just complete shit.


That being said, they are still our Comrades and we should treat them as such even if we find their methods to be "less-than-effective". Many of these organizations simply have poor leadership coupled with authoritarian practices, which subject the lower cadres to the incompetent policies of consistently unsuccessful elder cadres who occupy unchallengeable positions of power within the party.Then what is the point of uniting with them? Are their elders going to tell them to stop selling the paper and to join the people in struggle? Of course not. "Unity" with these people means inviting them out to your protest so they can try and sell fucking newspapers.


Many of the "newspaper-sellers" you are referring to (i.e. the ones actually out there doing the selling for hours in the cold) are young, impressionable, revolutionary-minded individuals who had he misfortune of being sucked into one of these organizations believing them to be true vehicles of revolution. They are oftentimes the hardest working and most eager amongst us and are simply being mislead and/or used by their party or group.Sure, and they often are petty-bourgeois too. Trotskyism always attracts a certain type of individual. They are not simply people duped by some old Trots. Trotskyism does have appeal to petty-bourgeois white children. All their arguments regarding the nature of the USSR, China, socialism, etc, are meant to win over the most radicalized segment of the petty-bourgeois. Some of these people are salvageable, true. I have converted several Trots to Marxism-Leninism. Most of it was simply giving them an alternative that actually does something. These types of people have to literally see the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism on the ground before they begin to open their minds. The masses aren't the only ones who learn through struggle. So do we, and big time. I used to not understand why people called Trotskyites and anarchists petty-bourgeois. I thought it was an unfair slur from over a century ago. Only practical struggle taught me it was more true than I could ever imagine.


Rather than bashing them as "idiots" and "counter-revolutionaries", we as Communists should try and reach out to these individuals and form genuinely revolutionary organizations with them. Talk to them. Engage in conversation with them. Become their friends. If you belong to a truly revolutionary organization try to win them over to your side by showing them, through good example, what methods work and which do not. Help them to realize that they belong to organizations which are using them as pawns if that is the case. In these cases it is important to engage with them PRIVATELY, and not in the presence of their party, as they will be intimidated into falling into line. It will take time, just be patient with your fellow comrade, as misguided as he/she may be and you will hopefully see results. One defection is usually followed by many more and in this way we can fill the ranks of genuinely revolutionary organizations with those who would otherwise have been led astray.This is certainly true, and makes me think you might have more experience than previously thought. In any case, it is often far, far easier to spend your time with people who are not already caught-up in other groups. Why spend a year, de-converting a few people from Trotskyism, when you can win several new people to Marxism-Leninism through common struggle? The best of them will come to your side quickly anyway, when you give them a real alternative.


Remember, none of us were born with our political beliefs. It took us a long time to formulate our ideas and distinguish fact from fiction. Just as people were patient in teaching us, so must we be patient with others.I think spending time teaching the masses and winning the most of them to Marxism-Leninism is more worth my time than trying to leech off members of some Trotskyite group.

[Astinilats]

Here a fact check comrade, I know a white anarchist who really like her showers and she is poor as hell. she comes from a working class family, her father lose his job, they almost lost their house. You are just generalizing.
base on probably a bad experience and that just stupid of you, to do so.

lol, so? I used to think of myself as an "anarchist" because the only thing I ever read was a little Chomsky and the anti-capitalist section of the Anarchist FAQ. It was the only thing I knew, and I was isolated from the rest of the anarchist community, so calling myself an anarchist literally meant nothing.

I have traveled all over America, and been to dozens of large demonstrations where anarchists show up. It is the same thing every time. They are all white kids who dress in black, have lots of tattoos and piercings, smell, listen to terrible music only white kids do, etc. It is literally no different than being a "Goth" kid, except slightly more political. It is always like this, and they are always a lot more timid around authority than their appearance and rhetoric would lead you to believe.

Is there the occasional person who calls themselves an anarchist who doesn't fit this stereotype? Yeah, and they're almost always completely isolated and have no contact with the larger anarchist community. Anarchist groups always try to force you to accept their lifestyle, and will eventually shun you if you don't. Integrating yourself into the group always means listening to their music, dressing like them, accepting their lifestyle politics, etc.

I'm not about to run around looking like some punk and stinking for 'Left Unity.'

[revolution inaction]

@ Astinilats (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=28234)
What your saying about anarchist is not true, there is some really shit stuff that gets called anarchism but real anarchists are not like that.

[Astinilats]

I've never met a single anarchist group that didn't fit this mold, and I've met dozens of them all over America. Granted, some groups and better than others, but they all fit this mold.

[revolution inaction]

I've never met a single anarchist group that didn't fit this mold, and I've met dozens of them all over America. Granted, some groups and better than others, but they all fit this mold.

i've heard that America is particularly bad for anarchism, but i'm sure there are some proper groups there, did you ever encounter NEFAC or any other social anarchist group?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Oh yes. Great jobs. It's a close knit family in there. Plenty of job-security, most of them are in the business for life.

Yep, only those that deserve it. If I was going to prison, I'd rather go to the Gulag & work my way through communal labor, than having to stick with privatized U.S. prisons where I'll get ass raped in the showers ever night.

[blackwave]

Yep, only those that deserve it. If I was going to prison, I'd rather go to the Gulag & work my way through communal labor, than having to stick with privatized U.S. prisons where I'll get ass raped in the showers ever night.

Ass rape or menial labour... I'd say they are about equal for me.

[Ovi]

I've never met a single anarchist group that didn't fit this mold, and I've met dozens of them all over America. Granted, some groups and better than others, but they all fit this mold.
You find it surprising that the left in the US is dead? And why don't you start your own group instead of criticizing the existing ones for being full of lifestyle pricks? Surely you know other leftist people, right?

You need to do some more research on democratic centralism and how workers can still have significant control and say in their workplace through nationalization. The whole Marxism-Leninism=state capitalism needs to stop.
Make up your mind. Do you support stalinism/maoism are do you support worker democracy?

[Honggweilo]

i was going to say "inb4 big lefty get together" but someone beat me to it :p

so again, im going to post this vid, which i mysteriously got an infraction for last time :lol:

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

[bcbm]

i've heard that America is particularly bad for anarchism, but i'm sure there are some proper groups there, did you ever encounter NEFAC or any other social anarchist group?

don't listen to them, they're just talking shit

[blackwave]

Anyone who doesn't go along with my opinion is wrong.... Ad Nauseaum

[DaringMehring]

Atsinilats or should I say Stalinista is a good example of sectarianism. His type of attitude led to communists killing and terrorizing other communists all over the globe, from the Moscow trial frame-ups to the CPUSA collaborating with the Smith Act prosecution of the SWP. This self-destruction was a big gift to the bourgeoisie.

He attacks the other tendencies, while at the same time, failing to recognize the disasters that plague his own orientation. M-L groups, like all groups, are wrecked by history, compared to any reasonable standard.

Around the developed world groups of different tendencies, from M-L to Trotskyist, maintain some mass membership, some even still have a revolutionary line. However, they're more or less sidelined, disoriented, divorced from the masses, etc. because of the long period of revolutionary decline and setbacks.

Unity is needed 1) to turn guns outward rather than inward, 2) to concentrate forces, and 3) to prove that communism is not dictatorial and can tolerate differences of approach and thought within a given paradigm (this has implications on the kind of society our revolution will achieve).

Luckily, when there is a revolutionary upturn, as is coming now, and the masses radicalize, they will bring unity through a program of action. Then those people who try to lead the masses from above, who cling to their sectarian differences and refuse unity, will naturally be swept aside.

[Victory Of The People!]

lol, so? I used to think of myself as an "anarchist" because the only thing I ever read was a little Chomsky and the anti-capitalist section of the Anarchist FAQ. It was the only thing I knew, and I was isolated from the rest of the anarchist community, so calling myself an anarchist literally meant nothing.

I have traveled all over America, and been to dozens of large demonstrations where anarchists show up. It is the same thing every time. They are all white kids who dress in black, have lots of tattoos and piercings, smell, listen to terrible music only white kids do, etc. It is literally no different than being a "Goth" kid, except slightly more political. It is always like this, and they are always a lot more timid around authority than their appearance and rhetoric would lead you to believe.

Is there the occasional person who calls themselves an anarchist who doesn't fit this stereotype? Yeah, and they're almost always completely isolated and have no contact with the larger anarchist community. Anarchist groups always try to force you to accept their lifestyle, and will eventually shun you if you don't. Integrating yourself into the group always means listening to their music, dressing like them, accepting their lifestyle politics, etc.

I'm not about to run around looking like some punk and stinking for 'Left Unity.'

I have noticed a trend in your posts. Every time you mention "white people" or "white kids" you seem to do so in a derogatory manner. Like your comment about "shitty music only white people listen to". I find your comments offensive to our white comrades.

Do a search of Astinilats posts and you will see this trend quite clearly.

Tell me, what is it about "white kids" that you dislike so strongly?

Should they have to apologize for the fact that they are of a certain color, or wear different kinds of clothes, or like different music then you?

For the record, I know many anarchists who do not fit your description of "smelly white kids".

I disagree with anarchists on practically everything but race-baiting them is completely unacceptable, even if you yourself happen to be white ( I make no assumptions about your ethnicity because it simply does not matter. The only color that matters to me is RED )

[revolution inaction]

don't listen to them, they're just talking shit
I don't think the uk has a great anarchist movement either, there are vary few anarchists and a lot of them have stupid politics, but i think it was American anarchists that gave me the idea that amarican anarchism was mostly non existent and what did exist was mostly shit, from what i can gather american anarchism is mostly lifestylists, insurrectionists and neo-platformists, and i disagree with all of these, but they are still better than leninism.

[Argument]

[---]until the Leninists & Anarchists get together, we will lose the revolution. It's that simple.When Anarchists have cooperated with State Communists, it has ended badly for the Anarchists. Look what Lenin did to the Anarchists, or what the Communists did against the Anarchists in Spain. How are we to cooperate when you plan to establish a new state? A state that will, according to Anarchist theory, become totalitarian and oppressive. History has proven us right so far.

[bcbm]

I don't think the uk has a great anarchist movement either, there are vary few anarchists and a lot of them have stupid politics, but i think it was American anarchists that gave me the idea that amarican anarchism was mostly non existent and what did exist was mostly shit, from what i can gather american anarchism is mostly lifestylists, insurrectionists and neo-platformists, and i disagree with all of these, but they are still better than leninism.

there are certainly problems in american anarchism, but i think reducing them to "lol everyone is smelly white punx who act like idiots" is not a very useful or accurate analysis.

[Zanthorus]

When Anarchists have cooperated with State Communists, it has ended badly for the Anarchists.

There is no such thing as "state communism". If there is then they at least aren't part of any sizeable left-tendency.

[Q]

This person belongs to a Trotskyite group that is a perfect example of what I was talking about. During the big anti-war march recently, members of Socialist Alternative were trying to sell their ridiculous fucking paper. They even fucking were standing in the middle of the god damn march itself trying to sell it. It looked like to one interested person a guy was passing it out, and so he tried to take this shit paper from him without realizing he was trying to sell it, and they got into a tugging match for this ridiculous piece of shit garbage. It was probably the most despicable thing I saw the entire day, even worse than the nonsense the RCP cultists were doing.

Your group is fucking worthless. Why would anyone want to unite with you, when you think doing shit like selling papers in the middle of a march is appropriate? You know that a lot of working class people in the labor movement associate Marxism with peddling newspapers because of ridiculous fucking morons like Socialist Alternative, right?

As far anarchists (in America, at least), anyone who has ever worked in an organization dominated by anarchists knows exactly what I am talking about. They promote the stupidest tactics imaginable, they are all petty-bourgeois white children who don't shower because of their ridiculous lifestyle politics. Anarchism is almost not even a fucking ideology, but a lifestyle associated with terrible music that only rich white children have ever heard of. If they don't dominate your group, you can probably steer them out of this shit, but if they do, there is no point in even associating yourselves with them, unless you prefer the facade of 'Left Unity' over the masses.
1. Comrade Lewis is a member of Socialist Alternative in Australia, not the USA. The two groups are different organisationally.
2. What is wrong with selling a paper? Fair enough, there might be better ways to bring forward your political viewpoints and I for one think we should rethink about that. But how is selling in itself a problem? I think that argument is ridiculous. If you don't want to buy any of those "garbage papers", then no one is forcing you.
3. I don't have much experience with the American anarchist movement, but your "critique" sounds very shallow, at best. You can't possible mean that all anarchists are "non-showering petty-bourgeois white kids with stupid tactics"? And even if you do, you don't explain your disagreements at all, you just put forward your negative comment that you disagree.
4. The last part I boldened made me chuckle. What masses do you or does your group lead exactly?

Your post basically comes down to one big trolling tirade and I have no idea why you got a Thanks for it, you certainly had a negrep from me. People like you are a good reflection of the issues we have on the left.

[Crux]

When Anarchists have cooperated with State Communists, it has ended badly for the Anarchists. Look what Lenin did to the Anarchists, or what the Communists did against the Anarchists in Spain. How are we to cooperate when you plan to establish a new state? A state that will, according to Anarchist theory, become totalitarian and oppressive. History has proven us right so far.
Well, for those interested in history there were discussions between the black army and the red army. There were even plans to give the anarchists some of their own land after the revolution. Neither of this did came to fruition, but that's not really my point either.

[Q]

Why do we have to have these same threads every week?

Nic.

I agree it gets boresome, but it does signify that it is considered by many to be serious issue that we need to tackle.

[Astinilats]

I have noticed a trend in your posts. Every time you mention "white people" or "white kids" you seem to do so in a derogatory manner. Like your comment about "shitty music only white people listen to". I find your comments offensive to our white comrades.

I really don't give a shit if some dumb white kid is offended. America is a racist society, and any Leftist worth his salt better realize how white privilege manifests itself in our society.


Tell me, what is it about "white kids" that you dislike so strongly?

What a ridiculous question.


I disagree with anarchists on practically everything but race-baiting them is completely unacceptable, even if you yourself happen to be white ( I make no assumptions about your ethnicity because it simply does not matter. The only color that matters to me is RED )

90% are white kids for a reason. When your ideology fails to make inroads amongst the most oppressed groups in America and you claim to want to liberate them, it speaks volumes.

[Crux]

Oh and Q I think having the leninist approach to the paper as an agitator and organizer is the correct one, but maybe we can discuss that later.

[mikelepore]

We won't succeed in revolution and spreading socialism if we all have different tendencies. Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and the others... We're just in a constant fight with each other when we have the same goal. does anybody agree with this?

Such a probability only has meaning relative to a time duration. The probability that something will happen within the next THREE years and the probability that it will happen within the next THREE HUNDRED years are different numbers.

[Q]

Oh and Q I think having the leninist approach to the paper as an agitator and organizer is the correct one, but maybe we can discuss that later.

We have better ways to communicate then using a medium from the 19th century and the working class movement is in a different phase organisationally today then it was in, say, 1910. These are factors that should make us reconsider old formulas. But yes, this thread isn't the most ideal spot for that.

[bcbm]

90% are white kids for a reason. When your ideology fails to make inroads amongst the most oppressed groups in America and you claim to want to liberate them, it speaks volumes.

last time i checked, anarchists were for the oppressed liberating themselves.

[Argument]

There is no such thing as "state communism". If there is then they at least aren't part of any sizeable left-tendency.In Sweden, most "communists" and "socialists" seem to be apologists for the state. They want more state, not less. Is there no state communism? Then what was the Soviet Union? What was Lenin, when he was building his elite? What was Stalin? What was Mao? Maybe "state socialism" is more correct than "state communism", but with "state communism" I mean a state where "communism" is the official ideology. "State communism" should be an oxymoron, just as "state anarchism" would be, but unfortunately, many "communists" defend the state, at least in Sweden.

After the revolution, the vanguard party would seize the power. After that, they would create an authoritarian, perhaps even a totalitarian regime. They would kill anarchists and this regime would be disastrous. This is why I don't support non-libertarian forms of communism. It will end this way, because power tends to corrupt. I am aware that Marxists and Leninist hope that a "Worker's State" would work, but unfortunately, it won't. A few people would seize the power, and power, as you should know, tends to corrupt.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, supposedly, selling papers teaches you how to talk to people about your ideas.

[Weezer]

Hah, I said that to some Trotskyist here once, not too long ago, I don't even remember who. But they got pretty pissed off about it. Said the difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism was the difference between socialism and state capitalism, or something like that.

State capitalism isn't Trotskyist theory. I can't stress this enough.

[Q]

State capitalism isn't Trotskyist theory. I can't stress this enough.

There are several variants on the term, making it quite confusing. A "Trotskyist" version is the one Tony Cliff came up with for example.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Ass rape or menial labour... I'd say they are about equal for me.

You're stupid...


When Anarchists have cooperated with State Communists, it has ended badly for the Anarchists. Look what Lenin did to the Anarchists, or what the Communists did against the Anarchists in Spain. How are we to cooperate when you plan to establish a new state? A state that will, according to Anarchist theory, become totalitarian and oppressive. History has proven us right so far.

Are you really going to call the Franco regime Communist? In fact, are you really going to think there's such a thing called "State-Communism"?

[bcbm]

Are you really going to call the Franco regime Communist? i think they were referring to the communist party during the civil war, which was on the republican side and imprisoned and murdered a number of anarchists.

[Crux]

i think they were referring to the communist party during the civil war, which was on the republican side and imprisoned and murdered a number of anarchists.
And POUM members.

[Glenn Beck]

And various other wreckers.

[Robocommie]

State capitalism isn't Trotskyist theory. I can't stress this enough.

Yes, I'm aware of the argument. The person making the argument was a Trotskyist I should point out, and felt it was Trotskyism that was the real socialism.

[Argument]

Are you really going to call the Franco regime Communist? In fact, are you really going to think there's such a thing called "State-Communism"?No, as bcbm said, I was refering to the Communist Party, who backstabbed their former allies. Also, perhaps there is no such thing as "State-Commonusm" in theory, but in practice, that's what Communism has led too. With a centralized revolution, lead by a vanguard party, and with the intention to start a new state, what you get is totalitarianism. When the leaders get into power, they find the power quite enjoyable, thus they keep it and expand it. This is not the goal of Communism, but it is what has happened so far, and I predict it will continue to happen as long as you strive for a new state.

Also, some communists (in Sweden, for example) argue that the bourgeois state should get more power, that it should take over ownership over private business. Why not give their corporations to the workers instead?

[AK]

This person belongs to a Trotskyite group that is a perfect example of what I was talking about.
...

Unity with Trots and Anarchists would spell the death of any possible revolution in America. Trotskyites are almost universally counter-revolutionary in the extreme and wedded to meaningless forms of "struggle" that amount to selling people newspapers. Anarchists are stupid and smelly idiots.
This person belongs to the sectarian asshole loony bin and is a great example of how years of stupid tendency wars fucked shit up.


1. How can tendencies as different as say "Trotskyists" and "Anarchists" form a United Front?
See "Glorious Anarcho-Trot Conspiracy".


You need to do some more research on democratic centralism and how workers can still have significant control and say in their workplace through nationalization. The whole Marxism-Leninism=state capitalism needs to stop.
The state =/= the working class.

[Chambered Word]

Why would we not want a workers democracy?

Generally upholding Stalin and Castro (some MLs here are even pro-Kim). Stalin and Castro's regimes weren't exactly shining examples of democracy.

The bottom line for me is that if you want worker's democracy, whatever label you give yourself, I'm happy to work with you.

[Saorsa]

Anarchists live in rubbish bins and that's why they smell so bad.

[bcbm]

probably also because they stockpile feces and urine to throw at the police.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchist Communism Or Death!!! Down with Leninism!

[Uppercut]

Make up your mind. Do you support stalinism/maoism are do you support worker democracy?

It's pretty humorous that you put Maoism/"Stalinism" in the same category. What makes you think there was no workers' democracy during Mao's lifetime? The right to hold big debates freely and hang up big character posters were written in the PRC's Constitution, and the workers took full advantage of these rights. Of course, the rural Chinese are heavily exploited today, and don't dare to criticize the ruling bueaurocracy.
Productions relations were quite democratic, with the workers being able to recall or fire their managers or local cadres if corruption was suspected. It was up to the masses to fend off corruption, and that they did.

Honestly, why do you think we have so many Marxist-Leninists on here? Oh right, we're all totalitarian bastards that want to establish a police state. Forgot that for a second.

[Uppercut]

After the revolution, the vanguard party would seize the power. After that, they would create an authoritarian, perhaps even a totalitarian regime. They would kill anarchists and this regime would be disastrous. This is why I don't support non-libertarian forms of communism. It will end this way, because power tends to corrupt. I am aware that Marxists and Leninist hope that a "Worker's State" would work, but unfortunately, it won't. A few people would seize the power, and power, as you should know, tends to corrupt.

Ummm....no?

The vanguard is there to lead, not to necessarily direct and dictate every aspect of life. Take Cuba, for example. One doesn't even need to be a member of the Communist Party to take part in elections. You can be a member of a trade union, or any other public organization and run as a local or national candidate. If you have the support of the majority of the community, you can be elected at the age of 18 and older.

You see, socialist parties are not the enemy. They can be very democratic and grassroots, while at the same time be very supportive at the top through publicly funded education and healthcare, as well as by supporting communal militias, as in Venezuela's case. It all depends on who the party is geared towards and who the policies are meant for. Obviously, a party that advocates "People's Power" or something of the like will have little choice than to give the people just that. Someone can't claim to establish a "people's government" and then not let the people participate without expecting serious repercussions or protests. It doesn't work that way.

[Barry Lyndon]

This person belongs to a Trotskyite group that is a perfect example of what I was talking about. During the big anti-war march recently, members of Socialist Alternative were trying to sell their ridiculous fucking paper. They even fucking were standing in the middle of the god damn march itself trying to sell it. It looked like to one interested person a guy was passing it out, and so he tried to take this shit paper from him without realizing he was trying to sell it, and they got into a tugging match for this ridiculous piece of shit garbage. It was probably the most despicable thing I saw the entire day, even worse than the nonsense the RCP cultists were doing.

Your group is fucking worthless. Why would anyone want to unite with you, when you think doing shit like selling papers in the middle of a march is appropriate? You know that a lot of working class people in the labor movement associate Marxism with peddling newspapers because of ridiculous fucking morons like Socialist Alternative, right?

As far anarchists (in America, at least), anyone who has ever worked in an organization dominated by anarchists knows exactly what I am talking about. They promote the stupidest tactics imaginable, they are all petty-bourgeois white children who don't shower because of their ridiculous lifestyle politics. Anarchism is almost not even a fucking ideology, but a lifestyle associated with terrible music that only rich white children have ever heard of. If they don't dominate your group, you can probably steer them out of this shit, but if they do, there is no point in even associating yourselves with them, unless you prefer the facade of 'Left Unity' over the masses.

I laughed so hard at this because it's true(except the part about anarchism not being an ideology-it is, but not the way American lifestyle anarchists practice it). The state of the American radical left is pathetic.

[AK]

Anarchists live in rubbish bins and that's why they smell so bad.
Hey, hey. Go fuck yourself.
See what I did there?

[bcbm]

Hey, hey. Go fuck yourself.
See what I did there?

you got trolled. -3

[Argument]

The vanguard is there to lead, not to necessarily direct and dictate every aspect of life.That is the intention, at least. However, power tends to corrupt. Once the vanguard have seized power and constructed a new governent to replace the old government, the vanguard will get to taste power, and they will like it. After they have been given the power of government, the new government will be oppressive. As the Soviet Union was, as DDR was, as China was, and yes, as Cuba was. I don't think Cuba is a good example of a libertarian society, nor a socialistic one.


You see, socialist parties are not the enemy.Perhaps not, but they are not my allies either. Let me quote anarcho-communist Emma Goldman:


Even were the workers able to have their own representatives, for which our good Socialist politicians are clamoring, what chances are there for their honesty and good faith? One has but to bear in mind the process of politics to realize that its path of good intentions is full of pitfalls: wire-pulling, intriguing, flattering, lying, cheating; in fact, chicanery of every description, whereby the political aspirant can achieve success. Added to that is a complete demoralization of character and conviction, until nothing is left that would make one hope for anything from such a human derelict. Time and time again the people were foolish enough to trust, believe, and support with their last farthing aspiring politicians, only to find themselves betrayed and cheated.

It may be claimed that men of integrity would not become corrupt in the political grinding mill. Perhaps not; but such men would be absolutely helpless to exert the slightest influence in behalf of labor, as indeed has been shown in numerous instances. The State is the economic master of its servants. Good men, if such there be, would either remain true to their political faith and lose their economic support, or they would cling to their economic master and be utterly unable to do the slightest good. The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue.


Obviously, a party that advocates "People's Power" or something of the like will have little choice than to give the people just that. Someone can't claim to establish a "people's government" and then not let the people participate without expecting serious repercussions or protests. It doesn't work that way.The party will certainly claim that it gives the people power. Politicians lie. Mao called China "People's democratic dictatorship", did he not? Did the people have the power when Mao's government ruled China?

[AK]

The party will certainly claim that it gives the people power. Politicians lie. Mao called China "People's democratic dictatorship", did he not? Did the people have the power when Mao's government ruled China?
Very true. It's in a similar fasion to the Bourgeois democracy we have today - albeit, less capitalistic.

[Uppercut]

That is the intention, at least. However, power tends to corrupt. Once the vanguard have seized power and constructed a new governent to replace the old government, the vanguard will get to taste power, and they will like it. After they have been given the power of government, the new government will be oppressive. As the Soviet Union was, as DDR was, as China was, and yes, as Cuba was. I don't think Cuba is a good example of a libertarian society, nor a socialistic one.

I can't speak for the DDR, but I consider the PRC during the Mao era to be rightly socialistic. Collective industry and enterprises grew right alongside state enterprises, with workers having a large say in both forms of development. Holding big community debates and hanging up big character posters was very common, especially during the Cultural Revolution, and the people had full power to kick any bureaurcrat out of office. Eventually, revolutionary committees were formed, which were a three-way alliance between The PLA, The Red Guards, and party cadres.



The party will certainly claim that it gives the people power. Politicians lie. Mao called China "People's democratic dictatorship", did he not? Did the people have the power when Mao's government ruled China?

Most politicians, do suck, I'll give you that, but there is such thing as a dedicated, honest leader. It's good to be skeptical of state power, but it's simply not fair to throw every government in the same basket.
And to answer your question on "people's democratic dictatorship," yes the people were the decision-makers in the community. As I stated above, big debates were common among the people, and the red guards were organized to strengthened the people's power over the remaining bourgeoisie and bueaurocrats. This was not a top-down affair.

[Argument]

I can't speak for the DDR, but I consider the PRC during the Mao era to be rightly socialistic.Do you mean that the dictatorship in China during Mao wasn't a total disaster? That it might even have been better than some Western countries, like the US or France?


Most politicians, do suck, I'll give you that, but there is such thing as a dedicated, honest leader. It's good to be skeptical of state power, but it's simply not fair to throw every government in the same basket.Those politicians that doesn't suck are ostracized by the other politicians, and they won't get any support from the capitalists. Have you read Animal Farm? I think that is an excellent explanation on how power tends to corrupt.

Some governments are less bad than others, yet none is good. Could you give me an example of one that isn't or wasn't bad?

[Zanthorus]

Do you mean that the dictatorship in China during Mao wasn't a total disaster? That it might even have been better than some Western countries, like the US or France?

Joan Robinson, the Keynesian economist and inventor of the theory of Imperfect competition which is now in basically every economics textbook, actually wrote a couple of books talking about the major progress made by the cultural revolution. It was one of the things speculated to have lost her the Nobel Prize.

I wouldn't condemn all the "socialist" states as total disasters out of hand or on the basis of what the bourgeois media tells you.

[Argument]

I wouldn't condemn all the "socialist" states as total disasters out of hand or on the basis of what the bourgeois media tells you.Perhaps not, but the defense of China, the USSR and DDR seems to be more like defending totalitarianism than criticizing the media's reports of "misunderstood" regimes.

[Zanthorus]

Perhaps not, but the defense of China, the USSR and DDR seems to be more like defending totalitarianism than criticizing the media's reports of "misunderstood" regimes.

You cannot simply start off with the assumption that these regimes were "totalitarian" before having studied them properly. The "totalitarian" paradigm is only a recipe for some of the shallowist historiography known to man.

[Argument]

You cannot simply start off with the assumption that these regimes were "totalitarian" before having studied them properly. The "totalitarian" paradigm is only a recipe for some of the shallowist historiography known to man.How am I supposed to study them without using third part sources? The Soviet Union is known to have used history revision, their sources can't be trusted. Many anarchists have criticized these countries. George Orwell also did, although he wasn't an anarchist.

The Soviet Union killed tons of anarchists, didn't they? And they used labor camps, didn't they? And censorship, surveillance, mass murder, etc. The book "Animal Farm" described the Soviet Union fairly well. Are you saying Orwell didn't know what he was talking about?

[Zanthorus]

How am I supposed to study them without using third part sources?The Soviet Union is known to have used history revision, their sources can't be trusted.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at here.


The Soviet Union killed tons of anarchists, didn't they?

Lenin let thousands of anarchists march through Moscow waving anti-Bolshevik banners for Kropotkin's funeral procession in 1921.


And they used labor camps, didn't they? And censorship, surveillance, mass murder, etc. The book "Animal Farm" described the Soviet Union fairly well. Are you saying Orwell didn't know what he was talking about?

Orwell had never even set foot in the Soviet Union and his only information came from western propaganda and the descriptions of it given to him by Trotskyists while fighting for the P.O.U.M. The book should definitely not be read as a serious work of history.

[chegitz guevara]

State capitalism isn't Trotskyist theory. I can't stress this enough.

It is a Trotskyist theory. It's not Trotsky's theory.

[chegitz guevara]

Anarchist Communism Or Death!!!

With anarchist communism, you get both, as the capitalists return to power because you can't defend yourself in an organized fashion. That's why anarchists always lose.

[blackwave]

Anarchist Communism Or Death!!! Down with Leninism!

Better get yourself some rope then, because I don't honestly see it happening in our lifetime. Sorry to rain on your parade.

[AK]

With anarchist communism, you get both, as the capitalists return to power because you can't defend yourself in an organized fashion. That's why anarchists always lose.
This is about as stupid as saying anarchists' main objective is to destroy things, loot shops and bring a state of chaos.

They have such a thing as organisation, ya know.
That is, unless they are anarcho-capitalists - in which case the looting and pillaging applies.

[Argument]

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at here.You say that I cannot criticize these regimes without having studied them properly, yet you claim that the bourgeois media (and history writers?) are not to be trusted. Also, George Orwell is not to be trusted, either. Who am I to trust, then? Anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker critizied the Soviet Union, if I remember correctly. So did Emma Goldman. So did Peter Kropotkin. He wrote a letter to Lenin in 1920. It said: "[a party dictatorship] is positively harmful for the building of a new socialist system. What is needed is local construction by local forces ... Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name.""

All the evidence points to a simple conclusion: These countries were, in fact, totalitarian. Many anarchist writers agree, most Western historians agree. The only ones I have seen disagree are some Communists, which isn't that strange. But why defend the Soviet Union, or China, or DDR? Some Communists claim that these regimes was catastrophic, but still some defend them. Why?


Lenin let thousands of anarchists march through Moscow waving anti-Bolshevik banners for Kropotkin's funeral procession in 1921.That makes the killing of anarchists okay?


Orwell had never even set foot in the Soviet Union and his only information came from western propaganda and the descriptions of it given to him by Trotskyists while fighting for the P.O.U.M. The book should definitely not be read as a serious work of history.He was there, he saw with his own eyes what the Communists were doing. Or are you saying that they didn't betray their Trotskyists and anarchist allies?