Why Leninism?

[blackwave]

I've been sitting wondering how one would woo the Leninist to anarchism, and I decided the crucial question is, 'why do you favour Leninism'. I ask Leninists, what is it specifically about Leninism which inclines you towards it?

[mikelepore]

I would appreciate it if someone would write, in the form of a list, what did Lenin add that wasn't already present in the writings of Marx. Complete sentence, stand-alone sentences that have meaning by themselves, and don't just say "his general theory of whatever -- go read the book."

[ChrisK]

He wrote an analysis of the development of capitalism in Russia.
He expounded on Imperialism as being a higher development of capitalism.
He helped to lead an attempted proletarian revolution who's success hinged on the success of a German revolution so that they could industrialize and know that world revolutions were happening. The attempt failed, but it was a true attempt at creating socialism.

[Bonobo1917]

"3. He attempted a major revoplution..." I was under the impresion that the working class and the peasants attempted a revolution, and that Lenin attempted to lead it, for better or for worse. Not quite the same thing. Revolutionaries can do a lot. There is one thing that they cannot do - and that is "making a revolution".

[ChrisK]

"3. He attempted a major revoplution..." I was under the impresion that the working class and the peasants attempted a revolution, and that Lenin attempted to lead it, for better or for worse. Not quite the same thing. Revolutionaries can do a lot. There is one thing that they cannot do - and that is "making a revolution".

Sorry for the lack of clarity, I'll edit my statement. You are right, he didn't attempt a revolution, he helped lead it. That is what I meant.

[jake williams]

I'm not going to expound on Lenin's theoretical developments, which certainly exist and are important. I think a lot of the contemporary usage of "Leninism" is not based on those developments, but on a desire to assert that one interprets Marx (though such an interpretation is somewhat akin to interpretting water as being wet) as being a theoretical understanding intrinsically and entirely linked to a real-world revolutionary practice - something which, unfortunately, a great deal of self-described "Marxists", particularly in academia, have not just no interest in, but an active contempt for. Put otherwise, a lot of the notion of "Leninism" in pratical usage is simply a term intended to refer to a sort of "Marxism" which actually entails doing something. The term probably shouldn't mean that - we shouldn't have to argue for a Marxism which advocates meaningful revolutionary practice, because that's all the main body of Marx's work was about, but unfortunately, I think we live in a world where such a distinction is in fact necessary.

I'm not meaning that to discount the other understandings of Leninism as a particular historical, theoretical and practical development of theories which had their root in, as well as Marx and Engels, European, Russian and other revolutionary activities. What I'm saying is that these are not necessarily the main things intended when one self-describes as a "Leninist", consciously or otherwise.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

For me, it is a question of organization. The Leninist party is a disciplined organization with democratic structures in place that allows for the growth of revolutionary consciousness where it operates. Without an organization like this, there is little chance of socialist consciousness spontaneously becoming widespread and the masses have no leadership that truly represents the international working class. Leadership is critical in times of crisis.

So I would say, yes, we need a vanguard, because a vanguard is just the most conscious and organized section of the working class, fighting to lead the class as a whole. And ideally, the bigger the vanguard the better.

[jake williams]

So I would say, yes, we need a vanguard, because a vanguard is just the most conscious and organized section of the working class, fighting to lead the class as a whole. And ideally, the bigger the vanguard the better.
I don't understand "anti-vanguardism" as being anything other than anti-materialist idealism. The vanguard is whatever section of the working class happens to have achieved that level of political and class consciousness that they become the first to form/join/lead a revolutionary movement. There's nothing really special or unusual about them beyond that, and it's not some sort of a reward for being special people. It's a basic fact of how, and it pains me to even have to say it because it's impossibly obvious, people's class consciousness develops at different rates in response to different social and economic conditions, and so their understanding of the necessity to particular action and political organization also develops differentially, and so some people to it before others.

The notion that those advocating "vanguardism" (which isn't even an ideology anyone actually holds) are advocating the leadership of the revolution by some mysterious group of people exogenous to society in general is an ideological fantasy which in effect targets itself against effective organization.

[A.R.Amistad]

And a question I would pose to anarchists is, why anarchism?

[A.R.Amistad]

I don't understand "anti-vanguardism" as being anything other than anti-materialist idealism. The vanguard is whatever section of the working class happens to have achieved that level of political and class consciousness that they become the first to form/join/lead a revolutionary movement. There's nothing really special or unusual about them beyond that, and it's not some sort of a reward for being special people. It's a basic fact of how, and it pains me to even have to say it because it's impossibly obvious, people's class consciousness develops at different rates in response to different social and economic conditions, and so their understanding of the necessity to particular action and political organization also develops differentially, and so some people to it before others.

The notion that those advocating "vanguardism" (which isn't even an ideology anyone actually holds) are advocating the leadership of the revolution by some mysterious group of people exogenous to society in general is an ideological fantasy which in effect targets itself against effective organization.

Check out Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done in context by Lars Lih.People read way too much into this pamphlet, and Lenin developed the theory of the vanguard party much better after 1905 and up to his death. His definition of membership became much more realistic after 1905 and he himself repudiated his earlier definition of membership, saying that at the time it was necessary to "bend the stick" the other way. The vanguard party is nothing else than a fully activist organization of revolutionary Marxists, and the balance between centralism and democratic functioning depends on context. Lenin even advocated that progressive and revolutionary worker's who were religious be allowed into the party without offense to their religion. But I wholly agree with Comrade Jammoe, vanguards are present in any revolutionary movement. There were the Sons of Liberty in the American revolution, the Jacobins in the French Revolution, arguably the abolitionist Republican Party in the American civil war, etc. etc. just about every revolution has had some form of a vanguard that was crucial to its success. Also, to restrict Lenin's contributions to only the vanguard party really cheapens Lenin, since it was his Marxist contributions about the revolution and the State, of worker's democracy based in the soviets, that were most important to his work, as well as the theory of Imperialism, Right of Nations to self-determination, "Two Nations in every Nation," critique of Proletarian Cultural, development of Historical Materialism, a break from the economic determinism of Kautskyism, the inadequacy of bourgeois democracy and the superiority of proletarian democracy, basis for the withering away of the state, women's emancipation and Marxism, etc. etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Rediscovered-Context-Historical-Materialism/dp/9004131205

[robbo203]

I don't understand "anti-vanguardism" as being anything other than anti-materialist idealism. The vanguard is whatever section of the working class happens to have achieved that level of political and class consciousness that they become the first to form/join/lead a revolutionary movement. There's nothing really special or unusual about them beyond that, and it's not some sort of a reward for being special people. It's a basic fact of how, and it pains me to even have to say it because it's impossibly obvious, people's class consciousness develops at different rates in response to different social and economic conditions, and so their understanding of the necessity to particular action and political organization also develops differentially, and so some people to it before others.

The notion that those advocating "vanguardism" (which isn't even an ideology anyone actually holds) are advocating the leadership of the revolution by some mysterious group of people exogenous to society in general is an ideological fantasy which in effect targets itself against effective organization.

This is not quite what is meant by vanguardism, is it? Vanguardism is essentially the idea that the emancipation of some larger group is dependent upon some smaller group i.e. the latter serves to emancipate the former. This is contrary to the marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself.

Some of Lenin's views appear to confrom to this principle but others definitely do not. More importantly the actual praxis of the Bolsheviks was vanguardist certainly after they achieved power and became markedly mnore authoritarian and undemocratic. Here are a view examples

In a speech to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917 Lenin contended:

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…" (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15)

Moreover, once the vanguard had seized power it was this vanguard alone which should govern, not the wider working class in whose name it had seized power:


But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

This is what is meant by vanguardism and this is why revolutionaries reject Leninism

[A.R.Amistad]

This is not quite what is meant by vanguardism, is it? Vanguardism is essentially the idea that the emancipation of some larger group is dependent upon some smaller group i.e. the latter serves to emancipate the former. This is contrary to the marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself.

Some of Lenin's views appear to confrom to this principle but others definitely do not. More importantly the actual praxis of the Bolsheviks was vanguardist certainly after they achieved power and became markedly mnore authoritarian and undemocratic. Here are a view examples

In a speech to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917 Lenin contended:

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…" (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15)

Moreover, once the vanguard had seized power it was this vanguard alone which should govern, not the wider working class in whose name it had seized power:


But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

This is what is meant by vanguardism and this is why revolutionaries reject Leninism



That's not Leninism, thats Blanquism. Lenin emphasised that the party does not "make the revolution." The proletariat does that. The party awakes class consciousness, ensures continuity, etc.

I prefer MIA's definition of "vanguard and mass."


Vanguard & Mass
In any social movement there is a vanguard and a mass. On one side, the vanguard, are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organised and able to take a leading role in the struggle, and on the other side, the mass (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#mass), are larger numbers of people who participate in the struggle or are involved simply by their social position, but are less committed or well-placed in relation to the struggle, and will participate only in the decisive moments, which in fact change history.
The Marxist theory of the vanguard, in relation to class struggle (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm#class-struggle) under capitalism, stipulates that the working class, the mass, needs to be militantly lead through revolutionary struggle against capitalism and in the building of Socialism. The Communist vanguard is theoretically made up of the forefront of workers who are engaged in direct struggles against the capitalist state, and who occupy an advanced position in constructively and creatively building the socalist movement.
1. History of the Marxist Vanguard: Among the early world-reknown implementations of the Marxist vanguard came about in the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/events/o/c.htm#october), in the form of the Bolshevik party. Shortly before the revolution, the Bolsheviks made their position clear: "All power to the Soviets (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#soviets)". Since the soviets were progressive representatives of the Russian masses, the Bolsheviks knew the Soviets would follow the Socialist path. In short course however, after the onset of the civil war (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/events/r/u.htm#russian-civil-war), the Soviets were suppressed by both the Red and White Armies – their diversity was such that, at times they sympathised with either side.
From this came the Stalinist (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism) conception of the vanguard, where the party acts as the sole power in Socialist society – any deviations from this path in the Soviets wouldn't be tolerated. This was justified practically by the need to defend workers against the imperialist armies, and the belief that educated, political leaders were needed to build socialism correctly, and not give into some of the "mistaken" views of the masses. Theoretically this totalitarinism was justified on the philosophical premise of objective truth; that the party is in sole possesion of the path towards "socialism", and thus is the ultimate leader of the working class. Since this vanguard believes it has sole claim to advancing the interests of the working class, anyone who opposes their methods is an enemy of the working class – up to and including workers, soviets, etc – and is thus suppressed.




...and Lenin's response to Luxembourg's misinterpretations:

http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/sep/15a.htm

[jake williams]

This is not quite what is meant by vanguardism, is it? Vanguardism is essentially the idea that the emancipation of some larger group is dependent upon some smaller group i.e. the latter serves to emancipate the former. This is contrary to the marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself.
Which is precisely why I said "vanguardism" in that sense doesn't exist, because virtually no one believes it. I was saying precisely that your version of "vanguardism" is a fantasy strawman.

The 'vanguard' is the most ideologically advanced part of the working class (and of course class allies, but that particular debate is at this level a digression). That's all it is. You apparently missed the entire point of my post, and it takes considerable effort on my part to assume it wasn't intentional. The organization of the most politically advanced parts of the working class is one central component of the revolutionary action of "the working class itself".


"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…" (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15)
And again, I'm really not even sure you read the post you quoted. I think Lenin actually understates the point - if "revolutionaries" believe that the entire working class will spontaneously develop the level of political and class consciousness to overthrow capitalism, and have the organizational power to do it, they're going to be waiting a lot longer than 500 years. It's that sort of "logic" which, as far as I'm concerned, belies a large part of idealist, or utopian, tendencies on the part of a lot of "anti/non-Leninists".


Moreover, once the vanguard had seized power it was this vanguard alone which should govern, not the wider working class in whose name it had seized power:


But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)
I'm not convinced of Lenin's argument here, but something I'm sure it's difficult to understand is that Lenin was talking about an actual revolution here, not a fantasy one, where conditions are difficult, and where there is a serious problem of backwardness in the working class.

I'm not sure I would go as far as he does, but I certainly agree with the important point here, that when we're talking about the "vanguard" we're talking about a part of the working class, not some group external to it. Our own societies are led by a part of the bourgeoisie, that part which the whole ruling class decides is in the interests of the class as a whole. The fact that some business interests are disenfranchised in the greater process of bourgeois rule do not at all suggest that some anti-capitalist coup has taken place, and the bourgeoisie disenfranchised. I'm not saying that we should adopt their methods of governance, but that the logic used to disqualify vanguard rule as mutually exclusive with working class rule is flawed.

The larger point though, like I said, is whether or not at any given stage in a socialist revolution any particular segment of the working class should be driving the revolution - and again, no one would argue that the goal of a socialist revolution, in the long run, is not the ownership and control of the society by the whole working class - Lenin here and elsewhere concerned himself with the real world concerns of the profound difficulty and complexity of real world socialist revolutions, something you apparently do not.


This is what is meant by vanguardism and this is why revolutionaries reject Leninism
No, idealists who don't want to deal with the real world "reject Leninism".

[robbo203]

Which is precisely why I said "vanguardism" in that sense doesn't exist, because virtually no one believes it. I was saying precisely that your version of "vanguardism" is a fantasy strawman.

The 'vanguard' is the most ideologically advanced part of the working class (and of course class allies, but that particular debate is at this level a digression). That's all it is. You apparently missed the entire point of my post, and it takes considerable effort on my part to assume it wasn't intentional. The organization of the most politically advanced parts of the working class is one central component of the revolutionary action of "the working class itself".".

Sorry but vanguardism is hardly a "fantasy strawman". It is an entrenched and central aspect of Leninism. Hardly anyone believes it? I quoted Lenin himself who presumably believed what he said.

Vanguardism is more than simply a reference to the "vanguard" as the most ideolgocally advanced part of the working class. It is about the relationship between this part of the working class and the rest of the class. As I said before it is about a minority purportedly seeking to emancipate the majority, to act on behalf of the majority, rather than the majority emancipating itself beforehand




And again, I'm really not even sure you read the post you quoted. I think Lenin actually understates the point - if "revolutionaries" believe that the entire working class will spontaneously develop the level of political and class consciousness to overthrow capitalism, and have the organizational power to do it, they're going to be waiting a lot longer than 500 years. It's that sort of "logic" which, as far as I'm concerned, belies a large part of idealist, or utopian, tendencies on the part of a lot of "anti/non-Leninists".
.

This is a complete red herring and the usual Leninist cop out. The issue is not about spontaneity versus organisation in the development of class consciousness, both of which are important. It is about the relationship between the vanguard and the rest of the class. See above

[A.R.Amistad]

These quotes suggest nothing about Lenin's supposed "elitism" and do not prove that Lenin supported any sort of idea of the vanguard party that you describe. Lets take a look:



"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…

Lenin is merely saying here that if we wait for everyone in the working class to reach the highest level of revolutionary class consciousness, then we won't see a revolution for a long time. We can't wait on everyone to agree with us. He is also stressing that the party not give in to any sort of backward ideas (such as racism) which exist in the more uneducated sections of the working class. There he is decrying opportunism. I see nothing wrong here...


But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels.

Again, this is nothing but regonizing that a revolution led and instigated by a multi-class party or organization, or a non-revolutionary or utopian-idealist one, won't have success. Decrying opportunistic leadership of the masses, again I see no problem here nor anything suggestive of Blanquism.

[jake williams]

Sorry but vanguardism is hardly a "fantasy strawman". It is an entrenched and central aspect of Leninism. Hardly anyone believes it? I quoted Lenin himself who presumably believed what he said.
The distinction I'm making is between the invented "vanguardism" of its opponents, like yourself, and the Leninist (I might even say Marxist) belief that certain sections of the working class will develop their class and political conscious more quickly, and lead the self-organization of the working class, as a part of it. There are two kinds of vanguardism, one its opponents make up and criticize, one which serious people almost take for granted. The latter belief, which people do actually hold, is almost a tautology, if one accepts basic principles of Marxism, including a) the fact that revolutions are made by the self-organization of the working class and b) rejection of fantasy realities where the consciousness of the whole fucking working class develops completely in lock step and at once, realities which can be found nowhere and never will be, and which therefore are of no use for people who actually want to make revolutions.


Vanguardism is more than simply a reference to the "vanguard" as the most ideolgocally advanced part of the working class. It is about the relationship between this part of the working class and the rest of the class. As I said before it is about a minority purportedly seeking to emancipate the majority, to act on behalf of the majority, rather than the majority emancipating itself beforehand

This is a complete red herring and the usual Leninist cop out. The issue is not about spontaneity versus organisation in the development of class consciousness, both of which are important. It is about the relationship between the vanguard and the rest of the class. See above
"The majority emancipating itself beforehand"? What the exactly does that even mean? I can't help but feel that you're making my point for me, because honestly it sounds like you're advocating some sort of revolutionary time travel, that the working class self-emancipates before it develops the consciousness, leadership and organization to do so.

As for "the relationship between the working class and [its organizations]", you're raising a question not of "vanguardism" (again, unless we're talking about the ideology which folks like you make up in order to attack), but as has been suggested, of democratic centralism, which is another topic. I'm happy to get into it if you like, but it's another topic.

[graymouser]

Vanguardism is more than simply a reference to the "vanguard" as the most ideolgocally advanced part of the working class. It is about the relationship between this part of the working class and the rest of the class. As I said before it is about a minority purportedly seeking to emancipate the majority, to act on behalf of the majority, rather than the majority emancipating itself beforehand
This is arrant nonsense. Leninism is based on the practical reality that people's consciousness develops at different rates in a society. This means that there will be a radicalized minority long before there is a majority clearly in favor of absolutely anything. The Leninist party's role is to intersect with and unite this minority behind a genuinely Marxist program. This isn't so that the minority can then "emancipate the majority." It is to take advantage of the tempo of a revolutionary crisis and seize power when the time is ripe. At this point, the party will be a minority - political activists will always be a minority - but it will be one that can rule with the trust of the masses and inaugurate a new period of direct democracy, through workers councils (or soviets).

When it comes down to the wire, any party, organization or whatever that isn't willing to be vanguardist in the sense that I outlined above will get its members killed. If you are in a revolutionary situation and you wait for the majority to simply come to your side, you will run out of time. Failure to act decisively as a vanguard will allow the reactionaries to regroup, defeat the working class and carry out repression. This is the horrific reality, and it played itself out over and over again during the 20th century.


This is a complete red herring and the usual Leninist cop out. The issue is not about spontaneity versus organisation in the development of class consciousness, both of which are important. It is about the relationship between the vanguard and the rest of the class. See above
The majority of human beings at any time in history do not involve themselves directly in politics. Even during a revolutionary general strike, more people will be at home making sure their families are taken care of than out on the barricades. If a revolutionary party has a genuinely working class program and is willing to act at the decisive moment, it can win the democratic support of the large mass of society. Any genuinely revolutionary party or organization will effectively form a vanguard, such as the anarchist unions in Spain, and be forced to act ahead of mass consciousness. But failing to recognize this and build your strategy around taking the revolutionary initiative when it's presented is setting yourself up for failure and repression.

[scarletghoul]

Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism and the State and the Revolution are 2 indispensible works of communist theory. I advise the OP (and anyone else) to read them if you haven't already. It will show you why Lenin is so cool and will make you a better revolutionary.

And of course, Leninism has been proven by far the most effective model of revolutionary organisation throughout history. Leninism's had an amazing success rate, atleast in terms of capturing state power. Certainly things still need to be refined after that, but yeah its historical success is the most obvious reason why Leninism is popular.

[jake williams]

Leninism is based on the practical reality that people's consciousness develops at different rates in a society.
Which is bloody fucking obvious to anyone who knows anything about anything. I'm sorry to speak of it in such sharp language, but really, I think it's absurd that one has to point that out in "Theory".

[robbo203]

The distinction I'm making is between the invented "vanguardism" of its opponents, like yourself, and the Leninist (I might even say Marxist) belief that certain sections of the working class will develop their class and political conscious more quickly, and lead the self-organization of the working class, as a part of it. There are two kinds of vanguardism, one its opponents make up and criticize, one which serious people almost take for granted. The latter belief, which people do actually hold, is almost a tautology, if one accepts basic principles of Marxism, including a) the fact that revolutions are made by the self-organization of the working class and b) rejection of fantasy realities where the consciousness of the whole fucking working class develops completely in lock step and at once, realities which can be found nowhere and never will be, and which therefore are of no use for people who actually want to make revolutions. .

Oh come now. You are just wriggling here. You know damn well what I am talking about and what I am not talking about. Get off your high horse.

I am not talking about a vanguard in the sense of the most advanced workers ideologically speaking. Obviously, revolutuonary consciousness starts off from small beginnings, is confined to a few, before its spreads to others. Nor am I talking about the process by which it spreads. Jeez, where do you get this guff from about "the whole fucking working class develops completely in lock step and at once". I never said that at all, did I? Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

You know - or should know - very well what I meant by vanguardism and how I defined. I said quite clearly that it meant the idea of a small minority emancipating a large majority rather than the latter doing it for themselves. Do I really have to spell this out for you what this means, eh?



"The majority emancipating itself beforehand"? What the exactly does that even mean? I can't help but feel that you're making my point for me, because honestly it sounds like you're advocating some sort of revolutionary time travel, that the working class self-emancipates before it develops the consciousness, leadership and organization to do so.
.

Duh. It means that before a socialist revolution can happen the majority have to understand and want socialism. In other words we no longer have a vanguard in the sense of a small minority who are imbued with socialist consciousness but rather, the majority. It does not mean the working class develop consciousness after it emancipates itself - another daft interpretation of yours which bears no relation to anything I said. Emancipation involves applying this consciousness in the political arena to introduce socialism and asbloish capitalism and the state in a socialist revolution. This revolution can only be accomplished when the majority are conscious of its aim. In other words, it cannot be left to a minority to take action on behalf of the majority which is what is meant by vanguardism and what was clearly meant in the quotes from Lenin I supplied.

Got it now?

[robbo203]

These quotes suggest nothing about Lenin's supposed "elitism" and do not prove that Lenin supported any sort of idea of the vanguard party that you describe. Lets take a look:


Lenin is merely saying here that if we wait for everyone in the working class to reach the highest level of revolutionary class consciousness, then we won't see a revolution for a long time. We can't wait on everyone to agree with us. He is also stressing that the party not give in to any sort of backward ideas (such as racism) which exist in the more uneducated sections of the working class. There he is decrying opportunism. I see nothing wrong here....

The line above "We can't wait on everyone to agree with us" is the dead give away. This is the essence of vanguardism. The vanguard goes ahead and takes action purportedly on behalf of the working class which is not yet imbued with revolutionary socialist ideas, and captures power. Since the majority are not yet socialist and since socialism is impossible without majority wanting it and understanding it (no matter how long this may take to realise), what this means is that the minority are condemned to merely running capitalism. In running capitalism, the minority vanguard are then obliged to impose the economic requirments of capitalism on the working class i.e. to act against the interests of the workers nothwithstanding their subjective ideology. Their objective situation compels the vanguard to side with capital against wage labour.

This is what happened in the Soviet Union and this is why revolutionary socialists are implacably opposed to leninist vanguardism

[graymouser]

The line above "We can't wait on everyone to agree with us" is the dead give away. This is the essence of vanguardism. The vanguard goes ahead and takes action purportedly on behalf of the working class which is not yet imbued with revolutionary socialist ideas, and captures power. Since the majority are not yet socialist and since socialism is impossible without majority wanting it and understanding it (no matter how long this may take to realise), what this means is that the minority are condemned to merely running capitalism. In running capitalism, the minority vanguard are then obliged to impose the economic requirments of capitalism on the working class i.e. to act against the interests of the workers nothwithstanding their subjective ideology. Their objective situation compels the vanguard to side with capital against wage labour.

This is what happened in the Soviet Union and this is why revolutionary socialists are implacably opposed to leninist vanguardism
The above is mushy nonsense. Politics isn't a question of pure "the majority believe this and the minority believe that" all the time. The reality is, during a revolutionary situation the majority are probably going to give the benefit of the doubt to reformists, who will inevitably betray them. The revolutionary vanguard then has the task of seizing power from whoever has it, reformists or reactionaries, and winning the confidence of the majority. The idea that they will then be "running capitalism" simply has no basis in reality. The revolution will have by this point thrown up soviets or similar instruments of workers democracy, through which the large masses of workers will express their will and actually run society.

In the Russian revolution, the country was a large majority of peasants. In the February Revolution, a government including members of the Kadet, Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties was thrown together not by majority rule but as a rearguard action by the departing duma. The Bolsheviks organized against this government, and the crucial moment came when Kornilov moved to crush Petersburg. The Bolsheviks won the confidence of the majority, and they removed the provisional government in favor of the Soviets, which at that point had all the confidence of the majority of workers and soldiers (peasants in arms) as well as the peasants. The degeneration of the revolution had nothing to do with the vanguard; it stemmed from the Pyrrhic nature of the victory in the Civil War, which devastated the working class, and the failure of the world revolution that the Bolsheviks had seen coming out of the world war. If the Bolsheviks hadn't taken power, fascism would have been developed in Russia instead of Italy. This is what I mean when I say there is a point where the revolutionary vanguard must seize power or it will wind up getting killed - the German revolution taught that in more ways than one.

[A.R.Amistad]

The line above "We can't wait on everyone to agree with us" is the dead give away. This is the essence of vanguardism. The vanguard goes ahead and takes action purportedly on behalf of the working class which is not yet imbued with revolutionary socialist ideas, and captures power. Since the majority are not yet socialist and since socialism is impossible without majority wanting it and understanding it (no matter how long this may take to realise), what this means is that the minority are condemned to merely running capitalism. In running capitalism, the minority vanguard are then obliged to impose the economic requirments of capitalism on the working class i.e. to act against the interests of the workers nothwithstanding their subjective ideology. Their objective situation compels the vanguard to side with capital against wage labour.

This is what happened in the Soviet Union and this is why revolutionary socialists are implacably opposed to leninist vanguardism

What i don't get is how you can define a "socialist" out of a mass of people. You speak of "the majority are not yet socialist." Well, when would that ever happen? Hell, even amongst us leftists we can't even agree on a definition of "socialist" and we're constantly decrying our rivals as non-socialist, so you tell me how one could expect to have an entire population "socialist." This is why a vanguard of revolutionary worker's who have no qualms about socialism, are dedicated to advancing socialism and are both practical and revolutionary in their socialism is needed. Again, you are speaking utopian gibberish if you think that the entire, or even majority, will be "socialist" individually. The idea is for the socialist vanguard to get mass support for its revolutionary socialist program. This means that non-party members, possibly even demogouges, racists, utopian populists and others who are individually reactionary will come to support the socialist program of the vanguard. That is pretty much how every revolution has been followed through. Mass support, yes most definately, but you are implying that we should wait for the entire population to read and comprehend Kapital before any revolutionary action is taken.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

The line above "We can't wait on everyone to agree with us" is the dead give away.

"There is a limit to the application of democratic methods. You can inquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether to apply the brakes when the train is at full speed and accident threatens." -Leon Trotsky

We can't wait in case of a society of oppression, where people are exploited daily, to get everyone to agree with us. We must act, when we have the support necessary to overthrow injustice.

There is a huge difference between majority, and unanimity.

[Ovi]

"There is a limit to the application of democratic methods. You can inquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether to apply the brakes when the train is at full speed and accident threatens." -Leon Trotsky

We can't wait in case of a society of oppression, where people are exploited daily, to get everyone to agree with us. We must act, when we have the support necessary to overthrow injustice.

Even if people do not support your socialist ideas, you find it alright to force people into it? I guess you do; if the working class would support socialism, then there would be no need for a vanguard, huh?

I don't understand "anti-vanguardism" as being anything other than anti-materialist idealism.

You're the one who believes in a tiny minority, so kindly hearted and incorruptible that, although nothing would stop them, they will not use their power for personal interest, and even though they have dictatorial powers over everyone else and no real reason to give it up, the state will instead concentrate at making people into anarchists (after all, communism is an anarchist society) and they will happily give up all of their power once they accomplish this. And I'm an idealist?

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Even if people do not support your socialist ideas, you find it alright to force people into it? I guess you do; if the working class would support socialism, then there would be no need for a vanguard, huh?

1. The proleteriat is divided. By race, ethnicity, nationalism, religion, bourgeois lies etc. The vanguard party works to dispel these lies and unite the proleteriat. This is done by building class-conciousness.

2. It's a proleterian Revolution, not my revolution, if they don't support it no revolution will happen.

[graymouser]

Even if people do not support your socialist ideas, you find it alright to force people into it? I guess you do; if the working class would support socialism, then there would be no need for a vanguard, huh?
The working class must of necessity develop unevenly. This is where "anti-vanguardism" buries its head in the sand. The uneven development of consciousness in the working class, caused by myriad factors such as racism, heritage, indoctrination, relative privilege and so on, means that there will inevitably be a layer of advanced workers. ("Vanguard" is a corruption of the French term avant garde, which itself means simply forward guard, as in the front ranks of an army.) In a revolutionary crisis, when the reformists fail and the reactionaries threaten to act, the initiative goes over to this advanced layer (regardless of whether it is Communist, Anarchist, Left-Nationalist or any other particular ideology). The advanced layer has the responsibility of acting at this point; if they fail, the revolution will be crushed, and they and their supporters will be killed. By putting forward a decisive program that can capture the support of the masses even though most of them are not part of the advanced layer, they can create a workers democracy without waiting for everyone to become a party member. Leninism is a method that recognizes this and tries to deal with it - while anarchism tries to deny it in theory and therefore becomes ill equipped to handle it in practice.

[A.R.Amistad]

Even if people do not support your socialist ideas, you find it alright to force people into it? I guess you do; if the working class would support socialism, then there would be no need for a vanguard, huh?

Idealism, Idealism. As we have stressed before, vanguards are present in every mass movement. If the working class spontaneously supported socialism on a mass scale, a vanguard would still exist (and be necessary) for the continuity of the revolution, since spontenaety is by definition not permanent. Also, in the theory of the vanguard party, I fail to see where the party forces anyone into socialism. If that where the case we wouldn't need democratic centralism, or even a party program, or even a party for that matter, just a underground "black hand society" type organization, which is ironically characteristic of the anarchists, not the Leninists.


You're the one who believes in a tiny minority

The strawmen arguments here are turning into entire fields of hay.


so kindly hearted and incorruptible that, although nothing would stop them, they will not use their power for personal interest, and even though they have dictatorial powers over everyone else and no real reason to give it up, the state will instead concentrate at making people into anarchists (after all, communism is an anarchist society) and they will happily give up all of their power once they accomplish this. And I'm an idealist?

Yes you most certainly are the idealist because you can't concieve of a correct and historical materialist definition of a vanguard, since you have here outlined the idealist conception of it.

[Ovi]

Yes you most certainly are the idealist because you can't concieve of a correct and historical materialist definition of a vanguard, since you have here outlined the idealist conception of it.
Great ad hominem. You still haven't explained why a vanguard would not abuse it's own powers and act in it's own narrow ruling class interest and you still gave no reasons on why the state would even try to teach people how to live without a state and renounce their own power. Thanks for completely ignoring everything I said.

[Aurora]

abuse it's own powers and act in it's own narrow ruling class interest and you still gave no reasons on why the state would even try to teach people how to live without a state and renounce their own power.
the vanguard isnt a class its a strata of workers and the comrades above are correct your being idealist, the state doesn't teach people to abolish it, it co-ordinates the development of society to such a point that the state is no longer necessary and all that is left is the 'administration of things'. You cant 'think' the state away, ideas come from material processes not the other way around.

[graymouser]

Great ad hominem. You still haven't explained why a vanguard would not abuse it's own powers and act in it's own narrow ruling class interest and you still gave no reasons on why the state would even try to teach people how to live without a state and renounce their own power. Thanks for completely ignoring everything I said.
By definition a vanguard is not a "class" with its own "narrow ruling class interest." It's a layer of the working class which has reached an understanding of the need for a socialist society.

As far as assurances of the state, well, as I said earlier in the thread - the revolution will put up democratic class organs, the ones that have appeared in real class struggle are workers councils or Soviets. The Leninist vanguard fights for these organs to have state power broadly speaking. In Russia in 1917, Soviet democracy was a victim of the civil war that slaughtered the mass base of the vanguard, and a bureaucratic layer was able to win out in a complex political battle for supremacy. As long as there is a hostile capitalist, imperialist world outside, there are no guarantees that a new revolution won't become corrupted (and this is true whether it's led by Communists, Anarchists or any other force); this is why Trotskyists support Permanent Revolution, the revolution becoming international, which is the only way for workers democracy to have a stable basis.

[Zanthorus]

You still haven't explained why a vanguard would not abuse it's own powers and act in it's own narrow ruling class interest

This is just a version of elite theory which is a product of bourgeois sociology. If it's true then socialism will remain forever a utopia. The fact is that the vanguard concept is perfectly consistent with "socialism from below". If we start with the assumption that socialism and class consciousness can only arise from the struggles of the working class then we also accept that the development of class consciousness will necessarily be uneven. Some workers will come to socialist consciousness faster than others. In fact at the beggining socialist consciousness is held only by petit-bourgeois intellectuals with the ability to see the historical progress of the working class and by an incredibly advanced minority of workers as was the case with the communist league. The question then is what the most effective way of spreading consciousness is. One way is to wait for the rest of the working class to arive at socialist consciousness spontaneously through an ever increasing level of struggle. However the second way which was advanced by the leading theoreticians of the second international from Kautsky to Lenin is to combine these advanced elements into a revolutionary socialist party which agitates for socialism and actively seeks to spread class consciousness.

The problem with anti-vanguard types is that they all think that somehow the vanguard is the antithesis of the self-emancipation of the working classes. In fact the vanguard is the only way to realise that self-emancipation. If the working class is to emancipate itself it will require them to be conscious of their class position on the historical tasks of their class. And this realisation will not happen all at once. The class has to go through some historical process to make itself class conscious.

In fact Lenin was perfectly aware of the fact that workers have a general instinct towards socialism:


It is often said that the working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that socialist theory reveals the causes of the misery of the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any other theory, and for that reason the workers are able to assimilate it so easily... The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism.


Workers have the class instinct, and, given some political experience, they pretty soon become staunch Social-Democrats.

But we most also remember that the working class does not exist in abstraction isolated from the rest of class society. It exists within bourgeois society and as the ruling ideas of each age are the ideas of the ruling class, the proletariats natural class consciousness will be impaired by the influence of bourgeois hegemony. Although the working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism "bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree." (What is to be Done? emphasis added)


and you still gave no reasons on why the state would even try to teach people how to live without a state and renounce their own power.

That's not what happens though. It's not a question of some "great leaders" winning the day and then voluntarily handing it down to the thankful masses. Lenin was as aware as anyone that the self-emancipation of the working classes must be an act of the working class itself.

The reason the state has to exist during the process of transition to socialism is to expropriate the bourgeoisie, bring the non-exploiting classes under the wing of the proletariat and generally assert the hegemony of the working class in order to allow it to emancipate itself, since as we all should know the workers cannot emancipate themselves without at the same time emancipating the rest of society and abolishing themselves as a class along with all class divisions. The state during the transition will consist partly of instruments left over from the old society (mostly the states economic apparatus), partly of workers organisations (councils, commitees, soviets etc formed during the process of revolution) and partly of the organisations of the non-exploiting classes. As the proletariat asserts itself as a class it destroys all class antagonisms which in turn overthrows a large part of the state apparatus leaving only the old economic apparatus leftover which is administrated through council organisations. The public power loses its political character.

[A.R.Amistad]

Great ad hominem.

Its not an ad hominem, its an observation that you are approaching this in an idealistic manner.


You still haven't explained why a vanguard would not abuse it's own powers

What "powers?" The party isn't a state organization, its a revolutionary political party. Any "power" that it would have would come from the support of the masses. Without it, the party is powerless. Also, I never really understood the idealist fear of "power" and "abuses of power." If we are so afaraid of somebody "abusing power," then we won't get anywhere and we'll just let the capitalists, who abuse power daily, do what they do while we keep worrying about someone "abusing power."

Main point is, any "power" that a revolutionary party has comes from the masses.


and act in it's own narrow ruling class interest

Oh dear, I guess we are just so narrow minded in our fight to place the proletariat as the ruling class. (wait, isn't that what the revolution is all about?) Damn, we are such narrow minded selfish people only interested in the advancement of our class, the proletariat. Oh sin of sins!


and you still gave no reasons on why the state would even try to teach people how to live without a state and renounce their own power.

I didn't know this was a question that was relevant, but okay. The state is not separate from the proletariet in a worker's state (hence the name). The state is not some patronizing force, because it is controlled directly by the working class. So really, the workers teach themselves, thats how.

[Zanthorus]

Its not an ad hominem, its an observation that you are approaching this in an idealistic manner.

It should probably be noted that there are actually two senses in which the word "idealism" can be used. One of which is actually perfectly compatible with philosophical materialism.

[Agnapostate]

Out of curiosity, have any Leninists here read the majority or entirety of Section H of An Anarchist FAQ?

[AK]

Out of curiosity, have any Leninists here read the majority or entirety of Section H of An Anarchist FAQ?
I never knew that existed, and now it's so useful to me. Thank you :wub:

[Zanthorus]

Out of curiosity, have any Leninists here read the majority or entirety of Section H of An Anarchist FAQ?

No, but apparently neither did George Fontenis (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/mlc4.html).

[Thirsty Crow]

I didn't know this was a question that was relevant, but okay. The state is not separate from the proletariet in a worker's state (hence the name). The state is not some patronizing force, because it is controlled directly by the working class. So really, the workers teach themselves, thats how.Historically, these claims have been proven false, in the sense that the state and its bureaucratic strata were separated from the proleteriat, the state was a patronizing (and far worse) force and it wasn't controlled directly. I just wonder, can we all agree on these points?

Now, if we can, the single most important question is how does the theory of a vanguard prevent its own practical degeneration, which is the revolution's degeneration as well. I don't mean to deny the underlying assumption - that class consciousness develops unevenly - but I simply wish to reiterate the problem which has HISTORICALLY become the greatest burden of any revolutionary organisation.

[graymouser]

Now, if we can, the single most important question is how does the theory of a vanguard prevent its own practical degeneration, which is the revolution's degeneration as well. I don't mean to deny the underlying assumption - that class consciousness develops unevenly - but I simply wish to reiterate the problem which has HISTORICALLY become the greatest burden of any revolutionary organisation.
To put it very simply: it doesn't have any absolutely effective solutions to protect against its own degeneration, and anti-vanguardism does not either. There are measures that can be taken, such as Lenin's famous conditions about rotating staff positions, salary no greater than that of an average worker etc, but these are not always practical in a crisis. Any government that doesn't take the correct measures in a time of crisis will get itself overthrown - regardless of whether it sees itself as a Leninist workers state or an anarchist federation of workers councils. And either of these could conceivably degenerate.

It is only the internationalization of the revolution that can guarantee its health. The Bolsheviks was forced to turn to a bureaucratic layer in order to restore everyday life after the Civil War, and these bureaucrats, grouped around Stalin, played off of various Bolshevik leaders until they could consolidate sole power in about 1928. This bureaucracy's victory was not inevitable, but the only thing that could have renewed the Soviet workers state permanently was the victory of the revolution in Germany. At this point the German workers state would have been in an almost unfathomably better position to help the Soviet Union to industrialize and to support the left wing of the Bolsheviks against the Stalinists, restore Soviet democracy and build toward a soviet federation of Europe that could have begun the real transition to socialism on the basis of fully democratic workers councils (soviets). The program of the Left Opposition was essentially to create an industrializing state that could hold out long enough for the international revolution, but Trotsky held out no illusions that socialism could triumph in one isolated country.

But you can't hold out for an ideological solution to degeneration, because it doesn't have ideological causes. It stems fundamentally from steps taken to combat national isolation; the people involved in those steps go further to keep their own limited, delegated power and turn it into a political stranglehold. There is no way to combat this as an ideology, it must be met head-on as a material force. If an anti-vanguardist revolution encountered such a force, it would be even less able to combat it than the Bolsheviks were, because it lacked the methods of internal party democracy that Leninists can use against the bureaucratic layer. If you pay attention to the fights in the CPSU from 1923-1929, Stalin was using cliques and alliances off one another, and the truth is that such groups breed even more strongly in anarchist groupings than they did in the Bolshevik Party.

[Ovi]

the state doesn't teach people to abolish it, it co-ordinates the development of society to such a point that the state is no longer necessary
Isn't that a contradiction?


What "powers?" The party isn't a state organization, its a revolutionary political party. Any "power" that it would have would come from the support of the masses. Without it, the party is powerless.

In that case why on earth are you a Trotskyist? Surely the soviet union under Stalin would have collapsed if Stalin did not have support from the masses? Also, just because people agree with a political system, that doesn't make it socialist. People participate in elections today and they democratically chose their representatives, but that doesn't mean we live in socialism.


Oh dear, I guess we are just so narrow minded in our fight to place the proletariat as the ruling class. (wait, isn't that what the revolution is all about?) Damn, we are such narrow minded selfish people only interested in the advancement of our class, the proletariat. Oh sin of sins!



The state is not separate from the proletariet in a worker's state (hence the name). The state is not some patronizing force, because it is controlled directly by the working class.
I don't think anyone in his right mind would argue that your average soviet peasant had the same powers as Lenin. As such, Lenin was not part of the same class as the peasant. Whether Lenin wanted to improve the life of that peasant or not is irrelevant. They are part of different classes.

[Zanthorus]

Isn't that a contradiction?

Not necessarily if the state is merely the "proletariat organised as the ruling class" (Manifesto of the Communist Party) through "local executive committees and councils or through workers’ clubs or committees" (Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League). I think this is a general problem with the Marxist and anarchist literature on the state during the revolutionary period that it is never made quite clear what is meant by the "state" existing. This just leads to endless confusion and branding each other "counter-revolutionary" for reasons neither side is actually that clear on.


In that case why on earth are you a Trotskyist?


Good question. I don't think Trotskyism provides an effective answer to Stalinism either.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes you most certainly are the idealist because you can't concieve of a correct and historical materialist definition of a vanguard, since you have here outlined the idealist conception of it.Yes, they were certainly putting forward the view that all matter is an illusion, and the vanguard is a manifestation of the absolute.

[AK]

the state doesn't teach people to abolish it, it co-ordinates the development of society to such a point that the state is no longer necessary and all that is left is the 'administration of things'.
Didn't they ever teach you that the state exists only to:


Enforce the will of the ruling class,
Guarantee it's own existence and to
Maintain existing property relations

[Zanthorus]

Didn't they ever teach you that the state exists only to:


Enforce the will of the ruling class,
Guarantee it's own existence and to
Maintain existing property relations


Yes. But the revolutionary workers government advocated by Marxists is different from all previous states in that it's the creation of the opressed classes directed from the institutions created by them during the period of struggle in order to enforce their hegemony. In fact, as Engels noted, it is no longer a "state" in any real sense. This is why it has sometimes been referred to as a "semi-state" or "commune state".

Personally by the way, I disagree with the "whithering away" analogy. What actually happens is that the state enforces the workers class interests, and the class interests of the workers is towards the emancipation of all spheres of society and the dissolution of the state into the social body.

If you want a brilliant article on the state in the period of transition I thought the ICC's article on it was pretty good:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648

Although they still use the problematic "whithering away" terminology.

[Gecko]

Sorry for the lack of clarity, I'll edit my statement. You are right, he didn't attempt a revolution, he helped lead it. That is what I meant.

anti-dialectics in action....many of these so called "leftists" as well as anarchists are incapable of thinking or analyzing dialectically ..their shallow and disconnected analysis reveals they can't put two and two together..
absolutely no true understanding of communism,revolution and MLM ..
that's what makes them dangerous to a future revolution..

[Zanthorus]

Ugh, can we please not have this thread degenerate into a thread on dialectics. If you want to argue that start up another thread.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Didn't they ever teach you that the state exists only to:


Enforce the will of the ruling class,
Guarantee it's own existence and to
Maintain existing property relations



these are exactely the reasons why Marx argued for Socialist state ;)

[AK]

anti-dialectics in action....many of these so called "leftists" as well as anarchists are incapable of thinking or analyzing dialectically ..their shallow and disconnected analysis reveals they can't put two and two together..
absolutely no true understanding of communism,revolution and MLM ..
that's what makes them dangerous to a future revolution..
Of course most anarchists and Marxists aren't experts on Maoism; it goes without saying.
That being said, why haven't you been banned yet?

[AK]

these are exactely the reasons why Marx argued for Socialist state ;)
Well in my opinion, such an entity wouldn't be considered a state.

[Gecko]

Of course most anarchists and Marxists aren't experts on Maoism; it goes without saying.
That being said, why haven't you been banned yet?

damn..i didn't know anarchists could be such petty crybaby snitches sniveling in response to someone elses different viewpoint and then calling for them to be banned..
hell your little fascist mindset makes fox news look like flaming libs ..fair and balanced..
:lol:

[AK]

damn..i didn't know anarchists could be such petty crybaby snitches sniveling in response to someone elses different viewpoint and then calling for them to be banned..
hell your little fascist mindset makes fox news look like flaming libs ..fair and balanced..
:lol:
Am I a sniveling crybaby? No. What I'm complaining about is your arrogant dogmatism and your immediate dismissal of anyone who has an opposing idea as petit-bourgeois. Are you a sectarian brain-dead troll? Yes.

And how can I be facsist when I oppose nationalism, racism, sexism, authoritarianism, militarism, the state and private property?

Take your bullshit somewhere else. You're not wanted here.

[AK]

damn..i didn't know anarchists could be such petty crybaby snitches sniveling in response to someone elses different viewpoint and then calling for them to be banned..
You don't have a viewpoint so much as verbal diarrhoea and mouth full of relentless sectarianism.

[Zanthorus]

these are exactely the reasons why Marx argued for Socialist state ;)

Marx never argued for any "socialist" states he argued for a revolutionary workers government during the transition period to communism (Or socialism, since they meant basically the same thing for Marx).

Lenin was the one who argued for a "socialist" state in order to enforce the "bourgeois law" which is apparently implied by labour time accounting.

[064]

And what else is a "revolutionary workers government" but an organ which enforces its rule via state mechanisms over a particularly territory. Normal people call this a state and no amount of obfuscation can hide that.

[064]

The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands...

Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat

-Luxemburg.

Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of Freedom!

-Bordiga.

[Zanthorus]

And what else is a "revolutionary workers government" but an organ which enforces its rule via state mechanisms over a particularly territory. Normal people call this a state and no amount of obfuscation can hide that.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the revolutionary workers government is not a state (It is), I was saying that once socialism is achieved there is no state. To make this clearer, the main two stages of society post-capitalism which I percieve are:

Revolutionary Workers Government - The workers take control of the state through the administrative organs build through class struggle. The bourgeoisie is expropriated but other non-exploiting classes continue to exist. Here, capitalist forms still exist and the economy is not yet socialist, although as we get further into this stage
Communism - Or socialism if you like. Here there are only producers associated with each other through the council organs which after the destruction of the class system become in the main part an instrument for the administration of the economy. Here there is no longer any state, as all class distinctions have ceased.

[064]

LOL, and what are 'council organs' but a form of government to administer the economy? And pray, how does a government enforce its wishes or the wishes of those who they represent? And what do we call such a body which administers and executes? :rolleyes:

[Zanthorus]

LOL, and what are 'council organs' but a form of government to administer the economy? And pray, how does a government enforce its wishes or the wishes of those who they represent? And what do we call such a body which administers and executes? :rolleyes:

Well I'm sorry, I thought this was a forum full of Marxists, not liberals.

[064]

I've forgotten more about Marxism than an idiot like you will ever know.

And you have the nerve to talk about liberalism when you try and hide from using the naughty authoritarian word 'state' and replace it with something far nicer and 'libertarian' 'revolutionary workers government.' :rolleyes:

I use the commonly used term of the state: a government of people which administer control over a particular territory. Whether such an organ will 'wither away' or be made redundant is purely speculative and hypothetical.

[Zanthorus]

I've forgotten more about Marxism than an idiot like you will ever know.

Hmmm...

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character."

- Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party


And you have the nerve to talk about liberalism when you try and hide from using the naughty authoritarian word 'state' and replace it with something far nicer and 'libertarian' 'revolutionary workers government.' :rolleyes:

I explicitly said that that would be a state. We can use the term "workers state" if you like. I only used "revolutionary workers government" because Marx used it. Not because of any commitment to "libertarianism".

And the "monopoly on the use of force" definition of the state was invented by the bourgeois sociologist Max Weber.


I use the commonly used term of the state: a government of people which administer control over a particular territory. Whether such an organ will 'wither away' or be made redundant is purely speculative and hypothetical.

That's fair enough I guess. I don't necessarily want to get bogged down in a semantics war here.

However I think this runs the risk of making the categories of capitalism eternal and causing confusion. Like how bourgeois economists will use the term "capital" to refer to any productive implements, and then make some crappy argument about how even the cells in the human body are "capitalists" because they produce things (I have actually seen some right-wing nutcase make that argument).

[064]

We can use the term "workers state" if you like. I only used "revolutionary workers government" because Marx used it. Not because of any commitment to "libertarianism".

Actually, the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was used and is better suited.


And the "monopoly on the use of force" definition of the state was invented by the bourgeois sociologist Max Weber.

And if I complete the quote above, which you conveniently left out:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.

Here's another:

"As the state arose from the need to keep class antagonisms in check, but also arose in the thick of the fight between the classes, it is normally the state of the most powerful, economically ruling class, which by its means becomes also the politically ruling class, and so acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave-owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is the instrument for exploiting wage-labor by capital."

So no, the concept that the state has a monopoly of violence wasn't invented by Weber; it was a fundamental concept in understanding the nature of the state by Marx & Engels.

[Zanthorus]

Actually, the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was used and is better suited.

Marx only used that formulation during two periods of his life in opposition to the Blanquism and talk of "educational dictatorship" which was rampant during both.


And if I complete the quote above, which you conveniently left out:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.

Here's another:

"As the state arose from the need to keep class antagonisms in check, but also arose in the thick of the fight between the classes, it is normally the state of the most powerful, economically ruling class, which by its means becomes also the politically ruling class, and so acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave-owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is the instrument for exploiting wage-labor by capital."

So no, the concept that the state has a monopoly of violence wasn't invented by Weber; it was a fundamental concept in understanding the nature of the state by Marx & Engels.

I would reread those quotes if I were you. They quite clearly state that the state is an instrument for the domination of one class by another. Now think about it, how can one class opress another in the society which has no classes?

[064]

Marx only used that formulation during two periods of his life in opposition to the Blanquism and talk of "educational dictatorship" which was rampant during both.

It was used to apply to an actual historical event, which means its far more relevant.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. - Engels.


I would reread those quotes if I were you. They quite clearly state that the state is an instrument for the domination of one class by another. Now think about it, how can one class opress another in the society which has no classes? Because the state, besides being a tool of oppression, has other uses which would also exist in whatever hypothetical future? And because even if Marx was right, that the non-existence of the state would only occur when its redundant. I doubt its requirement is going to be short-term. If you want to call that something apart from a state, then fine. I would rather stick to the commonly used term. I would also rather stick with what we know rather than hypothesize about whether the state would or wouldn't exist, which is purely speculative.

[Zanthorus]

It was used to apply to an actual historical event, which means its far more relevant.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. - Engels.

That was Engels. Marx never mentioned the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Civil War in France. However, after the Commune a lot of the Communards fled France to seek refuge. Many of them were Blanquists (Blanqui had even been elected to the commune but never taken part because he'd been under arrest at the time and the Versaillese refused to trade him with the priests which the Communards had hostage) who still held to the old slogans of "educational dictatorship". Marx made a speech to the IWMA with many of the Blanquists present in september 1871 where he again mentions the dictatorship of the proletariat. And the last time the term ever appeared in Marx's writings was the GothaKritik of 1875.


Because the state, besides being a tool of oppression, has other uses which would also exist in whatever hypothetical future?

But clearly for Marx the primary defining characteristic of the state is the oppression of one class by another. Once all classes dissapear the "state" also dissapears as such. He doesn't say that all the organs of the state will dissapear, in fact I believe in the Critique of the Gotha Program he speculates and what functions of the state will remain after the revolution. But it will no longer be a state because it's purpose is no longer the domination of one class by another.

[064]

Its fundamentally reductionist to think that no classes = no state. Whilst the state is a tool to oppress classes, it can also serve other functions (crime, health, providing electricity, water, education, etc). I believe that a centralized state is required for a system of planning and for the socialization of society. I have no problem with the concept of a state existing in a socialist economy, and nor does it seems Luxemburg:

The proletarian revolution that has now begun can have no other goal and no other result than the realisation of socialism. The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands. Political power, however, is for us socialists only a means. The end for which we must use this power is the fundamental transformation of the entire economic relations.

Currently all wealth – the largest and best estates as well as the mines, works and the factories – belongs to a few Junkers and private capitalists. The great mass of the workers only get from these Junkers and capitalists a meagre wage to live on for hard work. The enrichment of a small number of idlers is the aim of today’s economy.

This state of affairs should be remedied. All social wealth, the land with all its natural resources hidden in its bowels and on the surface, and all factories and works must be taken out of the hands of the exploiters and taken into common property of the people. The first duty of a real workers’ government is to declare by means of a series of decrees the most important means of production to be national property and place them under the control of society.

Only then, however, does the real and most difficult task begin: the reconstruction of the economy on a completely new basis.

[064]

That was Engels. Marx never mentioned the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Civil War in France. However, after the Commune a lot of the Communards fled France to seek refuge. Many of them were Blanquists (Blanqui had even been elected to the commune but never taken part because he'd been under arrest at the time and the Versaillese refused to trade him with the priests which the Communards had hostage) who still held to the old slogans of "educational dictatorship". Marx made a speech to the IWMA with many of the Blanquists present in september 1871 where he again mentions the dictatorship of the proletariat. And the last time the term ever appeared in Marx's writings was the GothaKritik of 1875.

I use the term because it defines the rule of the working class. Nothing more needs to be added, nor am I interested in you using it as an excuse to engage in historical masturbation.


But clearly for Marx the primary defining characteristic of the state is the oppression of one class by another. Once all classes dissapear the "state" also dissapears as such. He doesn't say that all the organs of the state will dissapear, in fact I believe in the Critique of the Gotha Program he speculates and what functions of the state will remain after the revolution. But it will no longer be a state because it's purpose is no longer the domination of one class by another.

Then its a useless application of the term state; the organs of the state will exist, but they're no longer called a state because they're not used in dominating other classes. One could just as well say that it is a classless society, because that would achieve the same meaning.

[4 Leaf Clover]

That was Engels. Marx never mentioned the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Civil War in France. However, after the Commune a lot of the Communards fled France to seek refuge. Many of them were Blanquists (Blanqui had even been elected to the commune but never taken part because he'd been under arrest at the time and the Versaillese refused to trade him with the priests which the Communards had hostage) who still held to the old slogans of "educational dictatorship". Marx made a speech to the IWMA with many of the Blanquists present in september 1871 where he again mentions the dictatorship of the proletariat. And the last time the term ever appeared in Marx's writings was the GothaKritik of 1875.



But clearly for Marx the primary defining characteristic of the state is the oppression of one class by another. Once all classes dissapear the "state" also dissapears as such. He doesn't say that all the organs of the state will dissapear, in fact I believe in the Critique of the Gotha Program he speculates and what functions of the state will remain after the revolution. But it will no longer be a state because it's purpose is no longer the domination of one class by another.
dictatorship of proletariat is a term mentioned in manifesto itself , as a goal of working class struggle , as a way of taking political power by working class to start reforming society

[4 Leaf Clover]

Marx never argued for any "socialist" states he argued for a revolutionary workers government during the transition period to communism (Or socialism, since they meant basically the same thing for Marx).

Lenin was the one who argued for a "socialist" state in order to enforce the "bourgeois law" which is apparently implied by labour time accounting.

in a text called "Communist Manifesto" , it is clearly said that workers are supposed to form Workers State , which should include things like : forbbiden right of inheriting , advanced taxes , forbbiden right on private property , seizing the property of all counter-revolutionaries , capitalists and similar , etc. etc. , mind that Lenin was not into the whole story yet rly :)



The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.


from the Manifesto

[Zanthorus]

I use the term because it defines the rule of the working class. Nothing more needs to be added, nor am I interested in you using it as an excuse to engage in historical masturbation.

You were claiming that "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was better suited to the purpose than the alternatives "Workers State" or "Revolutionary Workers Government". However Marx only ever used that formulation twice, first around the 1850's and then between 1871 to 1875. At both points the phrase was only a tactical phrase to get the Blanquists on side. Therefore Marx clearly didn't think that "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a suitable phrase to use apart from against the various Blanquist sects.


dictatorship of proletariat is a term mentioned in manifesto itself

No, the first time that the dictatorship of the proletariat is mentioned is in The Class Struggles in France which was first published in 1850.


in a text called "Communist Manifesto" , it is clearly said that workers are supposed to form Workers State , which should include things like : forbbiden right of inheriting , advanced taxes , forbbiden right on private property , seizing the property of all counter-revolutionaries , capitalists and similar , etc. etc. , mind that Lenin was not into the whole story yet rly :)

Yes, but the workers state was never referred to as "socialism".

[4 Leaf Clover]

No, the first time that the dictatorship of the proletariat is mentioned is in The Class Struggles in France which was first published in 1850.
ok thanks for correction




Yes, but the workers state was never referred to as "socialism".

what else is Socialism teaching ?

isnt marxism otherwise called scientific socialism ?

[ZeroNowhere]

in a text called "Communist Manifesto" , it is clearly said that workers are supposed to form Workers State , which should include things like : forbbiden right of inheriting , advanced taxes , forbbiden right on private property , seizing the property of all counter-revolutionaries , capitalists and similar , etc. etc. , mind that Lenin was not into the whole story yet rly :)



from the Manifesto
The main purpose of this is to propose more radical versions of the demands of the petit-bourgeois democrats, so as to 'make the revolution permanent', and allow the proletariat to increase its independence, take political power, and put into action proposals which would have been economically unsound, and thus force their own surpassing. The demands were later dismissed as antiquated, and Engels rejected the idea that revolution had even been possible at the time. It is also hardly post-revolutionary, which is what 'socialism' is generally supposed to be, and it certainly did not involve a bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie, nor labour credits. It was not referred to as 'socialism', either, as M+E used that term interchangeably with 'communism' when referring to the associated mode of production.


isnt marxism otherwise called scientific socialism ?Just about everything is called Marxism, so that wouldn't make matters any clearer. However, Engels did use the term 'scientific socialism' (at least, I believe that would be an accurate translation), in contrast with the 'utopian socialists', to refer to the fact that M+E had based their ideas on communism on an analysis and critique of capitalism.

[Zanthorus]

The main purpose of this is to propose more radical versions of the demands of the petit-bourgeois democrats, so as to 'make the revolution permanent', and allow the proletariat to increase its independence, take political power, and put into action proposals which would have been economically unsound, and thus force their own surpassing.


Wait, the demands were purposefully economically unsound? I've never read that anywhere before. Got any sources I could check out?

[AK]

<10 planks>
Am I the only one to remember that the 10 planks were written in the context of 1800s largely-agrarian Germany? The ten planks were a realisation of workers' demands at the time of writing.

Never mind a source, this is what I remember from posts in older threads :lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

Wait, the demands were purposefully economically unsound? I've never read that anywhere before. Got any sources I could check out?

Wait, the demands were purposefully economically unsound? I've never read that anywhere before. Got any sources I could check out?
But Herr Heinzen also promises social reforms. Of course, the indifference of the people towards his appeals has gradually forced him to. And what kind of. reforms are these? They are such as the Communists themselves suggest in preparation for the abolition of private property. The only point Herr Heinzen makes that deserves recognition he has borrowed from the Communists, the Communists whom he attacks so violently, and even that is reduced in his hands to utter nonsense and mere day-dreaming. All measures to restrict competition and the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals, all restriction or suppression of the law of inheritance, all organisation of labour by the state, etc., all these measures are not only possible as revolutionary measures, but actually necessary. They are possible because the whole insurgent proletariat is behind them and maintains them by force of arms. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way.

[...]

In short: with the Communists these measures have sense and reason because they are not conceived as arbitrary measures but as consequences which will necessarily and of themselves ensue from the development of industry, agriculture, trade and communications, from the development of the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat which is dependent on these; which will ensue not as definitive measures but as transitory ones, mesures de salut public arising from the transitory struggle between the classes itself.


With Herr Heinzen, they have neither sense nor reason, because they take the form of quite arbitrarily conceived, obtusely bourgeois visions of putting the world to rights; because there is no mention of a connection between these measures and historical development; because Herr Heinzen is not in the least concerned about the material feasibility of his proposals; because it is not his aim to formulate industrial necessities but on the contrary to overturn them by decree.
-Engels, 'The Communists and Karl Heinzen'.

[4 Leaf Clover]

The main purpose of this is to propose more radical versions of the demands of the petit-bourgeois democrats, so as to 'make the revolution permanent', and allow the proletariat to increase its independence, take political power, and put into action proposals which would have been economically unsound, and thus force their own surpassing. The demands were later dismissed as antiquated, and Engels rejected the idea that revolution had even been possible at the time. It is also hardly post-revolutionary, which is what 'socialism' is generally supposed to be, and it certainly did not involve a bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie, nor labour credits. It was not referred to as 'socialism', either, as M+E used that term interchangeably with 'communism' when referring to the associated mode of production.

Just about everything is called Marxism, so that wouldn't make matters any clearer. However, Engels did use the term 'scientific socialism' (at least, I believe that would be an accurate translation), in contrast with the 'utopian socialists', to refer to the fact that M+E had based their ideas on communism on an analysis and critique of capitalism.

I personally dont like the idea of "stripping" revolutionary theory. Mostly everything is today , either rejected , or denied , or withdrawn , so basicly whats left of revolutionary theory is "fucking , go and fight"

on the other side , not all revolutionary theory is written by Marx and Engels , neither communism is list of Dogmas.

However i think that an urging for Socialist state was quite obvious at the time .