Is there too much division and dispute within communism?

[Iskalla]

Whilst I haven't contributed much here yet, I've taken away a great deal in having read through threads and developed a better understanding of communism and socialism. Although, I wonder how dispute and conflict over certain subjects could be addressed or resolved under a communist system? Everything from religion, to Stalin vs Trotsky, to war and pacifism, sometimes differences in opinion seem to be so significant two communists can be worlds apart on specific subjects. Could this be a threat if a revolution came about, I mean, how can one direction be focused on when so many people have so many different viewpoints.

On the other hand, putting voices to diversity and differences could be a good thing. Encouraging debate could mean consistent progression and hearing of potentially beneficial opinions.

Or am I wrong altogether in thinking right wing groups do not also have similar outstanding divisions and conflicts?

[Adil3tr]

Yes

[The Guy]

Your queries are probably right. Although most of us have disagreements which are only minor on paper, they can make a huge different in practice.

[bie]

It is rather some sort of "divide and rule".

[BuddhaInBabylon]

I have noticed this sort of thing as well Iskalla. Though as you summise, such divisions in doctrine exist on the right as well.
I have to think that you hit on something extremely important to the dynamism of the socialist movement when you mention the open debate and pursuit of further refining the direction of society as a whole. It really IS the fact that people are paying attention to the minor details and voicing Not just as Socialists moving towards communism, in other words, as a political theory moving towards its goal, but as human beings/citizens moving towards a more productive, progressive, enlightened existence.

[fa2991]

No more than necessary. It's impossible for Stalininsts and Luxemburgists to buddy up.

It's the same way with anarchists - anarcho-communists have no business supporting propertarian anarchists and anarcho-capitalists.

Some divisions are inevitable and necessary.

[bie]

Taking the class perspective - divisions within the working class are highly undesirable from the Marxist point of view. The problem is the influence of ideology of different social classes: bourgeoisie (eg. social-democracy, anticommunism) and petit-bourgeoisie (some versions of anarchism and trotskyism).

[fa2991]

petit-bourgeoisie (some versions of anarchism and trotskyism).

:rolleyes:

[Thirsty Crow]

Taking the class perspective - divisions within the working class are highly undesirable from the Marxist point of view. The problem is the influence of ideology of different social classes: bourgeoisie (eg. social-democracy, anticommunism) and petit-bourgeoisie (some versions of anarchism and trotskyism).
No, really, I want you to scientifically explain this
And the answer along the lines of "historical founder of the doctrine were of petit-bourgoise origin" is completely unacceptable since it doesn't show why and how these doctrines are detrimental to the interests of the working class.

[Barry Lyndon]

No, really, I want you to scientifically explain this
And the answer along the lines of "historical founder of the doctrine were of petit-bourgoise origin" is completely unacceptable since it doesn't show why and how these doctrines are detrimental to the interests of the working class.

By that logic, all Marxist are flat out bourgeois because Frederich Engels family owned textile mills in Manchester.

[Thirsty Crow]

By that logic, all Marxist are flat out bourgeois because Frederich Engels family owned textile mills in Manchester.
Exactly. It's quite easy to understand that this leads us absolutely nowhere.
And if one were to argue that "some versions of anarchism and trotskyism" are inherently petit-bourgeois ideologies, the person should prove how exactly do these correspond to the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie as a social class (which amounts to the interest of becoming bourgeois).

[Barry Lyndon]

Exactly. It's quite easy to understand that this leads us absolutely nowhere.
And if one were to argue that "some versions of anarchism and trotskyism" are inherently petit-bourgeois ideologies, the person should prove how exactly do these correspond to the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie as a social class (which amounts to the interest of becoming bourgeois).

Well, to the likes of bie, if you don't accept that Josef Stalin was the personal embodiment of communism itself and the savior of the global proletariat, you are 'petit-bourgeois', 'anti-communist' and 'capitalist/fascist agent'. Just like his ilk describes everyone who differed with Stalin as 'revisionist'. The loyalty of 'Marxist-Leninists' such as bie is not to communism or the working class as a whole, but to Stalin and his ideological hangers-on(particularly in Eastern Europe). Never mind that many of the Stalinist leaders he loves so much made an eager and swift transition to becoming capitalist oligarchs after the Eastern Bloc collapsed. Or that Stalin was an Okhrana agent for years, while he endlessly flogs Trotsky for allegations that he was a fascist agent, evidence obtained through torture in NKVD dungeons.
No, no 'petit-bourgeois' tendencies there.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, to the likes of bie, if you don't accept that Josef Stalin was the personal embodiment of communism itself and the savior of the global proletariat, you are 'petit-bourgeois', 'anti-communist' and 'capitalist/fascist agent'. Just like his ilk describes everyone who differed with Stalin as 'revisionist'. The loyalty of 'Marxist-Leninists' such as bie is not to communism or the working class as a whole, but to Stalin and his ideological hangers-on(particularly in Eastern Europe). Never mind that many of the Stalinist leaders he loves so much made an eager and swift transition to becoming capitalist oligarchs after the Eastern Bloc collapsed. Or that Stalin was an Okhrana agent for years, while he endlessly flogs Trotsky for allegations that he was a fascist agent, evidence obtained through torture in NKVD dungeons.
No, no 'petit-bourgeois' tendencies there.
Just out of curiosity, when you speak about "Stalinism" what exactly do you have in mind? Just the adherence to the legacy of Stalin or specific ideological positions?

[bie]

No, really, I want you to scientifically explain this
And the answer along the lines of "historical founder of the doctrine were of petit-bourgoise origin" is completely unacceptable since it doesn't show why and how these doctrines are detrimental to the interests of the working class
Explaining that is a pure pleasure. You have never came across that statements? Strange.

(1) Some versions of anarchism are purely petty-bourgeoisie, with its emphasis on the individualism and its visions of the society of independent producers. "Everything for the individual" is a petty bourgeois ideology. Worker's ideology is "everything for the masses". For more information, I refer to work of J. Stalin "Anarchism or socialism?" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm)

(2) Trotskyism is also petty bourgeois ideology due the fact that it found its social basis among petty bourgeoisie that was opposed to the policy of the CP. It was recognized as petty bourgeois by the XIV Congress of Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

In the person of the present ‘opposition’ we face not only an attempt to revise Bolshevism, not only a direct moving away from Leninism, but also a clearly expressed petty-bourgeois deviation. There is not the slightest doubt that this ‘opposition’ objectively reflects the pressure of the petty bourgeoisie on the positions of the Party of the proletariat and its policies.”
...and XV Congress of the same organization.

“The denial of the possibility of a victorious building of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. and consequently the denial of the Socialist character of our revolution; the denial of the Socialist character of state industry; the denial of the Socialist roads of development in the village under conditions of the proletarian dictatorship and of the policy of union of the proletariat with the fundamental masses of the peasantry on the basis of Socialist construction; finally, the actual denial of the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. (‘Thermidor’) and the attitude of capitulation and defeatism connected with it,—all this ideological orientation has transformed the Trotsky opposition into an instrument of petty-bourgeois democracy within the U.S.S.R. and into an auxiliary troop of international Social-Democracy outside of its frontiers.”
More information here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/03.htm). It is highly recommended, a very good explanation of that phenomenon:

"Of this class Karl Marx once said that it is “a transitional class in which the interests of two classes are simultaneously blunted”. The petty bourgeoisie finds itself between the proletariat and the large-scale bourgeoisie. It strives to rise to the position of the large-scale bourgeoisie, but the latter, using the power of concentrated and centralized capital, continuously drives it down to the position of the proletariat. The petty bourgeois, subjectively, wishes to become rich, to attain to the heights of capitalist economic power; objectively, however, his interests lie with the struggle against capitalism because capitalism removes the ground from under his feet and because only under a Socialist system will the petty bourgeois of today become a free member of society, unafraid of the future, since under Socialism he will be transformed into one engaged in useful productive labor. The petty bourgeoisie as a class, therefore, is wavering. The interests of two classes, said Marx, are “simultaneously blunted” in it. That means that the petty bourgeoisie cannot be as consistently counter-revolutionary as the big bourgeoisie, but it cannot be as consistently with the revolution, as is the proletariat. The petty bourgeoisie is afraid of the big bourgeoisie but it is also afraid of the revolution. Some sections of the petty bourgeoisie are attracted to the revolution which represents their future interests, but they shrink before the sharp line of the revolutionary struggle. Fundamentally they would like to have class peace, because nothing is more dear to the heart of the petty bourgeoisie than social peace. However, they feel that social peace means their own doom. Therefore, when the proletariat develops a strong revolutionary movement, many petty-bourgeois elements are irresistibly drawn to the revolutionary camp, only in turn to denounce its “extremes”, and to don “extreme Left” masks itself. They are finding fault with the existing capitalist system, but they are also finding fault with the Revolution and its leaders. Not being truly revolutionary, being able only to be led by the Revolution, they often develop an immense conceit. They think of themselves as the “only” and “real” revolutionists. They denounce the real revolutionist as “dogmatic” and “narrow”.

btw - I don't want to start another sectarian war - I am just answering the question of the justification of the marxist-leninist analysis of the class character of certain trends of anarchism and trotskyism.


Just out of curiosity, when you speak about "Stalinism" what exactly do you have in mind? Just the adherence to the legacy of Stalin or specific ideological positions?
He doesn't know. Everything that has to do with Stalin, if is not connected with spitting on it is "Stalinism".

[Raúl Duke]

It's not revolutionary ideologists that make valid revolution anyway, but the classes (in this case, in the case for socialism and communism, the working class).

This "division" means nothing really. Everyone talks about unity and I'm just going to be blunt: ultimately this "left unity" will just not work out nor is this so paramount for revolution to take place.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Explaining that is a pure pleasure. You have never came across that statements? Strange.

(1) Some versions of anarchism are purely petty-bourgeoisie, with its emphasis on the individualism and its visions of the society of independent producers. "Everything for the individual" is a petty bourgeois ideology. Worker's ideology is "everything for the masses". For more information, I refer to work of J. Stalin "Anarchism or socialism?" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm)

(2) Trotskyism is also petty bourgeois ideology due the fact that it found its social basis among petty bourgeoisie that was opposed to the policy of the CP. It was recognized as petty bourgeois by the XIV Congress of Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

...and XV Congress of the same organization.

More information here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/03.htm). It is highly recommended, a very good explanation of that phenomenon:


btw - I don't want to start another sectarian war - I am just answering the question of the justification of the marxist-leninist analysis of the class character of certain trends of anarchism and trotskyism.


So where is your point?

He dosn't know. Everything that has to do with Stalin, if is not connected with spitting on it is "Stalinism".

Maybe make the distinction between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism/anarcho-communism? kthxbai

[bie]

Maybe make the distinction between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism/anarcho-communism?
It could be useful, true. But could you say there is not petty bourgeoisie ideology influence (I am not saying character, but influence) also in non-individualist anarchism?

[Barry Lyndon]

Just out of curiosity, when you speak about "Stalinism" what exactly do you have in mind? Just the adherence to the legacy of Stalin or specific ideological positions?

You could say its adherence to the legacy of Stalin, in a nutshell. But I also see Stalinism, when it dominates a state, as having a number of specific characteristics(this applies the to the USSR under Stalin, most of Eastern Europe with the exception of Yugoslavia, North Korea, Maoist China with the exception of the Cultural Revolution, Ethiopia under Menghistsu, etc):

1) Cult of personality around the head of state.
2) Lack of any serious public criticism of the leadership allowed. Very little or no debate, even within the ruling party.
3) Grotesque gap in living standards between the party leaders and the general population.
4) Systematic, brutal terror used by the ruling party to maintain control.
5) Lack of organs of workers and/or peasants control with any real power.

I am not an ultra-leftist or an anarchist in that I think that a state can be socialist and still have a centralized government, and that in the transition from capitalism to communism there are going to still be hierarchies and inequalities. What matters to me is if the regime is making sincere efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate those inequalities.

[durhamleft]

Whilst I haven't contributed much here yet, I've taken away a great deal in having read through threads and developed a better understanding of communism and socialism. Although, I wonder how dispute and conflict over certain subjects could be addressed or resolved under a communist system? Everything from religion, to Stalin vs Trotsky, to war and pacifism, sometimes differences in opinion seem to be so significant two communists can be worlds apart on specific subjects. Could this be a threat if a revolution came about, I mean, how can one direction be focused on when so many people have so many different viewpoints.

On the other hand, putting voices to diversity and differences could be a good thing. Encouraging debate could mean consistent progression and hearing of potentially beneficial opinions.

Or am I wrong altogether in thinking right wing groups do not also have similar outstanding divisions and conflicts?

You're absolutely right.

I've attended leftist meetings where people have debated for hours and hours what name to use, whether other leftists are welcome, blah blah blah. It does my head in. We want to end capitalism and end oppression and exploitation, fuck the rest, let's unite and deal with the pissy stuff later.

[bie]

You could say its adherence to the legacy of Stalin, in a nutshell. But I also see Stalinism, when it dominates a state, as having a number of specific characteristics(this applies the to the USSR under Stalin, most of Eastern Europe with the exception of Yugoslavia, North Korea, Maoist China with the exception of the Cultural Revolution, Ethiopia under Menghistsu, etc):

1) Cult of personality around the head of state.
2) Lack of any serious public criticism of the leadership allowed. Very little or no debate, even within the ruling party.
3) Grotesque gap in living standards between the party leaders and the general population.
4) Systematic, brutal terror used by the ruling party to maintain control.
5) Lack of organs of workers and/or peasants control with any real power.

I am not an ultra-leftist or an anarchist in that I think that a state can be socialist and still have a centralized government, and that in the transition from capitalism to communism there are going to still be hierarchies and inequalities. What matters to me is if the regime is making sincere efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate those inequalities.
Oh Barry Lyndon, according to your "points" Soviet Union when J. Stalin was the General Secretary of the Communist Party wasn't "Stalinist". The debate within the party was thriving for the most of that period (from struggle with left and right oppositions in late 20s to big dispute over the law of value in socialism in 50s). Stalin was living in very modest conditions, co called "terror" was restricted to 3 years (1936-1938), where it was directed against traitors, and allowed to save millions of lives during the war (in case of the civil war started by the fifth column). Also as mentioned before in many places - workers and peasants had whole gigantic pyramid of Soviets where they could exert their power and even recall every deputy. therefore Soviet Union under Stalin was not "Stalinist". What an absurd!

Barry Lyndon - why don't you ask yourself a question - do I really know enough about the subject that I am talking about? Am I critical enough to the information I have? Am I open and independent enough to listen to also what communists have to say?

[ComradeOm]

The debate within the party was thriving for the most of that period (from struggle with left and right oppositions in late 20s to big dispute over the law of value in socialism in 50s)Anyone who believes there there were significant levels of open debate in the USSR during the Stalinist period - comparable to the Civil War years, the 1920s, or even post-1953 - is either deeply ignorant or wilfully blind. Show trials and increased state repression (from factory/field to the realm of high politics) are not features of a vibrant and open democracy. And no, the Terror was only the cumulation of almost a decade of repressive practices as Stalin cemented his position at the apex of the Party

To the OP, this thread pretty much sums up the state of the Left today. Not because there are unreconstructed Stalinists running about (thankfully the bulk of such apologists appear confined to the internet) but because sitting around and bickering about who committed what crime (in the name of socialism of course :rolleyes:) is much more attractive than actually going outside and engaging with real class struggle

[DragonQuestWes]

There's internal disputes among every political movement in general. It's not just Communism.

[bie]

Anyone who believes there there were significant levels of open debate in the USSR during the Stalinist period - comparable to the Civil War years, the 1920s, or even post-1953 - is either deeply ignorant or wilfully blind.
I think I have stated before examples of actual disputes within the Party. You are probably not aware that the program of Trotskyist "United Opposition" was given under popular ballot in 1927. Every party member was voting for or against the "opposition platform". 724 000 of party members supported the policy of the Central Committee, 4 000 supported the block of Trotsky and Zinoview (it is less that 1%). Trotsky himself was kicked out after the failed coup de etap, when he tried to incite a revolt against the Soviet government (in his memoirs he is telling completely false version of events). So please - don't tell me that there was no debate in the Party because it makes me laugh. Have a look through party documents and you will see that the most of its activity went to discuss the matters and the future of the revolution. As far as I can see it is you who is ignorant on that - or maybe not ignorant - just naive. You really believed in all that fairy tales about "bad Stalin". Sad.

[IllicitPopsicle]

It could be useful, true. But could you say there is not petty bourgeoisie ideology influence (I am not saying character, but influence) also in non-individualist anarchism?

I don't know. I feel like this is a classic strawman dating back to Bakunin v. Marx. From RevLeft's own wiki on Anarcho-Communism:


Anarchist communism as a coherent, modern economic-political philosophy was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International by Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta, Andrea Costa and other ex-Mazzinian Republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences with collectivist anarchism explicit until after Bakunin's death.[6] The collectivist anarchists sought to collectivize ownership of the means of production while retaining payment for labor, but the anarcho-communists sought to extend the concept of collective ownership to the products of labor as well. While both groups argued against capitalism, the anarchist communists departed from Proudhon and Bakunin, who maintained that individuals have a right to the product of their labor and to be remunerated for their work, by proposing that individuals should be free to access goods according to their needs without respect to how much labor they exert.

[Zanthorus]

Just out of curiosity, when you speak about "Stalinism" what exactly do you have in mind? Just the adherence to the legacy of Stalin or specific ideological positions?

Most of what gets branded "stalinism" on here is the "official communist" movement which descends from the Stalinised comintern, rather than ideological adherence to Stalin's legacy per se. Many policies which would be regarded as typically "stalinist" actually predate the Stalin-era Soviet Union. For example, stagism can be traced back to what was originally known as Menshevism.

[bie]

I consider this term offensive, mainly because it contains negative connotations, forged for the purpose of the anti-Sovietism. In other words if one is using term "Stalinism", mainly in order to discredit his opponents, he automatically gives credit to that anti-sovietism. You are "Stalinist" means - you support all that "horror stories" and urban legends we heard about communism. Concerning what Barry Lyndon said: marxist-leninists are not in favour of "personality cult", nor higher living standards of the officials, nor lack of debate in the party etc. Anyway they are being called "Stalinists" Can you see the manipulation?

[Thirsty Crow]

Explaining that is a pure pleasure. You have never came across that statements? Strange.

(1) Some versions of anarchism are purely petty-bourgeoisie, with its emphasis on the individualism and its visions of the society of independent producers. "Everything for the individual" is a petty bourgeois ideology. Worker's ideology is "everything for the masses". For more information, I refer to work of J. Stalin "Anarchism or socialism?" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm)

I regret it, but reading such s nonsensical explanation is hardly pleasure at all. Since I don't have much time at my disposal right now, let me address just this: Stalin does not know what is he talking about, or his logic is intentionally fallacious as hell itself (strawman, to be precise; he obviously needs to construct a strawman because that is a nice defamatory practice).
So, "everything to the individual" ha NOTHING to do with social anarchism. Moreover, the following thesis is horrendously incorrect and simplistic:
he point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."This is...I dunno what to call it. From which anarchist current did he derive this "cornerstone"? Certainly not from class struggle anarchist tendencies since, within their framework, this is but a scholastic question which has no importance for class struggle. And it is blatantly incorrect, in that the emancipation of the individual is irrevocably connected with the emancipation of the working class, as well as other opressed groups. But what is best visible here is Stalin's obscurantism in the form of the false dichotomy individualism vs. collectivism.

[bie]

Well, if you are unhappy with the work of Stalin, here is the paper written by Lenin,PETTY-BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIAN SOCIALISM (http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/ww/lenin/1905-pbs.htm)

Of the various socialist doctrines, Marxism is now predominant in Europe, the struggle for the achievement of a socialist order being almost entirely waged as a struggle of the working class under the guidance of the Social-Democratic parties. This complete predominance of proletarian socialism grounded in the teachings of Marxism was not achieved all at once, but only after a long struggle against all sorts of outworn doctrines, petty-bourgeois socialism, anarchism, and so on. Some thirty years ago, Marxism was not predominant even in Germany, where the prevailing views of the time were in fact transitional, mixed and eclectic, lying between petty-bourgeois and proletarian socialism. The most widespread doctrines among advanced workers in the Romance countries, in France, Spain and Belgium, were Proudhonism, Blanquism [1] and anarchism, which obviously expressed the viewpoint of the petty bourgeois, not of the proletarian

[Os Cangaceiros]

^^^Are you allergic to explaining things in your own words? Why don't you explain why anarchism is or isn't a petty bourgeois ideology? (That piece by Stalin is one of the most pathetic "Marxist" disections of anarchism that I've ever read, by the way.)

Here, allow me to give you an example (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1809499&postcount=7).

[Q]

I consider this term offensive, mainly because it contains negative connotations
You Stalinists have only yourselves to blame for that. No anti-soviet propaganda needed to point out what kind of a miserable dictatorship the USSR was. Any sane person would understand that such a system is not in our interests.

But of course, I'm a mere "petit-bourgeois", right? Idiot.

[NecroCommie]

I'm often branded a stalinist and I call SU state capitalist. Am I still the one to blame? Some people just have an incredibly hard time understanding that "best" does not mean "good".

[BLACKPLATES]

Whilst I haven't contributed much here yet, I've taken away a great deal in having read through threads and developed a better understanding of communism and socialism. Although, I wonder how dispute and conflict over certain subjects could be addressed or resolved under a communist system? Everything from religion, to Stalin vs Trotsky, to war and pacifism, sometimes differences in opinion seem to be so significant two communists can be worlds apart on specific subjects. Could this be a threat if a revolution came about, I mean, how can one direction be focused on when so many people have so many different viewpoints.

On the other hand, putting voices to diversity and differences could be a good thing. Encouraging debate could mean consistent progression and hearing of potentially beneficial opinions.

Or am I wrong altogether in thinking right wing groups do not also have similar outstanding divisions and conflicts?
The Left, unfortunately is notoriously fractured. It's partly because Marxism is inherently an intellectual movement which attracts intellectuals who love to argue. Its also a democratic movement (with some very noteable exceptions) which can be fractious.It is a worldwide peoples movement representing hundreds of distinct cultures and languages. Perhaps they dont argue so much on the right because what's there to argue about?.... White? check, Authoritarian? check...soooo how was the food at the White nationalist cookout??...(((crickets chirp))))

[ComradeOm]

Apologies to the OP, I think I got sectarianism in your thread. This will be the last from me :blushing:


I think I have stated before examples of actual disputes within the Party. You are probably not aware that the program of Trotskyist "United Opposition" was given under popular ballot in 1927. Every party member was voting for or against the "opposition platform". 724 000 of party members supported the policy of the Central Committee, 4 000 supported the block of Trotsky and Zinoview (it is less that 1%)It takes a special sort of mind to consider a result of over 99% to be indicative of a democratic election


So please - don't tell me that there was no debate in the Party because it makes me laugh. Have a look through party documents and you will see that the most of its activity went to discuss the matters and the future of the revolutionActually I think you'll find that by the late 1920s most of the Party's activities at a factory/grassroots level went into being good 'productivist' taskmasters. By the 1930s there was almost no open dissent allowed regarding the country's course; details and obscure theoretical debates could of course be found but the Great Helmsman had set the country on the course for collectivisation. Anyone who disagreed, or suggested alternatives, was a traitor or a deviationist

But then one of the great jokes of the USSR was that so many Bolsheviks who fought in 1917 were actually German spies and white guardists all along. Who could have known? :lol:

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, if you are unhappy with the work of Stalin, here is the paper written by Lenin,PETTY-BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIAN SOCIALISM (http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/ww/lenin/1905-pbs.htm)
You're kidding, right?
The quoted part is pure evidence isn't it, since anarchism is OBVIOUSLY a petit bourgeois doctrine in that it supports the interests of the social class known as the petit bourgoisie?
And it is interesting that you fail to notice that there cannot be a political ideology which supports the interests of the petit bourgoisie since the very material interests of this class are NOT independant (since it is a class in constant transition and repositioning).