What justification do leninists have for oppressing anarchists?

[727Goon]

Historically, it seems like any time Leninists are in power they oppress anarchists. Anarchists were jailed by the Bolsheviks and Red Army, Trotsky crushed anarchist Ukraine, and in Cuba anarchist groups were banned and anarchists sent into exile. I'm not sure about leftist nationalists who sort of pay lip service to leninism, for example I've never heard anything about a suppression of anarchists by the Viet Cong or Republican groups in Ireland, but when it comes to straight up leninists who are very about a revolutionary vanguard party it almost seems inevitable. I know most if not all Marxist Leninists view political freedom and freedom of expression as bourgiesie liberalism, but what justification do you have for imprisoning anarchists and in the case of Ukraine suppressing whole anarchist movements? Whatever happened to self determination?

[Nachie]

Don't forget that a lot of "anarchists" who have been purged, executed, imprisoned, exiled, etc. by Leninists were actually genuine Marxists and never even referred to themselves as anarchists; it was only the Leninists who labeled them as anarchists in order to "justify" violent actions against them. This of course does not in any way obscure the fact that many many people who did see themselves as anarchists were similarly suppressed.

But it's important to note that Leninism as a political tendency has the function not just of wiping out anarchists but also of destroying all self-organized activity by the working class as a whole, whether it self-identifies as "anarchist" or not.

Important reading on this: "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control" by Maurice Brinton (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)

[ContrarianLemming]

Guys, only a single serious answer so far? c'mon guys :)

Leninists state that anarchists are counter revolutionary to immidiate Leninist goals, in all the situations the anarchists oppossed to new revolutionary state, for obvious reasons.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Leninists state that anarchists are counter revolutionary to immidiate Leninist goals, in all the situations the anarchists oppossed to new revolutionary state, for obvious reasons.

That's because immediate Leninist goals include:

Mass political executions.
Banning political parties.
Crushing Workers democracy.
Placing all political power in the hands of the party elite.

Generally, these are things Anarchists don't like.

[ContrarianLemming]

That's because immediate Leninist goals include:

Mass political executions.
Banning political parties.
Crushing Workers democracy.
Placing all political power in the hands of the party elite.

Generally, these are things Anarchists don't like.

Don't tout the anarchist party line so much, their were no mass political executions and banning political parties seems little different to the anarchist idea of getting rid of political parties outright

[soyonstout]

in Cuba anarchist groups were banned and anarchists sent into exile.

Interestingly about Cuban anarchists, I've heard that a number of anarchist organizations (to their discredit), didn't speak out about the suppression of their comrades in Cuba. I think the FORA did, but it's pretty tragic that these kinds of things happen. I think folks who call themselves marxists and anarchists abandon their principles like this all the time, which is really more the issue, rather than the 'leninist'/'anarchist' divide, for me.



I'm not sure about leftist nationalists who sort of pay lip service to leninism, for example I've never heard anything about a suppression of anarchists

this is what happened in Cuba, and what generally happens to working class groups that refuse to support nationalist regimes out of proletarian internationalism.

-soyons tout

[Apoi_Viitor]

Don't tout the anarchist party line so much, their were no mass political executions

Except for all those 'Anarchists' and Makhno sympathizers.


and banning political parties seems little different to the anarchist idea of getting rid of political parties outright

Not really...

[Apoi_Viitor]

Interestingly about Cuban anarchists, I've heard that a number of anarchist organizations (to their discredit), didn't speak out about the suppression of their comrades in Cuba. I think the FORA did, but it's pretty tragic that these kinds of things happen. I think folks who call themselves marxists and anarchists abandon their principles like this all the time, which is really more the issue, rather than the 'leninist'/'anarchist' divide, for me.

This is true. I know many Anarchists groups denounced the supression of their comrades as "Imperialist Propaganda", but then again didn't the Communist Party of the United States attack Ukrainians who were protesting the Soviet genocide of their relatives?

[AK]

I haven't met too many Leninists that openly express support for the oppression of the many anarchists and libertarian Marxists. Many seem to oppose these actions, but still try to explain the historical context in which it was generally done. Of course, there some assholes who try to justify it. Fuck them. If you have anarchists and Marxists fighting against your establishment, you're doing it wrong.

[Nachie]

Yes there was a concerted campaign by Leninists in Cuba to "win over" the international anarchist movement (that is to say, European platformists of the time) to the Castro regime so that all in all there was a great degree of confusion over what was actually happening, and the well-established anarchist movement in Cuba was more or less hung out to dry. Anybody wanting some seriously in-depth history on the matter can check out the great book Cuban Anarchism by Frank Fernandez

Anarchism as a movement didn't exist to be crushed either in Vietnam or in Ireland at the height of armed struggle, though it has established itself there since. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Ireland) claims at least one instance where ex-IRA became anarchists in the early 70's, but I guess their efforts didn't amount to very much.

There are definitely documented instances of anarchists being fucked over royally by Maoists in China, but I am no anarchist historian so I don't know very much about all that.

Another amazing read: Left-Wing Communism in Britain 1917-21 by Bob Jones (http://libcom.org/library/left-wing-communism-britain-1917-21an-infantile-disorder-bob-jones)


The pamphlet attempts to show how an evolving British communist movement was taken over by the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB ) and turned into something quite alien.

Talks about how the British communist movement around the time of the Russian revolution was developing more and more towards anti-parliamentarism and forming real alliances with the anarchist movement there - an alliance which, as a member of RAAN, I think is of course the only logical outgrowth of radical (anti)politics. The text goes on to talk about how as Leninism consolidated power in Russia, it used the Comintern to centralize the "communist" movement in Britain (and everywhere else, as well) and destroy it from within, turning it into another wing of bourgeois politics and cutting all ties with anarchist comrades in the process :mad:

[∞]

Most Bolshevik Leninists just apologize. They say in these times we need to "stick together". And will usually cite POUM's unity with the CNT FAI, though the CNT FAI where critical of their exact ideology. Who really knows what a revolutionary movement entails?

[ContrarianLemming]

Except for all those 'Anarchists' and Makhno sympathizers.

They were imprisoned.



Not really...

instead of giving a douche asnwer, how bout you tell me why outlawing political parties is worse then eliminating political parties.

[Barry Lyndon]

Anarchists and dissident socialists were not these innocent lambs that they portray themselves as. The Bolshevik 'repression' of Anarchists and rival socialist groups was often in response to violence directed against them by these very same groups.
Anarchists bombed the headquarters of the Communist Party in Moscow in 1918, killing and wounding scores of people.
The Left Social Revolutionaries were originally allowed to participate in a coalition government with the Bolsheviks, before they attempted to assassinate Lenin and launch a coup de tat with the help of British intelligence.
Even then, Bolshevik repression was not consistent. Many anarchists and non-Bolshevik socialists were still free to politically organize, agitate, have their own meeting halls and bookstores during the period of Civil War. Lenin even provided funds for the public funeral of the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin in 1921.

[Achara]

"hey man! you know what would really throw those social dems and m-ls?! what if we started saying that we are against, like, politics, what are they gonnna say to that maan! we'd be like all anti political and they have politics and they cant say they dont have politics, man! and our views def. aren't political, they're just fucking hip!"

often the strongest adherence to ideological bullshit comes from those who claim that they have no politics, that politics is the business of the elite or those underclass workers who, how dare they!, make concrete political demands rather than hipster slogans :blushing:

[AK]

Lenin even provided funds for the public funeral of the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin in 1921.
I guess that makes all the repression OK then.

Interesting fact: that was the last large legal gathering of anarchists in the USSR until the 80s.

[Achara]

I strongly disagree with Lenin providing funds for Kropotkin's funeral.

The anarchist-prince Kropotkin didn't support an internationalist stance in WW1 but sided with a faction of the ruling class, supported the provisional government and opposed the October Revolution.

Lenin should have pissed in his coffin.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists bombed the headquarters of the Communist Party in Moscow in 1918, killing and wounding scores of people.

Just to be clear, that bombing was a direct retaliation for the Cheka raiding anarchist buildings and clubhouses to arrest anarchists. In one gun battle alone (after the Cheka tried to enter a building occupied by the Moscow Federation with the purpose of arresting "robber bands") over 40 people were shot & killed.

[Barry Lyndon]

Just to be clear, that bombing was a direct retaliation for the Cheka raiding anarchist buildings and clubhouses to arrest anarchists. In one gun battle alone (after the Cheka tried to enter a building occupied by the Moscow Federation with the purpose of arresting "robber bands") over 40 people were shot & killed.

Point taken. I'm not trying to get into a who-started-it argument. I'm just saying that the violence was not as one-sided as some anarchist critics of the Bolsheviks make it out to be.

[StoneFrog]

Gotta commend Barry Lyndon for posting in this thread. The anarchists swarmed to this thread like no other, while the leninists didn't touch it.

[Widerstand]

instead of giving a douche asnwer, how bout you tell me why outlawing political parties is worse then eliminating political parties.


Who the hell advocates elimination of political parties?


Gotta commend Barry Lyndon for posting in this thread. The anarchists swarmed to this thread like no other, while the leninists didn't touch it.

'cos, you know, deep down Leninists know that their position is indefensible, reactionary, petit-bourgeois, hyper-bureaucratic, self-contradicting person-cult bullshit. Anarchists on the other hand are shining beacons of light, honest-hearted revolutionaries and heralds of the coming, truly communist society.

[AK]

Who the hell advocates elimination of political parties?
Myself, for one. They will serve no purpose whatsoever in a genuine workers' democracy - the nature of their structure means that they can exist only to participate in Bourgeois "democracy" or provide a platform for any new bureaucratic class.

[NecroCommie]

To the OP: None. But then again, there is no particular part of leninist ideology that states: "kill the anarchists". Killing the anarchists have always been choices particular to the people in power, not necessary by-products of leninism.

[Widerstand]

Myself, for one. They will serve no purpose whatsoever in a genuine workers' democracy - the nature of their structure means that they can exist only to participate in Bourgeois "democracy" or provide a platform for any new bureaucratic class.

I don't support participating in parties either, for the same reason pretty much. However, I don't support going around and executing everyone who is in a party either. Which I guess is implied by contrasting "elimination of parties" and "outlawing of parties".


To the OP: None. But then again, there is no particular part of leninist ideology that states: "kill the anarchists". Killing the anarchists have always been choices particular to the people in power, not necessary by-products of leninism.

There is. It's called: "Purge elements deemed reactionary by the party and establish a totalitarian state".

[NecroCommie]

There is. It's called: "Purge elements deemed reactionary by the party and establish a totalitarian state".
No, the actions you described can be "justified" with leninist theory, but in no way is it deemed necessary or inescapable. Then again you can use pretty much any ideology to "justify" anything, so it isn't exactly a leninist priviledge.

[Widerstand]

No, the actions you described can be "justified" with leninist theory, but in no way is it deemed necessary or inescapable. Then again you can use pretty much any ideology to "justify" anything, so it isn't exactly a leninist priviledge.

Wrong. Marxist-Leninists advocate the creation of a 'temporary' state to fight and oppress counter-revolutionary elements and safeguard the revolution. While they usually claim that they use 'state' in the Marxist sense of "instrument of class rule", thereby implying a Leninist state could be run and controlled entirely and solely by the proletariat, for example through workers councils, this is an impossibility. Leninists organize around a single, bureaucratic party, which requires equally bureaucratic political structures to exercise power (as AK pointed out, this is true for all parties). Therefore, a bureaucratization of the 'temporary state' is inevitable, which in return creates a new bureaucratic class, controlling the means of production, yet separated from the work force, with the availability of force that can be exercised to oppress the working class. This new class will have new class interests, directly opposed to those of the working class. The inevitable result of this is (state) capitalism.

[NecroCommie]

Have you ever read: state & revolution?

Besides, all you said is irrelevant when it comes to the "inherent" repression of anarchists. Capitalism as system might oppose communism, but the choice to persecute communists is still made by the particular people within these states. Capitalism as a system does not persecute communists because of the political views they hold.

[Widerstand]

Have you ever read: state & revolution?

No, what's your point?


Besides, all you said is irrelevant when it comes to the "inherent" repression of anarchists. Capitalism as system might oppose communism, but the choice to persecute communists is still made by the particular people within these states. Capitalism as a system does not persecute communists because of the political views they hold.

Capitalism persecutes any group whenever their views become threatening to its existence, eg. whenever they are in a position to fight the interests of the bourgeoisie. The same is true for any ruling class, ergo for the Leninist bureaucratic class, too.
Seeing as how a Leninist state can only arise out of an immediate revolutionary situation, in which there will most likely be elements advocating full proletarian control over the economic and political sphere, whether those are Anarchist or not is irrelevant, the Leninist state will ultimately have revolutionary forces opposed to it's single party bureaucracy. The existence of those opposing revolutionary elements threatens not only the legitimacy of the Leninist bureaucratic class, but is also it's class interest. The bureaucracy will be forced to repress them.

[NecroCommie]

No, what's your point?
Leninist view of state apparatus is nothing like what you said. It's actually surprisingly anarchist.



Capitalism persecutes any group whenever it's views become threatening to it's existence, eg. whenever it is a position to fight the interests of the bourgeoisie. The same is true for any ruling class, ergo for the Leninist bureaucratic class, too.
Seeing as how a Leninist state can only arise out of an immediate revolutionary situation, in which there will most likely be elements advocating full proletarian control over the economic and political sphere, whether those are Anarchist or not is irrelevant, the Leninist state will ultimately have revolutionary forces opposed to it's single party bureaucracy. The existence of those opposing revolutionary elements threatens not only the legitimacy of the Leninist bureaucratic class, but is also it's class interest. The bureaucracy will be forced to repress them.
No. Capitalism persecutes no one. It is a system, and abstract construct. Only a capitalist can persecute anyone. Same goes for leninism.

[Widerstand]

Leninist view of state apparatus is nothing like what you said. It's actually surprisingly anarchist.

I don't think you can infer that, because homophobes are often closet homosexuals, Lenin was a closet anarchist.

If you have any actual arguments against what I wrote I'm willing to listen. I don't consider "you are wrong" or "read a book" to be actual arguments.


No. Capitalism persecutes no one. It is a system, and abstract construct. Only a capitalist can persecute anyone. Same goes for leninism.

Yeah obviously Lenin's books won't line me up blindfolded and shoot me.:rolleyes:

But the people enacting the ideology expressed in those books will. And no, you can't blame every bad instance of Leninists oppressing Anarchists on 'bad apples' - in fact I think most Leninists, possibly even Lenin himself, that have lived and do live are decent people and honest revolutionaries. They just have an incredibly large blind spot for the inherently flawed and inevitably damaging strategies they advocate.

[thälmann]

communists want a proletarian dictaturship and anarchists want to abolish the state as the first action. so one of them had to win.
i mean it wasnt like anarchists were sitting at home reading books and then evil communists came and shot em in the head. the anarchists fight the socialist state, so i think its clear what happened, and will happening in the future.

[Magón]

communists want a proletarian dictaturship and anarchists want to abolish the state as the first action. so one of them had to win.
i mean it wasnt like anarchists were sitting at home reading books and then evil communists came and shot em in the head. the anarchists fight the socialist state, so i think its clear what happened, and will happening in the future.

Of course, because abolishing the state is the first action to actual Communism or Anarchist Society, rather than this "Dictatorship of the Proletariate". That's what the Revolution is all about, don't you get it? We're cutting out this useless middle man, and putting the two major plays together, rather than apart. Revolution = First action to destroying the State.

Also, we're here to agitate any State, whether Left or not because it's obvious what State's become, and that's something not at all in favor of the Working Class.

[ZeroNowhere]

If you have any actual arguments against what I wrote I'm willing to listen. I don't consider "you are wrong" or "read a book" to be actual arguments.'Read a book' may well be a valid argument when the book in question is quite possibly Lenin's major work, and one wishes to talk about Lenin's views and ideology. Just saying.


communists want a proletarian dictaturship and anarchists want to abolish the state as the first action. so one of them had to win.Ehm (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html). Also, I don't think that that is a decent explanation of any of the conflicts listed in the original post.

[Widerstand]

Of course, because abolishing the state is the first action to actual Communism or Anarchist Society, rather than this "Dictatorship of the Proletariate". That's what the Revolution is all about, don't you get it? We're cutting out this useless middle man, and putting the two major plays together, rather than apart. Revolution = First action to destroying the State.

Also, we're here to agitate any State, whether Left or not because it's obvious what State's become, and that's something not at all in favor of the Working Class.

I'd like to interject. I think a 'state' in the strictly Marxist definition isn't harmful to the revolution per se, in fact it may even be a necessity to secure it. What I mean by this, is a 'state' in the sense of "one class (the proletariat) exercising force over another (the dethroned bourgeoisie)". I think most Anarchists would agree with me that force will be necessary to fight reactionary repression of the revolution.
However this is a very vague definition, according to which pretty much everything is a 'state', and as far as I know, most Anarchists don't use it.

Why I think Leninism can only produce bureaucratic states and why I oppose them, I have explained above.

[Widerstand]

'Read a book' may well be a valid argument when the book in question is quite possibly Lenin's major work, and one wishes to talk about Lenin's views and ideology. Just saying.

No, not even then it is a valid argument. If they wish to point out any flawed understanding of Lenin's ideology I might have, they are free to tell me which of my statements is wrong and why.

Since they didn't do that, I must assume they, at worst, seek to display me as wrong without any way for me to retort, and at best to procrastinate the discussion until I have acquired said book and found the time to read through all its 192 lovely pages, which won't be any time soon. In both cases, it is massively inconvenient for anyone interested in this discussion.

[ComradeOm]

Just to be clear, that bombing was a direct retaliation for the Cheka raiding anarchist buildings and clubhouses to arrest anarchists. In one gun battle alone (after the Cheka tried to enter a building occupied by the Moscow Federation with the purpose of arresting "robber bands") over 40 people were shot & killed.You put "robber bands" in inverted commas. Why? The raid on the Moscow 'House of Anarchy' was triggered by the increasing lawlessness and ill-discipline of the so-called 'Black Guards'. The "expropriations" of the latter were often carried out for personal gain and in the name of the Moscow Federation, if not sanctioned by it. The final straw that pushed the Bolsheviks to act was the theft of an automobile belonging to the American Red Cross on 9 April, three days before the raids of 11-12 April. In addition, Serge, a useful source on the topic, accuses them of "the murder of several Cheka agents" (http://marxists.catbull.com/archive/serge/1930/year-one-ni/part09.html) prior to the raids

None of which should be any surprise given that most of the 'anarchists' active in Moscow of the time were the in a similar mould to the inflammatory Gordin brothers. Russian anarchism was not, unfortunately, characterised by the good work done by the syndicalists but rather by the anti-intellectual terrorists in the same vein as the Beznachal'tsy

By April 1918 the Soviet government was certainly not unwilling to scatter the anarchists but the latter made it easy for them and must share some of the blame for their fate

[NecroCommie]

I really don't get this thread. There are these anarchists that say leninists are by their very tendency a bloodthirsty lot because they carry a name of a dude who killed some anarchists.

And then there are these leninists who go all defensive on this strawman? Lolwut?! There is nothing in leninism that drives the entire world to killing people, and admitting the kronstad situation and others as mistakes will not make the greater political line any less valid.

[Widerstand]

I really don't get this thread. There are these anarchists that say leninists are by their very tendency a bloodthirsty lot because they carry a name of a dude who killed some anarchists.

And then there are these leninists who go all defensive on this strawman? Lolwut?! There is nothing in leninism that drives the entire world to killing people, and admitting the kronstad situation and others as mistakes will not make the greater political line any less valid.

Three possible explanations for to your bafflement:

a) Anarchists aren't giving a strawman.
b) This post of yours is a strawman.
c) Leninists are stupid.

Personally I think it's b), seeing as how no one ever bothered to refute my critics of Leninism, in ANY thread I posted it, other than saying "you're wrong ololololol".

Though I can't rule out c) of course.

[NecroCommie]

Perhaps no one wanted to bother themselves with teaching the very basics of logic?

[Nachie]

It's definitely "C".

I can't be arsed to actually get into a discussion about this with Leninists because FUCK THEM (yes this is actually my nuanced mature theoretical position), but it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to say "lol haven't you read State and Revolution? lolololol"

Another good read, unfortunately not available for free in online text as far as I know, is "A Look at Leninism" by Ron Taber (an ex-Leninist). Among his more brilliant eviscerations of Leninism is that he points out that State & Revolution was opportunistically written to appease and co-opt anti-state elements who were powerful at the time, and far from being "Lenin's major work" it actually was not discussed within the Bolshevik party at any length, and carried very little theoretical weight.

Most importantly, whatever shining theory and pretty words Lenin shat out in S&R had no relationship to the actual physical tyranny of the Bolsheviks. I could write the world's most incredible essay on compassionate loving kindness but then if I went out and punched a baby in the face it would still make me a douchebag, get it?

Leninist oppression - against the proletariat as a whole, NOT JUST anarchists! - is not due to varying coincidental material conditions that magically seem to pop up every time they are in a position to exercise power: it is formulaic to their entire praxis.

[NecroCommie]

You just can't get around the fact that this is a strawman. No one in my leninist party advocates killing anarchists, oppressing anarchists or even working separately from anarchists. Personally, I even think that the bolsheviks should have seen more trouble to ally themselves with anarchists, and to even give them some major city or something to live in if they wanted to.

You folks are attacking a position that I, nor any of my party members hold. That is to say you are engaging in a strawman argument.

Whether leninism leads to an authoritarian state, or necessarily leads to opression of anarchists is completely another topic, separate from the topic of this thread. Even so, I think it is a childish stance to take, and I am very thankful for those anarchists who are more capable than you of engaging in a mature campaign.

[manic expression]

Most importantly, whatever shining theory and pretty words Lenin shat out in S&R had no relationship to the actual physical tyranny of the Bolsheviks. I could write the world's most incredible essay on compassionate loving kindness but then if I went out and punched a baby in the face it would still make me a douchebag, get it?

Leninist oppression - against the proletariat as a whole, NOT JUST anarchists! - is not due to varying coincidental material conditions that magically seem to pop up every time they are in a position to exercise power: it is formulaic to their entire praxis.
Sure, let's talk about what the Bolsheviks actually did. In their position of leadership of the proletariat (owing to the Congress of the Soviets), the Bolsheviks overthrew the capitalist regime of Kerensky, abolished capitalist property, recognized self-determination of workers of all nations within the old Russian Empire, accomplished anti-imperialist revolutionary defeatism (aka got out of WWI), won the Civil War against the fascistic Whites and established the worker state of the Soviet Union.

So what's your rationale for "they oppressed the proletariat as a whole"? Is it because some anti-Semitic cossack host didn't get what it wanted? Is it because the Bolsheviks were the only party left standing after the Civil War (not by the choice of the Bolsheviks, it should be noted)? Is it because the Bolsheviks had the audacity to support Soviet state power instead of self-liquidation when the Whites were knocking on the front door? Whatever the case, we can see from history that the Bolsheviks were advancing the interests of the workers at every step. Just because it didn't perfectly fit the anarchist conception of things means very little.

[Widerstand]

You just can't get around the fact that this is a strawman. No one in my leninist party advocates killing anarchists, oppressing anarchists or even working separately from anarchists. Personally, I even think that the bolsheviks should have seen more trouble to ally themselves with anarchists, and to even give them some major city or something to live in if they wanted to.

You folks are attacking a position that I, nor any of my party members hold. That is to say you are engaging in a strawman argument.


I think most Leninists, possibly even Lenin himself, that have lived and do live are decent people and honest revolutionaries. They just have an incredibly large blind spot for the inherently flawed and inevitably damaging strategies they advocate.


Whether leninism leads to an authoritarian state, or necessarily leads to opression of anarchists is completely another topic, separate from the topic of this thread.

It's not a separate topic, in fact I am trying to argue against the notion that all Leninists are violent, triggerhappy bastards.



Even so, I think it is a childish stance to take, and I am very thankful for those anarchists who are more capable than you of engaging in a mature campaign.

I agree with Nachie here: FUCK YOU, because, well...

FUCK YOU.


Can you guys just say sorry?

The one thing modern day Leninists could, and should, apologize for is their constant and ongoing slander of Anarchism.

[Magón]

I'd like to interject. I think a 'state' in the strictly Marxist definition isn't harmful to the revolution per se, in fact it may even be a necessity to secure it. What I mean by this, is a 'state' in the sense of "one class (the proletariat) exercising force over another (the dethroned bourgeoisie)". I think most Anarchists would agree with me that force will be necessary to fight reactionary repression of the revolution.
However this is a very vague definition, according to which pretty much everything is a 'state', and as far as I know, most Anarchists don't use it.

Why I think Leninism can only produce bureaucratic states and why I oppose them, I have explained above.

I dunno man, I hear what you're saying and agree somewhat, but really where or when would we see an actual Marxist form or State, that wasn't harmful to revolution like in the past? I don't see a purely Marxist State happening in the future; as too many people have too many points taking from Marxism solely, such as Marxist-Leninists, Revolutionary Marxists, etc. that a truly Marxist State probably won't come about.

I've been rereading on some Makhnovist history lately, and the form of a "State" you could call it there in the Ukraine, and really that's sort of how I picture things actually working in a so called "State". I think the way that Makhno helped get things organized is really the best way, and even then, the knowledge of reactionaries being around was well known, so I think the way of how Makhnovist's organized is a good way to make a "State".

[Paulappaul]

In their position of leadership of the proletariat (owing to the Congress of the Soviets), the Bolsheviks overthrew the capitalist regime of Kerensky, abolished capitalist property, recognized self-determination of workers of all nations within the old Russian Empire, accomplished anti-imperialist revolutionary defeatism (aka got out of WWI), won the Civil War against the fascistic Whites and established the worker state of the Soviet Union.

Congratulations. Everybody recognizes this. No doubt the Bolsheviks made some incredible advancements for the situation they were given, partly due to their strict discipline and loyalty to the cause.

Nobody's perfect though. We can't talk about the success of the Bolsheviks without recognizing their failures, which eventually lead the revolution to an end.

In every Bourgeois Revolution there are Proletarian aims. In France, the revolution of 1789 from the perspective of Working Class and the French Liberals was for the creation of a Democratic Republic, one founded on Socialist principles. As early as 1767, Liberal theorists such as Humboldt and Simon Linguet understood that Wage Labor is another form Slavery.

What makes a Proletarian Revolution, is that it's geared towards the end of Class Rule and with it, the entire economic system which perpetuates its rule. In the Soviet Union we call it a Bougeosis Revolution, for while it had Proletarian aims, it didn't end Class Rule but substitute the old Aristocracy for a new one.

Capitalist Property was not abolished first and foremost. It was so recognized by Bolsheviks, that the revolution of 1917 of which to end the whole Capitalist system had left Russia in a state of a Mixed Economy.

Even the supposed "Socialist Property" i.e. Public Property is merely the property of the State, not of the whole people. Public Property means the right of disposal by a Governing Class, of which was the officials of the Bolshevik Party.

Workers' Control doesn't mean the control of State over production, it's the workers themselves in their respective industries controlling production. An elected worker or an appointed worker of the state takes on the position of alienating production when he commands production.

The supremacy of the Bolshevik Party over an entire country doesn't equate to Proletarian Democracy. Much like the success of a Party at the polls, doesn't equate to true Democracy. Parties represent a Doctrine, a program that is represented in it's leaders. Both Congress and the Party boil down in effect to inviting electors to voice their opinions from time to time on problems from which they are removed the rest of the time, while moreover taking away from them all means of having any control over what happens as a result.

That isn't inclined just the Bolshevik party, it's an important aspect of any organization aspiring to be truly Democratic i.e. the relation between Order takers and Order Givers. If the way the organization is run makes the solution of general problems the specific task and permanent work of a separate category of revolutionaries or workers , only their opinion will appear.

A "workers state" is an empty phrase for a Socialist if it implies that by Workers' they mean a nation of Alienated and Exploited workers. Under such a definition, we can call even the United States, a Workers' State.

A genuine "workers state" - if that's what you wish to call the Lower Phase of Communism - will be one order givers and order takers are one of the same. Where the executive committee of a nation is the entire proletariat, the division between the "top" and the "Bottom" are diminished. Where Wage Labor - something preserved under your supposed Workers' State - is diminished and property is no longer in use.

[manic expression]

Nobody's perfect though. We can't talk about the success of the Bolsheviks without recognizing their failures, which eventually lead the revolution to an end.

In every Bourgeois Revolution there are Proletarian aims. In France, the revolution of 1789 from the perspective of Working Class and the French Liberals was for the creation of a Democratic Republic, one founded on Socialist principles. As early as 1767, Liberal theorists such as Humboldt and Simon Linguet understood that Wage Labor is another form Slavery.

What makes a Proletarian Revolution, is that it's geared towards the end of Class Rule and with it, the entire economic system which perpetuates its rule. In the Soviet Union we call it a Bougeosis Revolution, for while it had Proletarian aims, it didn't end Class Rule but substitute the old Aristocracy for a new one.
Proletarian revolution is ultimately geared toward the end of class rule, but certainly not in the immediate sense. Proletarian revolution is geared to establishing working-class rule over the bourgeoisie, and that's exactly what the Bolsheviks carried out. We cannot expect them to eliminate the bourgeoisie when the bourgeoisie was still in power throughout the majority of the world.

Capitalist Property was not abolished first and foremost. It was so recognized by Bolsheviks, that the revolution of 1917 of which to end the whole Capitalist system had left Russia in a state of a Mixed Economy.
Of course capitalist property was abolished; War Communism was centralization to the state in the extreme, and the retreats of the NEP were minimized and eventually wiped away through industrialization and collectivization in the 1930's.

Even the supposed "Socialist Property" i.e. Public Property is merely the property of the State, not of the whole people. Public Property means the right of disposal by a Governing Class, of which was the officials of the Bolshevik Party.
The Soviet state was the property of the proletariat. The Congress of the Soviets was made the basis of the Soviet Union, and after the Civil War the Bolsheviks, the vanguard party, were the only party left standing.

Workers' Control doesn't mean the control of State over production, it's the workers themselves in their respective industries controlling production. An elected worker or an appointed worker of the state takes on the position of alienating production when he commands production.
So you're saying the Paris Commune had no worker control? After all, it was run by delegates (gasp).

The supremacy of the Bolshevik Party over an entire country doesn't equate to Proletarian Democracy. Much like the success of a Party at the polls, doesn't equate to true Democracy. Parties represent a Doctrine, a program that is represented in it's leaders. Both Congress and the Party boil down in effect to inviting electors to voice their opinions from time to time on problems from which they are removed the rest of the time, while moreover taking away from them all means of having any control over what happens as a result.

That isn't inclined just the Bolshevik party, it's an important aspect of any organization aspiring to be truly Democratic i.e. the relation between Order takers and Order Givers. If the way the organization is run makes the solution of general problems the specific task and permanent work of a separate category of revolutionaries or workers , only their opinion will appear.

A "workers state" is an empty phrase for a Socialist if it implies that by Workers' they mean a nation of Alienated and Exploited workers. Under such a definition, we can call even the United States, a Workers' State.

A genuine "workers state" - if that's what you wish to call the Lower Phase of Communism - will be one order givers and order takers are one of the same. Where the executive committee of a nation is the entire proletariat, the division between the "top" and the "Bottom" are diminished. Where Wage Labor - something preserved under your supposed Workers' State - is diminished and property is no longer in use.
It's interesting how you begin your post by saying the Bolsheviks weren't perfect, and indeed you are looking for some form of perfection. But that's not what revolutionaries look for, they look for what works. The Soviet Union became socialist through its economic progress, but it's more important to pinpoint the class nature of the Soviet state. The workers controlled the state, first through the organs of the Soviets and also through the vanguard party.

By the very nature of "order givers" and "order takers", they will not and cannot be the same. Someone who is elected to a position is not the same as those who did the electing. But since the analysis in question is no class analysis, that does not contradict the fundamental principles of working-class state power. One worker can be elected to a position of power, and she can decide with other elected workers what to do with the economy...and the workers are yet in power. How could it be otherwise?

The place of the vanguard party is also key. The Bolsheviks were, as we have seen, the advanced sector of the working class, organized into a disciplined revolutionary party. That being the case, why do you object to having the party that made the proletarian revolution directing the revolution? It would only seem natural that the political organization (or "Doctrine", as you put it) that made the revolution would be in power after (and due to) the ascension of the workers. Again, how could it be otherwise?

And the Soviet Union eliminated the capitalist mode of production. There was a lack of generalized commodity production, there was no large-scale market for labor or for resources, "wage labor" was without capitalist underpinnings.

[NecroCommie]

It's not a separate topic, in fact I am trying to argue against the notion that all Leninists are violent, triggerhappy bastards.
The OP asks what justification we have for oppressing the anarchists. I answered none, but then added that I personally have nothing against anarchists and have no goal of repressing them. Therefore I personally cannot apologize for what other people did for other reasons 100 years ago. I think the topic is settled right there.


The one thing modern day Leninists could, and should, apologize for is their constant and ongoing slander of Anarchism.
I have never opposed anarchism per se. I would actually like them to prove me wrong by organizing a worldwide revolution without any transitional phazes. This is, however, irrelevant as I cannot see anarchism as a monolithic group. You are clearly divided into different camps according to varying factors. Which brand of anarchism should I appologise, as I have most certainly never slandered them all?

[Zanthorus]

Proletarian revolution is ultimately geared toward the end of class rule, but certainly not in the immediate sense. Proletarian revolution is geared to establishing working-class rule over the bourgeoisie, and that's exactly what the Bolsheviks carried out. We cannot expect them to eliminate the bourgeoisie when the bourgeoisie was still in power throughout the majority of the world.

I think this formulation is unclear, and at face value false. The immediate aim of the proletarian revolution is the overthrow of the bourgeois state apparatus, and the replacement of this apparatus with a new political apparatus tailored for the rule of the working-class. The haute bourgeoisie is overthrown in quick succession within the boundaries which revolution has been successful. The elements subordinated by the new state are the petit-bourgeoisie and various apparatchiks, specialists and members of the intelligentsia who have knowledge which is crucial to the running of society. Your statement that we can't eliminate the bourgeoisie when they are still in power in the majority of the world would seem to suggest though, that you may have had something else in mind by talking about the establishment of working-class rule over the bourgeoisie.


The Soviet state was the property of the proletariat. The Congress of the Soviets was made the basis of the Soviet Union, and after the Civil War the Bolsheviks, the vanguard party, were the only party left standing.

You neglect to mention the various left elements which maintained a commitment to the October revolution but yet which were expelled from the Bolshevik party like the Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik), which maintained a documentable presence within the Soviet Union until 1938, when it's organisational apparatus was most probably wiped out in the purges.


So you're saying the Paris Commune had no worker control? After all, it was run by delegates (gasp).

No, there was no workers' control in the Paris Commune, or socialism of any form. They didn't even expropriate the Bank.

[Paulappaul]

Proletarian revolution is ultimately geared toward the end of class rule, but certainly not in the immediate sense. Proletarian revolution is geared to establishing working-class rule over the bourgeoisie, and that's exactly what the Bolsheviks carried out. We cannot expect them to eliminate the bourgeoisie when the bourgeoisie was still in power throughout the majority of the world.Excuse me, let me rephrase that, as I hinted at it in the original post, but did not properly phrase it. The object of the Proletarian revolution in Russia was to end the class rule of Bourgeois i.e. the aristocracy. In the larger scale of things, when the bougeosis are ran out of the world, Class rule of the working class becomes the rulership over nothing and therefor withers away.

The Bolsheviks didn't carry that out.


Of course capitalist property was abolished; War Communism was centralization to the state in the extreme, and the retreats of the NEP were minimized and eventually wiped away through industrialization and collectivization in the 1930's.Property was owned by the state, but managed by the same Capitalists. See Bukharin's piece on the Economy in Russia circa 1922.


So you're saying the Paris Commune had no worker control? After all, it was run by delegates (gasp).The Paris Commune didn't elect Workers to manage Cooperatives. See Zanthorus' piece on the Commune.


It's interesting how you begin your post by saying the Bolsheviks weren't perfect, and indeed you are looking for some form of perfection.I'm not looking for perfection, it's generally understood - and furthermore, commons sense - that following a Proletarian Revolution there are going to problems. I am only noticing the failures of the Bolshevik, which were a complete turn around from Socialist Principles.


The workers controlled the state, first through the organs of the Soviets and also through the vanguard party.Don't toss that shit in about controlling through the Soviets. The Soviets were the Vanguard Party, not a separate organ by themselves.


By the very nature of "order givers" and "order takers", they will not and cannot be the same.Quite right, which is why Socialists intend to abolish the notion thereof.


One worker can be elected to a position of power, and she can decide with other elected workers what to do with the economy...and the workers are yet in power. How could it be otherwise?I outlined the problem with this and the solution.


Both Congress and the Party boil down in effect to inviting electors to voice their opinions from time to time on problems from which they are removed the rest of the time, while moreover taking away from them all means of having any control over what happens as a result.... If the way the organization is run makes the solution of general problems the specific task and permanent work of a separate category of revolutionaries or workers , only their opinion will appear.How could it be otherwise?


Where the executive committee of a nation is the entire proletariat, the division between the "top" and the "Bottom" are diminished.
That being the case, why do you object to having the party that made the proletarian revolution directing the revolution? It would only seem natural that the political organization (or "Doctrine", as you put it) that made the revolution would be in power after (and due to) the ascension of the workers.For a few reasons, let's start with this notion of a party which "made the revolution". Proletarian Revolutions aren't made. A proletarian revolution reflects the consciousness of the working class which leads it to rebel against Capital economically and Politically through it's organs of free association.

Even if we regard this, a fixed set of people or "the party" doesn't represent the masses any more then the Democratic Party does the Republican constituency. It alone is not the sole will of the people.


"wage labor" was without capitalist underpinnings.I like the quote from Bakunin - or even the Marxist Daniel De Leon makes same point in his "Reform or Revolution" - something like you can "you can give a dog a different leash, it's still the same dog" - in the same manner Wage Labor has all the same underpinning of Alienation and Exploitation despite whether its "Capitalist" or not.

[Zanthorus]

The Paris Commune didn't elect Workers to manage Cooperatives. They gave the workers the right manage their business'. Kinda the opposite.

The Paris Commune didn't give any workers' the right to manage their business'. They had plans to implement a nationwide network of co-operative production, but they were crushed by Versailles before they could even begin.

[Paulappaul]

The Paris Commune didn't give any workers' the right to manage their business'. They had plans to implement a nationwide network of co-operative production, but they were crushed by Versailles before they could even begin.


April 16: Commune announces the postponement of all debt obligations for three years and abolition of interest on them.
The Commune orders a statistical tabulation of factories which had been closed down by the manufacturers, and the working out of plans for the carrying on of these factories by workers formerly employed in them, who were to be organized in co-operative societies, and also plans for the organization of these co-operatives in one great union.


Yeah you're right, I take that back.

[Widerstand]

The OP asks what justification we have for oppressing the anarchists. I answered none, but then added that I personally have nothing against anarchists and have no goal of repressing them. Therefore I personally cannot apologize for what other people did for other reasons 100 years ago. I think the topic is settled right there.

I have never opposed anarchism per se. I would actually like them to prove me wrong by organizing a worldwide revolution without any transitional phazes. This is, however, irrelevant as I cannot see anarchism as a monolithic group. You are clearly divided into different camps according to varying factors. Which brand of anarchism should I appologise, as I have most certainly never slandered them all?

Look, I have no quarrel with you personally. If you think oppressing anarchists isn't justified, be my guest. Sadly there are enough Leninists around that disagree with you.

Also, don't post stupid stuff like "prove me wrong by organizing a worldwide revolution", because we both know that no single ideology (whether leftist or not) could do such a thing in the current global situation.


I dunno man, I hear what you're saying and agree somewhat, but really where or when would we see an actual Marxist form or State, that wasn't harmful to revolution like in the past? I don't see a purely Marxist State happening in the future; as too many people have too many points taking from Marxism solely, such as Marxist-Leninists, Revolutionary Marxists, etc. that a truly Marxist State probably won't come about.

I have no idea how realistic it is. I guess the best shot would be a Council Communist/Anarchist revolution.


I've been rereading on some Makhnovist history lately, and the form of a "State" you could call it there in the Ukraine, and really that's sort of how I picture things actually working in a so called "State". I think the way that Makhno helped get things organized is really the best way, and even then, the knowledge of reactionaries being around was well known, so I think the way of how Makhnovist's organized is a good way to make a "State".

Meh, I'm not much familiar with Makhnovism.

[Luisrah]

It's definitely "C".

I can't be arsed to actually get into a discussion about this with Leninists because FUCK THEM (yes this is actually my nuanced mature theoretical position), but it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to say "lol haven't you read State and Revolution? lolololol"

Another good read, unfortunately not available for free in online text as far as I know, is "A Look at Leninism" by Ron Taber (an ex-Leninist). Among his more brilliant eviscerations of Leninism is that he points out that State & Revolution was opportunistically written to appease and co-opt anti-state elements who were powerful at the time, and far from being "Lenin's major work" it actually was not discussed within the Bolshevik party at any length, and carried very little theoretical weight.

Most importantly, whatever shining theory and pretty words Lenin shat out in S&R had no relationship to the actual physical tyranny of the Bolsheviks. I could write the world's most incredible essay on compassionate loving kindness but then if I went out and punched a baby in the face it would still make me a douchebag, get it?

Leninist oppression - against the proletariat as a whole, NOT JUST anarchists! - is not due to varying coincidental material conditions that magically seem to pop up every time they are in a position to exercise power: it is formulaic to their entire praxis.

How can it not be a fucking strawman? I'm sorry, but I almost can't resist a personal attack here.

So we leninists just want to get to power so that we can have material luxuries, and the pleasure of opressing anarchists and the whole proletariat.

Not even talking about the fact that you're suggesting we opress the class that would, in your opinion, make us rule the world probably, you're actually calling us stupid for going the hardest way to get there.

While we could much more easily make a company, or be a fascist and make a coup, we are going to unite the masses of the world to revolt and change society profoundly, just for personal profit.

That's just like a fucking conspiracy theory. While you may call me a fool, because some of them seem quite plausible to me, you are inventing one of the most foolish of them, and use arguments a la tea baggers.

Seriously, there is no such thing as the ''mad dictator that opresses and murders for pleasure''.

Your kind is probably the reason why anarchists (and believe me when I say I like some anarchists I've met) were/are opressed, with arguments like yours, siding with everyone to make us fail is fine seems to be fine by you.

[Apoi_Viitor]

instead of giving a douche asnwer, how bout you tell me why outlawing political parties is worse then eliminating political parties.

I apologize. My response is that: if you outlaw political parties, that makes everyone who is outside of the Communist Party, unable to have a say in political affairs. I'm sympathetic to those who advocate for abolishing Political Parties, because I believe that during the revolution, they will find it as being impractical/trivial and choose otherwise... I was reading a Chomsky interview, where he stated something along the lines of, "People will always organize together over common interests." I could be misunderstanding the 'traditional' Anarchist position here, but it just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I'll also add, having read Lenin's State and Revolution and a few other of his works, I'm quite sympathetic towards the theories he advanced. However, I think the implementation of his ideas (in a few critical areas), ran completely contrary to his actual theoretical work. Really, the only reason I am an Anarchist, is because I find that every other Revolutionary Ideology has significantly deviated from its theoretical base, when it comes time to actual practice. I'm not sure if its due to 'structural flaws' in Lenin's theory or simply due to human error / historical limitations... I mean, I love a lot Mao's political writings/theories, but what he wrote on paper, and what happened in real life are polar opposites.

[Widerstand]

Your kind is probably the reason why anarchists (and believe me when I say I like some anarchists I've met) were/are opressed, with arguments like yours, siding with everyone to make us fail is fine seems to be fine by you.

Ssssssssssssssssstrawmannnnnnnnnnn!

Nachie's not an anarchist unless something radically changed recently.

[Luisrah]

Ssssssssssssssssstrawmannnnnnnnnnn!

Nachie's not an anarchist unless something radically changed recently.

Whatever. There seems to be a lack of quality posts in this thread, and he made quite a poor one.

[manic expression]

Excuse me, let me rephrase that, as I hinted at it in the original post, but did not properly phrase it. The object of the Proletarian revolution in Russia was to end the class rule of Bourgeois i.e. the aristocracy. In the larger scale of things, when the bougeosis are ran out of the world, Class rule of the working class becomes the rulership over nothing and therefor withers away.

The Bolsheviks didn't carry that out.
That's not to say the workers weren't victorious in the Soviet Union. They were. The ultimate goal does not diminish the immediate goal.

Property was owned by the state, but managed by the same Capitalists. See Bukharin's piece on the Economy in Russia circa 1922.The managers of the early Soviet Union were the exact same as the bosses in 1914-1917?

The Paris Commune didn't elect Workers to manage Cooperatives. See Zanthorus' piece on the Commune.It elected delegates to run the state. That's the relationship we're talking about.

I'm not looking for perfection, it's generally understood - and furthermore, commons sense - that following a Proletarian Revolution there are going to problems. I am only noticing the failures of the Bolshevik, which were a complete turn around from Socialist Principles.They were the first long-term application of socialist principles, a state and society controlled by the workers through the vanguard party. That's the accomplishment of the proletarian revolution in Russia/other republics.

Don't toss that shit in about controlling through the Soviets. The Soviets were the Vanguard Party, not a separate organ by themselves.They weren't the same, the Left-SRs had a considerable amount of power in the Soviets before they turned against the Revolution during the Civil War.

Quite right, which is why Socialists intend to abolish the notion thereof.The notion is inherent in all modern states. Unless you have a plan to nullify the need for leadership itself, you'll need to adhere to that very notion in one way or another.

I outlined the problem with this and the solution.There is no problem with that situation whatsoever. It's how revolutions work. Revolutionaries need to act as leaders or else they're shirking their responsibility to their class.

How could it be otherwise?Here's what you need to do for that argument to hold any weight at all: give me one example of that (no political distinctions whatsoever) working in any industrialized society for more than 365 days.

For a few reasons, let's start with this notion of a party which "made the revolution". Proletarian Revolutions aren't made. A proletarian revolution reflects the consciousness of the working class which leads it to rebel against Capital economically and Politically through it's organs of free association.

Even if we regard this, a fixed set of people or "the party" doesn't represent the masses any more then the Democratic Party does the Republican constituency. It alone is not the sole will of the people.Revolutions are made, they're made by the workers, led by the most advanced and militant sections of the proletariat. This has ever been the case. What, are you suggesting revolutions have no human agency involved? They just happen like rain and photosynthesis? To suggest that revolutions are not made is to ignore the historical task of the proletariat and the material conditions we face today.

And the Democratic Party represents the bourgeoisie, as does the Republican Party. The Bolsheviks represented the proletariat, it was the proletariat.

I like the quote from Bakunin - or even the Marxist Daniel De Leon makes same point in his "Reform or Revolution" - something like you can "you can give a dog a different leash, it's still the same dog" - in the same manner Wage Labor has all the same underpinning of Alienation and Exploitation despite whether its "Capitalist" or not.It wasn't the same dog, though. By the late 1930's at the latest, there was no large-scale market for labor or resources (or the means of production), and thus labor was not subject to the laws of generalized commodity production. The mechanics simply weren't there.

[manic expression]

I think this formulation is unclear, and at face value false. The immediate aim of the proletarian revolution is the overthrow of the bourgeois state apparatus, and the replacement of this apparatus with a new political apparatus tailored for the rule of the working-class. The haute bourgeoisie is overthrown in quick succession within the boundaries which revolution has been successful. The elements subordinated by the new state are the petit-bourgeoisie and various apparatchiks, specialists and members of the intelligentsia who have knowledge which is crucial to the running of society. Your statement that we can't eliminate the bourgeoisie when they are still in power in the majority of the world would seem to suggest though, that you may have had something else in mind by talking about the establishment of working-class rule over the bourgeoisie.
My statement was in relation to Paulappaul talking about the proletariat liquidating itself as a class as class struggle ends. That was impossible so long as the October Revolution's boundaries were so limited.


You neglect to mention the various left elements which maintained a commitment to the October revolution but yet which were expelled from the Bolshevik party like the Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik), which maintained a documentable presence within the Soviet Union until 1938, when it's organisational apparatus was most probably wiped out in the purges.They were within the Bolshevik party, which basically proves my point.


No, there was no workers' control in the Paris Commune, or socialism of any form. They didn't even expropriate the Bank.It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor.

That's my point here.

[Lyev]

That's because immediate Leninist goals include:

Mass political executions.
Banning political parties.
Crushing Workers democracy.
Placing all political power in the hands of the party elite.

Generally, these are things Anarchists don't like.What, seriously?? Are you joking? I think you misread Lenin comrade.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You put "robber bands" in inverted commas. Why?

Because I was quoting their justification for the raids.

In any case, it seems rather apparent to me that the Cheka used what may have been the bad behavior of some anarchists as a justification for a wholesale crackdown on all anarchists, who eventually all became bandits in the eyes of the Bolsheviks. Some of them were imprisoned and/or executed on trumped-up charges (even without a show trial!). I don't think that's right.

[Zanthorus]

They were within the Bolshevik party, which basically proves my point.

Yes and no. Their leading militant, Gabriel Myasnikov, was ejected from the party in 1922. The group was essentially the core of what was considered to be a new workers' party which would lead the revolution forward, but because the group came out of the Bolshevik party, they maintained a political commitment to carrying on clandestine work within the party and joint action with more open left groups like the Workers' Opposition and the Democratic Centralists. All militants who hadn't been expelled were advised to become members of the Bolsheviks. Plus being a member of the Communist party was a pretty solid way of not getting arrested and exiled, which is probably why the managed to stay around for so much longer than most other left splinter groups from the Bolsheviks.

[el_chavista]

There are situations hard to explain like the Sino-Vietnamese war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War)or the FARC - ELN armed confrontations.

[Paulappaul]

It elected delegates to run the state. That's the relationship we're talking about.

No were talking about how State Representatives can't run a Business. I never denied delegates to the "State".


They weren't the same, the Left-SRs had a considerable amount of power in the Soviets before they turned against the Revolution during the Civil War.

We're talking about afterwords, when the Soviets, the free organizations, were dwindled down to the Bolshevik Party.


There is no problem with that situation whatsoever. It's how revolutions work. Revolutionaries need to act as leaders or else they're shirking their responsibility to their class.

That wasn't a response to my solution. Just by saying there isn't a problem doesn't help your stand point.


Here's what you need to do for that argument to hold any weight at all: give me one example of that (no political distinctions whatsoever) working in any industrialized society for more than 365 days.

Of what? An executive committee where the bottom and top are diminished?


Revolutions are made, they're made by the workers, led by the most advanced and militant sections of the proletariat. This has ever been the case. What, are you suggesting revolutions have no human agency involved? They just happen like rain and photosynthesis? To suggest that revolutions are not made is to ignore the historical task of the proletariat and the material conditions we face today.

I was hoping to make you think, but I guess I'll have to explain it to you.


consciousness of the working class

Basic tenet of Marxism, more or less. It means as conditions become worse and worse, as the concentration of Capital becomes more extreme, more and more proletarians will become Class Consciousness.

Consciousness which,


leads it to rebel against Capital economically and Politically through it's organs of free association.

It means that workers arise against Capital through economic and political means i.e. through Workers' Councils.

Made means through external forces, through a Political Party of Labor. It means artificial. So no Proletarian Revolutions are not made.


And the Democratic Party represents the bourgeoisie, as does the Republican Party. The Bolsheviks represented the proletariat, it was the proletariat.

You missed the whole point of the analogy. Lets try it again in similar terms. I don't represent you, we have too completely different outlooks on the revolution and its fruits. I am Proletarian, you are a Proletarian. A fixed set of Proletarians with the same view (a communist party) doesn't represent the mass of Proletarians.

The Democratic Party consisting of Proletarians, does not represent the Republican Proletarians. Just because a Party consists of well hearted Proletarians does not mean it represents an entire class of Proletarians.

[manic expression]

No were talking about how State Representatives can't run a Business. I never denied delegates to the "State".
And when the state has control over production, what then?

We're talking about afterwords, when the Soviets, the free organizations, were dwindled down to the Bolshevik Party.
The betrayal of the Left SR's was their doing, the Bolsheviks didn't force them to turn on the Soviets. That's why the Bolsheviks were the only party, everyone else went against the Revolution and they were the only ones left standing.

That wasn't a response to my solution. Just by saying there isn't a problem doesn't help your stand point.
But there isn't a problem. Having people elected to positions of power doesn't contradict socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of what? An executive committee where the bottom and top are diminished?
You were saying that it's wrong to have some in decision-making positions and others not...so I wanted an example of that.

I was hoping to make you think, but I guess I'll have to explain it to you.
And how does class consciousness manifest itself in the real world? Through the political organization of the most militant workers; ie the vanguard party. Saying that economic developments will just take care of themselves is economism.

Here's another basic tenet of Marxism: The Manifesto of the Communist Party

You missed the whole point of the analogy. Lets try it again in similar terms. I don't represent you, we have too completely different outlooks on the revolution and its fruits. I am Proletarian, you are a Proletarian. A fixed set of Proletarians with the same view (a communist party) doesn't represent the mass of Proletarians.

The Democratic Party consisting of Proletarians, does not represent the Republican Proletarians. Just because a Party consists of well hearted Proletarians does not mean it represents an entire class of Proletarians.
A set of proletarian revolutionaries with the correct political line does represent the interests of the mass of workers.

The Democratic Party, or anyone who's anyone in that organization, is bourgeois to the bone. Its principles, policies, politics and objectives follow from this. The only valid comparison is that of a dichotomy to be juxtaposed with working-class vanguard parties.

[Paulappaul]

And when the state has control over production, what then?why would it?


The betrayal of the Left SR's was their doing, the Bolsheviks didn't force them to turn on the Soviets. That's why the Bolsheviks were the only party, everyone else went against the Revolution and they were the only ones left standing.I talked about this with Zanthorus in another thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dictatorship-proletariat-t142611/index.html)


Having people elected to positions of power doesn't contradict socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat.Yeah it does. "Positions of Power" means quite simply Alienation. Genuine Free societies have no "positions of power" to command others.



You were saying that it's wrong to have some in decision-making positions and others not...so I wanted an example of that.Wait, you want an example of someone who is giving orders to someone else?


Through the political organization of the most militant workers; ie the vanguard party.I didn't. Most people don't.


Saying that economic developments will just take care of themselves is economism.I don't care what it is. Economism is an empty phrase to me. How about you explain why its wrong.


A set of proletarian revolutionaries with the correct political line does represent the interests of the mass of workers.That's pretty outlandish statement, which you don't back up with any examples.


The Democratic Party, or anyone who's anyone in that organization, is bourgeois to the bone. Its principles, policies, politics and objectives follow from this.So the Democratic Parties 72 million members are all bourgeois?

[NGNM85]

yQsceZ9skQI

[Paulappaul]

Favorite Noam Chomsky video.

[Apoi_Viitor]

What, seriously?? Are you joking? I think you misread Lenin comrade.

I was kidding. I was referring to what Lenin did, not what he said. There's a starch contrast between those two.

[Barry Lyndon]

yQsceZ9skQI

Chomsky, in this whole lecture, does not mention the authoritarian Bolshevik measures taking place in the context of a major civil war with the counter-revolutionary pro-Czarist White Armies, an international trade embargo, and the intervention of a dozen foreign armies. To leave all that out is ridiculous- it's like describing Sherman's March without mentioning the American Civil War- you could make Abraham Lincoln look like a bloodthirsty tyrant. And the Bolsheviks were fighting an enemy that was defending a system not that much different from slavery, from the point of view of the Russian serf.

In any revolution that takes power, the revolutionaries have to make compromises with reality that they neither desire nor want. Noam Chomsky fails to explain how a anarchist revolution would overcome the same problems. The problem is if he did try to realistically figure out how to accomplish such a feat, he might come up with similar conclusions to Lenin. And then he would lose the moral high ground, and Chomsky must always have the moral high ground. Instead he falls back on abstract moralizing, which is easy but intellectually lazy, since criticizing the Bolsheviks from an elite academic institution in the citadel of world reaction is like shooting fish in a barrel. If I provide no counter-examples, I might as well be talking about heaven, and criticize the Soviet Union in relation to that. Basically, its just bullshit.

When the anarchists in Spain(who Chomsky considers a revolutionary model) attempted to set up a society run only by autonomous workers collectives, with no central state and regular military, they lasted a grand total of three years before being crushed by the Fascists. This led to 36 years of Fascist dictatorship and the murder of hundreds of thousands of leftists. Isn't a failed revolution due to too much idealism just as morally suspect, in terms of consequences, as too much 'authoritarianism', in defense of the revolution?

I like Chomsky a lot, and he has valuable insight on a lot of things, but his biases with regards to Lenin and the Russian Revolution are so blinding they verge on the dishonest.

[Amphictyonis]

Because you cannot simply abolish the state in order to expropriate capital. Capital controls the state so unless you control the state you cannot abolish private property. Anarchists are correct though, the state is used as a tool for one class to oppress another- once capital has been marginalized the state should be disbanded or decentralized. Lenin was in the beginning stage of marginalizing concentrated wealth. Anarchists have more weight behind their rhetoric as far as criticizing Stalin.

(i don't personally condone the persecution of any socialist be they Marxist or Anarchist)

[AK]

I don't support participating in parties either, for the same reason pretty much. However, I don't support going around and executing everyone who is in a party either. Which I guess is implied by contrasting "elimination of parties" and "outlawing of parties".
I don't recall saying I wanted to eliminate political party members... I guess 'abolish' would have been a better word. I didn't use the word 'outlaw' because that seems to give me the idea that we will just make a law banning political parties and that's the end of that.


Leninist view of state apparatus is nothing like what you said. It's actually surprisingly anarchist.
Leninists view the state as a centralisation of political power? Did I miss the memo?


No. Capitalism persecutes no one. It is a system, and abstract construct. Only a capitalist can persecute anyone. Same goes for leninism.
Take away 'ist' from 'Leninist' and you get 'Lenin'. I'm afraid your example didn't work too well in this case :D

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Yeah it does. "Positions of Power" means quite simply Alienation. Genuine Free societies have no "positions of power" to command others.
Hang on a minute there. Are you talking about the final stage of communism or earlier socialism? In a socialist context, arguably, elected officials (I don't say democratically because that's tied to our current system, I mean elected fairly and by the people) still hold positions of power. I see you're a council communist, do you maintain that councils do all the managing in your society?

And, for what it's worth, I'm a trot, and I don't support or justify any oppression of legit left ideologies, including anarchism.

[Thirsty Crow]

When the anarchists in Spain(who Chomsky considers a revolutionary model) attempted to set up a society run only by autonomous workers collectives, with no central state and regular military, they lasted a grand total of three years before being crushed by the Fascists. This led to 36 years of Fascist dictatorship and the murder of hundreds of thousands of leftists. Isn't a failed revolution due to too much idealism just as morally suspect, in terms of consequences, as too much 'authoritarianism', in defense of the revolution?

I agree with everything in your post except this.
You are making the same mistake that Chomsky does. You fail to mention some important things, like the role of the USSR in direct violence against established communes, as well as the battle for hegemony on behalf of the "socialists" and "communists" (inverted commas signify the fact that they called themselves socialists and communists) which resulted in mindless abandonment of some of the proposals put forward by anarchists. And you fail to mention that there were also significant material factors at work, for instance, the fact that the fascists were in a better position regarding military equipment (they could thank Britain and France for that since I don't really recall that they sent material aid or even sold arms).

[manic expression]

why would it?
Because it's the most logical and effective way for workers to control production.


Yeah it does. "Positions of Power" means quite simply Alienation. Genuine Free societies have no "positions of power" to command others.
"Genuine Free" (TM) isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. An absence of political power is only possible when class conflict is eliminated entirely.


Wait, you want an example of someone who is giving orders to someone else?
No, I want an example of a socialist society in which no one gives or receives orders.


I didn't. Most people don't.
Most people aren't going to be part of the vanguard party, it's for the most militant, advanced section of the working class. It's role is to lead the revolution.


I don't care what it is. Economism is an empty phrase to me. How about you explain why its wrong.
Economism isn't an empty phrase, it describes a set of wrongheaded assumptions about society. Economism rejects political struggle and focuses only on economic relations, which is unrealistic and anti-materialist. The truth is that revolutions are made through political activity, since class struggle is itself a political struggle.


That's pretty outlandish statement, which you don't back up with any examples.
The Bolsheviks are one example.


So the Democratic Parties 72 million members are all bourgeois?
They aren't actually members in any meaningful sense, but regardless it's irrelevant anyway: the control of the party is what matters. Ideologically and practically, the Democrats are a bourgeois party, it is under the control of the ruling class. Like I said, anyone who is anyone in the Democratic party is not a worker, workers have no voice, no influence, no independent political capacity. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, were ideologically and practically a party of the workers. A priest can join a vanguard party and it will change nothing about its nature.

[bricolage]

The Paris Commune didn't give any workers' the right to manage their business'. They had plans to implement a nationwide network of co-operative production, but they were crushed by Versailles before they could even begin.
Some co-operatives were set up, it was about 40 or so I can't remember. Also Edwards' talks about an armaments factory (I think it was) that came under workers control. But yeah the co-operative proposals were of course lackluster, considering they were only intended for businesses where the owners had left Paris and they were prepared to pay compensation for them. Actually now that I'm thinking about I seem to remember there being a 'co-operative' for women to make sandbags, I doubt it was anything much to write home about though.
I have a whole box of notes on this somewhere, I really should look for them...

[Dimentio]

Historically, it seems like any time Leninists are in power they oppress anarchists. Anarchists were jailed by the Bolsheviks and Red Army, Trotsky crushed anarchist Ukraine, and in Cuba anarchist groups were banned and anarchists sent into exile. I'm not sure about leftist nationalists who sort of pay lip service to leninism, for example I've never heard anything about a suppression of anarchists by the Viet Cong or Republican groups in Ireland, but when it comes to straight up leninists who are very about a revolutionary vanguard party it almost seems inevitable. I know most if not all Marxist Leninists view political freedom and freedom of expression as bourgiesie liberalism, but what justification do you have for imprisoning anarchists and in the case of Ukraine suppressing whole anarchist movements? Whatever happened to self determination?

You know very well that everyone who is not a leninist is a counter-revolutionary. That includes leninists who disagree with the for the moment dominating line, dead leninists. That is of course a really nasty parody of them, but sadly, it has historically been so.

[RadioRaheem84]

yQsceZ9skQI
Someone post some Parenti to counter this borderline intellectual dishonesty.

I love Chomsky too but as Barry Lyndon pointed out, Chomsky is so extremely bias that he almost sounds like an anti-communist shrill sometimes.

The girl in the beginning of the video made more sense. Chomsky cites Luxembourg as anti-Leninist? C'mon!

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Hello! I dont call myself a leninist ore anarchist, i just like whats progressiv for us in the working class, what could make us take over the productiona and what could leed to an end of the class system. Its intresting to see so many leftist think that this isnt soo important, what seems to be important is to choose side, wich label should i take? wich slogans should i learn? In this case someone (722Goo) who calls him/herself for an anarchist thinks that its important to start a venemous discussion that alredy that evrybody already had, without any resultes. In this case he/she wants some people for apologize to him/her and others about some events that nobody here participated in. Because this is what counts for some leftists.

Point is that this thread is just a try to start a flame war and for OP to live out his/her frustrating feelings about crimes that havent affected anyone here, I dont get why threads with intellectual levels lower then hell are allowed, just raise the level. With the current situation, we have nothing to win by being divided and thats not some naive talk, its the reality, the sooner we all get it and start to cooperate we will move forward, Ore we could just be more sectarian then ever and whine about the past, instead of learning frome it, wich we cant afford, but then some just wants to have a lifestyl...uh i mean an ideology to follow.

[RadioRaheem84]

Mike, I would drop all the labels in a heart beat if it helped move the working class to further revolution, but we're talking about reconciliation meaning a negation of historical fact. Sometimes I think that just giving in and letting the left coms, anarchists and Trots win will help further class struggle because it will mean a reconciliation with history and moving forward to aid revolution. But as an ML, the main thrust of defending the MLs in history is to show how the other tendencies didn't necessarily work in face of imperial onslaught. To negate them because of their record of injustice is to also negate their position at that point in their historical development. I see it as a product of being bombarded every day with imperialist propaganda and not wanting to look like a supporter of tyranny under a society which hides its own tyrannical structure. It's easier to just say Lenin = Tyranny therefore I do not have to defend history and we can move on to implementing revolution. Why can't they be critical of the ML states while seeing their position as one of constant struggle against imperialism and revisionism? Why drop them all into the same batch of tyrannical regimes as with the capitalists ones? That doesn't sound like materialist thinking to me.

[Barry Lyndon]

The girl in the beginning of the video made more sense. Chomsky cites Luxembourg as anti-Leninist? C'mon!

"In this erupting of the social divide in the very lap of bourgeois society, in this international deepening and heightening of class antagonism lies the historical merit of Bolshevism, and with this feat – as always in large historic connections – the particular mistakes and errors of the Bolsheviks disappear without trace" - Rosa Luxemburg

[4 Leaf Clover]

pardon me , but how can leninists "opress" anarchists ?

[Widerstand]

pardon me , but how can leninists "opress" anarchists ?

Guns?

[Paulappaul]

Because it's the most logical and effective way for workers to control production.

Give me a little more to work off of.


No, I want an example of a socialist society in which no one gives or receives orders.

Collective Labor in Spain for one.


Economism rejects political struggle and focuses only on economic relations, which is unrealistic and anti-materialist. The truth is that revolutions are made through political activity, since class struggle is itself a political struggle.


I never rejected the necessity of Political activity, only that it would come a Party.


The Bolsheviks are one example.

Yeah except you know the Proletarians under the wing of the Mensheviks or the Workers' Opposition in the Bolsheviks.


A priest can join a vanguard party and it will change nothing about its nature.

If a 99 % of your party consists of Priests and the other of "Professional Revolutionaries" will it still be the voice of the working class? What makes a Professional Revolutionary the voice of the People?

[Barry Lyndon]

Someone post some Parenti to counter this borderline intellectual dishonesty.

From Micheal Parenti's 'Blackshirts and Reds':

"But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions.

Unfortunately, this "pure socialism" view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little room for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they "feel betrayed" by this or that revolution.

The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism--not created from one's imagination but developed through actual historical experience--could have taken hold and worked better...

The pure socialists regularly blame the Left itself for every defeat it suffers. Their second-guessing is endless. So we hear that revolutionary struggles fail because their leaders wait too long or act too soon, are too timid or too impulsive, too stubborn or too easily swayed. We hear that revolutionary leaders are compromising or adventuristic, bureaucratic or opportunistic, rigidly organized or insufficiently organized, undemocratic or failing to provide strong leadership. But always the leaders fail because they do not put their trust in the "direct actions" of the workers, who apparently would withstand and overcome every adversity if only given the kind of leadership available from the left critic's own groupuscule. Unfortunately, the critics seem unable to apply their own leadership genius to producing a successful revolutionary movement in their own country."

[Weezer]

That's because immediate Leninist goals include:

Mass political executions.
Banning political parties.
Crushing Workers democracy.
Placing all political power in the hands of the party elite.

Generally, these are things Anarchists don't like.

Immediate Anarchist goals:

Set up squats in their parents' basements
Listen to Black Flag
Get more hair gel


It's not a separate topic, in fact I am trying to argue against the notion that all Leninists are violent, triggerhappy bastards.

The one thing modern day Leninists could, and should, apologize for is their constant and ongoing slander of Anarchism.

Only if you apologize for your slandering of Leninism too. Hypocrite.

[Paulappaul]

Are you talking about the final stage of communism or earlier socialism?

Lower Stage of Communism.


In a socialist context, arguably, elected officials (I don't say democratically because that's tied to our current system, I mean elected fairly and by the people) still hold positions of power.

I disagree it maintains a system of Alienation.


I see you're a council communist, do you maintain that councils do all the managing in your society?

Yes

[AK]

pardon me , but how can leninists "opress" anarchists ?
Murder/assassination, police raids, imprisonment, denial of the right to gather in public, etc.

[Widerstand]

Only if you apologize for your slandering of Leninism too. Hypocrite.

I 'apologized' for slandering Leninists already, or rather I have stated the obvious, that I have no issues with them personally.

This is cool stuff however:


Immediate Anarchist goals:

Set up squats in their parents' basements
Listen to Black Flag
Get more hair gel

[4 Leaf Clover]

Murder/assassination, police raids, imprisonment, denial of the right to gather in public, etc.
hmm i missunderstood what did "leninists" stand for. well then answer is obvious. because of disagreement

[Thirsty Crow]

hmm i missunderstood what did "leninists" stand for. well then answer is obvious. because of disagreement
So, disagreement may quite simply elicit violent repression?
Well that's fuckin' great. We disagree I shot you.
Nice model for an establishment of an association of producers in which free development of an individual for the free development of all.

[Widerstand]

hmm i missunderstood what did "leninists" stand for. well then answer is obvious. because of disagreement

Hurray for forced hegemony!

[ComradeOm]

Because I was quoting their justification for the raids.

In any case, it seems rather apparent to me that the Cheka used what may have been the bad behavior of some anarchists as a justification for a wholesale crackdown on all anarchists, who eventually all became bandits in the eyes of the Bolsheviks. Some of them were imprisoned and/or executed on trumped-up charges (even without a show trial!). I don't think that's right.Except that they didn't "crack down in all anarchists", at least not in the sense suggested in this thread. The Cheka raids being discussed did not signal the beginning of some mass and prolonged campaign to eradicate "all anarchists"

As I hinted above, the anarchist scene in Russia was multifaceted, to say the least. On the one hand, to simplify, you the Anarcho-Communists*, who were dominant in Moscow, which were essentially a group of hotheaded terrorists (styled on the Beznachal'tsy, as noted above) who had not let go of the old ways of bombings and "expropriations". They were rapidly going out of control - indulging in theft, murder, extortion, etc - with even the Moscow Federation straining to exert some influence over its members**. I'll come back to this later, but if these anarchists were a nuisance it was because of this sort of illegal activity and not any real influence. Obviously after the raids things just got worse as the A-Cs embarked on a terror campaign. Frankly I'm not sure why anyone should defend their behaviour, other anarchists certainly didn't

The other side of the anarchist movement was the Anarcho-Syndicalists and here the picture is pretty different. Disavowing the pointless violence of the A-Cs, the majority of these continued to work with the Bolsheviks through the various worker bodies. They weren't shy about their criticisms of the regime but were largely unmolested. One of their more prominent figures, Karelin, was even elected to the Soviet CEC in 1918 - the year that the Bolsheviks were supposedly "cracking down on all anarchists"! Other anarchists occupied similar roles in the Soviet state. In another example, Golos Truda, despite the occasional closure, continued publication until 1929

It was not until the 1920s that the Syndicalists really lost any freedom of discussion or input into the state's activities but this was part of a much wider process that affected/constrained all forums or organisations in the USSR, including the Bolshevik rank and file. Obviously I do not condone this but it makes a mockery of suggestions, echoed in this thread, that there was some Bolshevik "recipe" for "oppressing anarchists"

The truth is that the Bolsheviks, as a rule, worked with a variety of movements and parties as they constructed the new state. The anarchists were not the most significant of these as outside the Ukraine their influence and numbers were pretty minuscule when compared to the Left SRs or even the Mensheviks. Regardless, the golden rule was simple - no armed opposition to Soviet power. Those groups and individuals that abided by this dictum were generally able to survive or even prosper in the new USSR. Again, hardly an ideal scenario but one that illustrates how reactive Bolshevik violence or "oppression" really was

*As they styled themselves at the time. No reflection on today's A-Cs

**Serge quotes, same link as before, the notices in the paper Anarchy with repeated proclamations like the below. The situation only got worse


“Anarchist Federal Council. Regrettable abuses are occurring. Unknown persons have proceeded to arrest and extort funds in the name of the Federation. The Federation declares that it will not tolerate any requisitions intended for individual enrichment.” (April 1)

“The Black General Staff announces that it will not assume responsibility except for operations carried out on an order signed by at least three of its members, and in the presence of at least one member.”

[Apoi_Viitor]

Immediate Anarchist goals:

Set up squats in their parents' basements
Listen to Black Flag
Get more hair gel

I see no problem with this...

[Os Cangaceiros]

The other side of the anarchist movement was the Anarcho-Syndicalists and here the picture is pretty different. Disavowing the pointless violence of the A-Cs, the majority of these continued to work with the Bolsheviks through the various worker bodies. They weren't shy about their criticisms of the regime but were largely unmolested. One of their more prominent figures, Karelin, was even elected to the Soviet CEC in 1918 - the year that the Bolsheviks were supposedly "cracking down on all anarchists"! Other anarchists occupied similar roles in the Soviet state. In another example, Golos Truda, despite the occasional closure, continued publication until 1929

It was not until the 1920s that the Syndicalists really lost any freedom of discussion or input into the state's activities but this was part of a much wider process that affected/constrained all forums or organisations in the USSR, including the Bolshevik rank and file. Obviously I do not condone this but it makes a mockery of suggestions, echoed in this thread, that there was some Bolshevik "recipe" for "oppressing anarchists"

This (http://libcom.org/history/anarchist-underground-leningrad) tells a bit of a different story about how some anarcho-syndicalists were treated in the early 20's. Granted, it was in the 20's, and deals with the GPU (not the Cheka), but that wasn't too long after the events previously mentioned in this thread.

[Morpheus]

From Micheal Parenti's 'Blackshirts and Reds':

"But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions.

http://struggle.ws/freeearth/ice_pick.html
worker's ice pick


This essay is written in response to the book "Blackshirts and Reds" by Michael Parenti, a large part of which is taken up with apologetics for, and praise of, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and it's satellites . This is not some minor dispute, or idle debate, but is of great relevance.
It derives it's relevance from the presence in every corner of the globe of adherents of Sovietphilia , people and organisations whose goal is the replication of the USSR (at whatever period in it's history), in most parts of the world this is not a likely prospect, but nonetheless this phenomenon is a harmful one . Why so? Firstly because of their tendency to recreate/maintain central features of existing society within social movements capable of changing society, principally that is the division between order givers and order takers, something seemingly as dear to their hearts as it is to the heart of any boss, politician or corporate chairman . Thereby nullifying the liberatory potential of these movements . Secondly by discrediting the idea that there is an alternative to capitalism . For instance, during the September 26th 2000 demonstration against the World Bank/IMF in Prague they came covered with hammers and sickles, red stars and other such symbols of peace and freedom and were given great prominence in the local media &endash; each photo saying take your pick the tyranny of the state or the tyranny of the market. Of course now that the "Soviet" Union has be cast into the dust bin of history , it's place as the recipient of groupie's accolades has been taken by Cuban dictatorship, lately embraced by well known major label revolutionaries the Manic Street Preachers, nonetheless the "Soviet" Union was, and is the original model and as such retains a relevance today. But I will say one thing about Cuba, or rather I'll let a representative of the Cuban State controlled Trade Union movement say something: "There were some initial inequalities between those workers working in Cuban companies and those in the joint ventures" (i.e. joint ventures between the Cuban state and multi-nationals) ; however "The Cuban Workers' Confederation is working to improve conditions in the state-owned companies."(1)
Need I comment? This was actually published in a pro-Castro newspaper under the heading "Workers' Rights in Cuba".
Mine is an essay, Parenti's is a book , so I cannot deal with every single assertion, with every point, I have instead homed in on a number of crucial areas of concern.
Parenti defends the USSR on the following grounds: firstly, it's moral superiority over capitalist states ; secondly, by arguing that it's deformation was caused by the civil war, imperialist encirclement etc...; thirdly, by claiming that it's "Left anti-Communist" and "pure socialist" critics have no, and offer no, practical alternative to what he calls the "siege socialism" of the Soviet Empire ; and finally by trying to downsize the extent of repression. I will deal with each part of his defence of "Communist" tyranny in turn.
Some More Equal than Others.

According to Parenti : "in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism" . By economic inequality he means inequality of income, consumption and lifestyle presumably not regarding a situation where by the value produced by the labour of the majority is expropriated by a minority to be 'economic inequality' nor a situation where the bulk of economic activity is determined by a minority and imposed on the rest of society .
Still, his claim in regard to 'economic inequality' does not withstand examination. In the words of Foreign Minister Molotov "Bolshevik policy demands a resolute struggle against equalitarians as accomplices of the class enemy, as elements hostile to socialism." (2)
Orlando Figes, historian and author of 'Peasant Russia, Civil War' and 'A People's Tragedy' describes the opulent lifestyle of the new ruling class in the early days of the 'worker's state':
"Five thousand Bolsheviks and their families lived in the Kremlin and the special party hotels, such as the National and the Metropole, in the centre of Moscow. The Kremlin's domestic quarters had over 2,000 service staff and it's own complex of shops, including a hairdresser and a sauna, a hospital and a nursery, and three vast restaurants with cooks trained in France. Its domestic budget in 1920, when all these services were declared free , was higher than that spent on social welfare for the whole of Moscow. In Petrograd the top party bosses lived in the Astoria Hotel, recently restored to its formal splendour, after the devastation's of the revolution, as the First House of the Soviets. From their suites, they could call for room service from the 'comrade waiters', who were taught to click their heels and call them 'comrade master'. Long-forgotten luxuries, such as champagne and caviar, perfume and toothbrushes, were supplied in abundance. The hotel was sealed to the public by a gang of burly guards in black leather jackets. In the evening government cars were lined up by the entrance waiting to take the elite residents off to the opera or to the Smolny for a banquet." ( 3)
This was at a time when many of the common people of Russia were literally starving to death.
Erwin Weit, one time interpreter for the fat chieftains of Polish "communism", relates his insight into "private enrichment" Eastern Bloc style, how privileged State officials were able to use their privilege to enrich themselves:
"I got into a conversation with some embassy officials which taught me a good deal about the 'private enterprise sidelines' indulged in by the Polish diplomats in Berlin. ... Since they saw no reason to hide their transactions from me they were quite willing to explain. 'You see, Comrade Weit, in Warsaw anyone can buy a Soviet-made Zorki camera for 2,000 zlotys in a state shop. But the cheapest car on the market, an East German 'Trabant' ... costs at least 85,000 zlotys on the black market. Since we have the right to travel freely between East and West Berlin we can take the cameras into West Berlin at any time. We have a buyer there who will give us 70 dollars for them . At a rough estimate if you convert 70 dollars into West German marks they are worth about 800 East German marks. And a Trabant car costs 7,200 East German marks. In Warsaw we can buy nine Zorki cameras for 18,000 zlotys. And in exchange for these 18,000 zlotys we make 85,000 zlotys when we sell the car in Poland. So we make a clear profit of nearly 70,000 zlotys.' I made a few calculations in my head. Since the average wage in Poland is about 2,000 zlotys per month they could make as much from a single transaction of this kind as an ordinary Polish worker would earn in two and a half years." (4)
The income of the party bosses and state bureaucrats was bloated not only through the perks of position, and opportunities for corruption, considerable though they were, but also through their official income, for example, during the Second World War a private in the Red Army got ten roubles a month, lieutenants 1000, and colonels 2,400. By contrast ,in that well known bastion of socialism, the U.S. Army, privates got 50 dollars a month, lieutenants 150, and colonels 333. American soldiers of the time did not have F.B.I. machine gunners behind them to make sure they didn't retreat, nor were they imprisoned for the crime of being imprisoned by the enemy, nonetheless the USSR is a utopia and the U.S.A. an evil empire.
Golden Cages?

According to Parenti, in what he calls communist countries "priority was placed on human services" the evidence for this is "guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance" representing "something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world" this is an "organising principle for every communist system to one degree or the other" and does not "apply to free market countries". State welfare programs began in Germany under Bismarck and in Britain in Victorian times (or earlier i.e. 'relief work', 'workhouses' , etc..), they received a boost in Britain when it was discovered that recruits were not healthy enough for the army. They continue to exist to this day, to a greater or lesser extent, in all West European states. Obviously advanced capitalism requires a healthy, housed and educated workforce and furthermore it needs to introduce reforms from now and then when the grumblings from below get too loud, in any case we pay for it all in our taxes . As regards employment currently the Republic of Ireland has less unemployment than contemporary Cuba and besides let's not kid ourselves "guaranteed employment" is a polite term for compulsory exploitation. In any case the social policy of "Communist" states ranged from welfarism similar to Western Europe (but not as good) to 'social cleansing' similar to Latin America (i.e. the extermination of those left as orphans by the Civil War and famine). Romania's orphanages are hardly world renowned as the zenith of social welfare and State health care.
Not then "something different from what existed in the profit driven capitalist world".
According to Parenti: "in communist countries, productive forces were not organised for capital gain and private enrichment ; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership" .
In "communist" states the state owned the means of production as the public did not control the state we cannot therefore speak of "public ownership". In reality the means of production was controlled by the Nomenklatura ruling class and organised for "capital gain and private enrichment" as is evident from the mere fact of minority control. Unless that is you believe in the existence of such wonderful selfless people who invested with absolute power proceeded to use it to for the benefit of all and not for "capital gain and private enrichment" while time and time again the ungrateful proles of one country and then another rose against them.
The "Socialist" Empire.

According to Parenti "communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their driving force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practise economic imperialism."
I'm sure it was a great relief to the Polish prisoners massacred in Katyn forest that the USSR did not in fact 'practise economic imperialism' . In any case, what Parenti is saying here is just plain wrong . Those areas which became independent from the Russian Empire, or attempted to, during the Revolution, for example, the Ukraine or the Baltic states, and which were later incorporated into the USSR at gunpoint, had their entire economies, all the land, all the natural resources, etc.. , expropriated ('nationalised under public ownership') by Moscow. The Bolshevik invaders of the Ukraine in 1918 were exhorted by Lenin to "send grain, grain and more grain" (5) , that country performing the same function for Moscow as it did for Berlin during the two world wars. Executions for the crime of speaking Ukrainian was however a Leninist innovation. Moving on to the post-W.W. 2 period we find 'Soviet Shareholding Companies' as well as mixed companies (jointly owned by the USSR and the local state) owning much of the heavy industry of Russian occupied Eastern Europe. This was brought about by the seizure of all German held property while in East Germany itself the pretext for this confiscation was the political views of the previous owners. In any case the 'surplus value' (that share of the value produced not required to maintain the existence of the worker) extracted from the employees of these firms was now going not to "National Socialist" capitalists in Germany but to "Communist" capitalists in Russia. Likewise colonial trade relations existed between occupied Eastern Europe and the 'socialist motherland' with the USSR buying cheap and selling dear to this it's captive market . This was also true in regard to Red China and Yugoslavia which is why of course they broke away from the bear's embrace. Furthermore those countries which had been ruled by indigenous government which were part of the Axis were hit with a massive reparations bill .
Civil War

The question as to whether the Bolsheviks were forced into authoritarian, hierarchical and dictatorial methods, forced into the establishment of State capitalism, or "Siege socialism" as Parenti calls it, by the practical necessities of civil war or whether all this was inherent in Leninism all along, and the natural product of Leninist ideology, is actually not to difficult to answer. We merely have to look at the record of the Bolsheviks prior to the civil war. If this was a lab experiment we would have a 'subject' that is to say Bolshevism plus civil war and a 'control' that is to say Bolshevism minus civil war and by looking at the difference between the two we can ascertain the effect of the civil war. The civil war didn't really heat up until the Summer of 1918 with the offensive of the Czech Legion and the establishment of the Komuch (an alternative Social Revolutionary led government) . Allied intervention reached a new level at this time as well with the landing of a Allied force in Vladivostok (the British section of it was under a Labour party M.P. and comprised of old soldiers unfit of service on the Western front) - previously British troops had landed in Murmansk as an anti-German action . There was a low level of violence prior to this, consisting of very small armies and very small casualty figures, for example the famous 'ice march' carried out by the White 'volunteer army' in the extreme south of Russia involved only 4,000 soldiers. On the 3rd of March 1918 the brief hostilities between Berlin and the Bolsheviks were ended ; on the 10th of April 1918 the volunteer and Cossack white armies ( the only anti-Bolshevik armed forces of any substance at this time) were well defeated; so the article on 'The immediate tasks of the Soviet Government', written by Lenin and published on the 25th of April 1918 , could be considered our 'control' i.e. Leninism minus military threat ; all the more so given that on March 14th 1918 Lenin said "The Soviet Government has triumphed in the Civil War" and again on April 23rd he said "One can say with certainty that the Civil War in its main phases has been brought to an end".(6)
Furthermore this was before the failure of the German revolution dimmed hopes of spreading 'socialism' to the more advanced states .
In this article Lenin writes : "We must raise the question of piece-work and apply and test it in practise .... we must raise the question of applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system."
"The irrefutable experience of history has shown that ... the dictatorship of individual persons was very often the vehicle , the channel of the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes."
"Large-scale machine industry - which is the material productive source and foundation of socialism - calls for absolute and strict unity of will ... How can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one".
" Unquestioning submission (emphasis in original) to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labour processes that are based on large-scale machine industry . . . today the Revolution demands , in the interests of socialism , that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will (emphasis in original) of the leaders of the labour process." (7)
Note the building of socialism requires "thousands subordinating their will to the will of one" in other words submission to authority is an inherent prerequisite of socialism not a temporary expedient employed to win the civil war or to maintain 'socialism in one country'.
"Communist" political repression and class oppression likewise dates back to before the civil war began in earnest . The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Struggle against Counter-Revolution and Sabotage or Cheka (later known as the N.K.V.D. , G.P.U. , K.G.B. and currently F.S.B.) was established on the 7th of December 1917 . It's definition of 'counter-revolution' and 'sabotage' included absenteeism from work and private trading (which was a necessity) . All non-Bolshevik political factions were to fall victim to the Cheka within the first year of it's operations, within it's first month the infamous Peter and Paul fortress in St Petersburg was filled to the brim with political prisoners. On the night of April the 11th 1918 (again during our 'control' period ) Cheka units raided 26 anarchist centres in Moscow , killing 40 in the initial fighting and arresting over 500.
The terror was not just a means of disposing of dissidents but also a means of labour discipline, to quote Lenin again, this time writing in December 1917, : "In one place they (i.e. the Cheka) will put into prison a dozen rich men, a dozen scoundrels, half a dozen workers who shirk on the job..... (my emphasis)" ,"one out of every ten idlers will be shot". (8)
International Capitalism Made Me Do It.

Then we have the famous fourteen Imperialist armies or the "fourteen capitalist nations" as Parenti calls them. Who were they ? Well we have Turkey, Germany and Austria-Hungary for starters all of whom were outed from the territory of the Russian empire as a result of their defeat in the First World War. Then we have the Allied intervention which really took off after the First World War, that is the intervention of the Britain, France, Japan, the United States, Italy and Canada. Then we have newly independent Poland involved in intermittent incursions into the what is now the Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania culminating in the offensive into Bolshevik occupied Ukraine in the spring of 1920. Count them that's ten states, or seven really as the Central Powers pulled out early in the game and only had a very minimal involvement in the beginning of the civil war.
Where/who are the other four? or seven? Is it? Georgia, the Ukraine, Finland, who by declaring their independence from Russia (in most cases later to be quashed by the state which to quote Parenti "provided vital assistance to national liberation movements in countries around the world." - around the world perhaps meaning as far away from the U.S.S.R. as possible) could be said to have invaded the Soviet Union, even if only someone cloned by the Kremlin would say this. Perhaps the fourteen includes the Czech legion - a force of former war prisoners and nationalist activists fighting for Czech independence on the side of Russia in the great war and later to clash with the Bolsheviks. Or perhaps the other four are the different white armies of Russia, a neat trick presenting the Whites as more formidable than they actually were by counting their weakness i.e. division as a strength. Or perhaps New Zealand, South Africa and Australia were also involved , though I find no mention of them in the official history of the Communist party or elsewhere.
In any case why are you questioning this I hear you cry and ignoring that far more interesting and pressing concern - the single-handed victory of the Red Army over the combined forces of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Japan plus the White Armies, and the various nationalist forces which would be surely the single most amazing event in world history especially when you consider that only a matter of months before the Bolsheviks could not even resist imperial Germany alone. It would be the single most amazing event in world history except for the fact that it is beaten into third place by the ability of the establishments in those countries to obscure the extent of their intervention from the public and by the ability of the Polish state that well known militaristic, imperialist super-power to defeat the Red Army in 1920 thereby achieving a feat which all the others together could not do. Or perhaps all is not as it seems and this 'Allied intervention' was not all it was cracked up to be . To quote Voline, a Russian anarchist sent into exile by both of Russia's absolutist regimes :
"According to legend, that intervention was highly important. It is primarily in this way that the Bolsheviks explain the strength and success of some of the white movements. That assertion, however, belies reality. It is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the foreign intervention during the Russian Revolution was never either vigorous or persevering. A modest amount of aid, in money, munitions, and equipment: that was all . The Whites themselves complained bitterly of [its paucity] later on. And as for the detachments of troops sent to Russia, they always were of minor significance and played almost no tangible part." (9)
Essentially these military units occupied a few ports and guarded parts of the rear areas of the White armies to ensure that supplies got through to them (a somewhat futile task as due to the corruption with the white movement much aid ended up on the black market ) . The main body of Allied troops appears to have been centred on the port of Vladivostok , those of you unfamiliar with the distance between Moscow and Vladivostok think London to Hong Kong.
No Alternative?

Says Parenti: "But a real socialism, it is argued , would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunate, this 'pure socialism' view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality , and the reality comes off a poor second. ......The pure socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practise. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organised, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted."
In refuting this argument we must keep in mind a number of things: firstly Parenti is ignoring the "existing practise" of just about any revolution worthy of the name for they all included directly democratic aspects which "pure socialists" or "Left anti-Communists" see as the answer to the questions he raises and from whence we derive our ideas; secondly a revolution is a mass movement of the people, by the people, for the people, it is a creative act produced by, who shall I say the public? the people? so the average guy reading this knows what I'm on about or the proletariat? so the robots from the Red planet reading this will not accuse me of lacking a "materialist class analysis" or some such; and finally a number of "pure socialists" active during the Russian revolution published works which have been translated into English and answer, at least in part or attempt to, the questions he raises .
We can see these three points and the answer to Parenti's argument in the following snapshot of an "actuality of history" of "existing practise" in Krondstadt during the Russian Revolution:
"All maters concerning public services in Kronstadt and the internal life of the city were administered by the citizens themselves, through the medium of house committees and militia, and little by little they advanced towards the socialisation of dwellings and of all urban services. Generally speaking, at Kronstadt and elsewhere in Russia before the enthronement of the Bolsheviks, the inhabitants of a house first organised a number of tenants' meetings. These meetings named a tenants' committee, which consisted of men who were energetic and capable of fulfilling some necessary function.
The Committee supervised the upkeep of the house and the welfare of the inhabitants, it designated the day and night janitors, etc.. Each House Committee delegated one of it's members to the Street Committee, which was in charge of matters that concerned the whole street. Then came the District Committee, the Borough Committee and finally the City Committee, which was concerned with the interests of the whole city and , in a natural and logical manner, carried out whatever centralisation of services was necessary. The organisation of the militia was similar to that of the Committees : each house had a group of militiamen, drawn from the tenants ; there were also street militia, district militia, etc... ."
"Another interesting constructive enterprise was a kind of horticultural commune which was set up when the inhabitants of Kronstadt used the empty land between the shores and the city for collective vegetable gardens. Groups of city people, consisting of about 50 persons living in the same district or working in the same shop, undertook to work the land in common. Each of these communities received from the city a plot of land chosen by lot. The community members were helped by specialists, surveyors and agronomists.
All questions of interest to members of these communities were discussed at meetings of delegates or in general assemblies."
"These kitchen gardens rendered an important service to the inhabitants of Kronstadt, especially, during periods of famine, in 1918 and later." (10)
That's just a glimpse into a far wider phenomenon , but it serves to illustrate some guiding principles of democratic organisation . Firstly mass assemblies of all people in the area, workplace or army unit, in this case the tenants of a house, then the establishment of committees of delegates, mandated by the assembly, and finally their federation with other local committees to form an administration for a city or industry. During the Russian Revolution there was a proliferation of democratic organisations, the traditional peasant commune seized control of the landed estates, and organised trade with the cities; factory committees took control over workplaces ;there was a democratisation within the army, with officers elected by the men, a practise carried on into the Red Guard militia and into some of the partisan units of the Civil War . Similar directly democratic organisation is to be found in every revolutionary period.
This should answer much of Parenti's argument . Though the answers to some of his questions are obvious e.g. how would "policy differences be settled" and could only be posed by an advocate of totalitarian "Marxist" dictatorship evidently unfamiliar with the concept of majority vote. Others, however , are more problematic, in particular "how external attack ...would be thwarted". So I will turn again to the "actualities of history" , to the "existing practise" of the Russian Revolution , and to how "pure socialists" and "Left anti-Communists" active in the Russian Revolution explained their idea of meeting military threats .
In 1926 exiled veterans of the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine published their answer to this particular question. Given as the Insurgent Army was considered cognisant enough with the business of thwarting eternal attack for the Bolsheviks to enter several alliances with them, and for the Bolsheviks to devote whole regiments to their destruction, it is fair to say that these veterans might know something of what they are talking about . Rather than localised partisan units they advocate "unity in the plan of operations and unity of common command". They advocate voluntary service rather than conscription, as it was the Bolshevik's conscription policy probably helped the Whites for it proved to be yet another policy alienating them from the peasantry .
In sharp contrast with the "Communist" party , they advocate "the total submission of the revolutionary army to the masses of the workers and peasants as represented by the worker and peasant organisations common throughout the country " (11) , in other words the army is to be subordinate to the sort of organisations described in the above extract on Kronstadt. Whereas the Red Army was the instrument not of a free people but of an absolutist state.
Only Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Five.

Parenti points to archival documentation suggesting that between 1921 and 1953 a total of 799,455 executions were carried out by the N.K.V.D., thus the repression did not have the millions of victims as is claimed. The idea that perhaps the documentation does not exist appears not to have occurred to him, certainly it seems to me that for much of it's history the Russian secret police has been too busy shooting to do much counting. Nonetheless, there is according to the literature a inconsistency in Soviet census results suggesting millions of missing persons in the 1930's. Parenti doesn't mention this. Ascertaining the death toll from earlier repression is more a matter of guesswork, but evidence from the writings and sayings of State functionaries would suggest a large numbers of deaths, larger than the figure from the N.K.V.D. archives. In any case suppose this is a matter of only 799,455 executions some of which may (as Parenti says) have been of non-political offenders and of wartime collaborators (Parenti mentions the "considerable numbers who collaborated" if the U.S.S.R. was such a wonderful society why would there be these "considerable numbers" ?) . I wish that these 'socialists' valued Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Latvian, Polish, Hungarian, Chinese, Cambodian , etc... lives as much as they value American lives ; if it was a matter of only 799,455 people or half that figure or an eight of that figure dying in political repression in the United States I think these 'socialists' would not be so quick to counterbalance the horror by speaking of the social achievements of American capitalism. During the 20th century political repression in the U.S.A. took hundreds of lives, at the same time in the U.S.S.R., if we accept Parenti's argument , political repression took hundreds of thousands of lives. Yet Parenti praises the U.S.S.R. and damns the U.S. .
A Footnote In History.

A footnote in Parneti's chapter dealing with repression, giving what appears to be his sole mention of famine, reads "No doubt, the famines that occurred during the years of Western invasion, counter-revolutionary intervention, White Guard civil war, and landowner resistance to collectivisation took many victims."
You would never think it from that , but these famines to a large degree were caused by the policies of the "Communist" party state, this was the exclusive cause of the latter one. The first famine was the product of, partly, the legacy of Tsarist society, but principally of the Bolshevik policy of Grain Monopoly. The Grain Monopoly was instituted prior to the real beginnings of civil war and made the state the sole trader of grain (it was later extended to most food stuffs), under it the peasantry had to sell their produce to the state and accept a completely devalued currency as payment. Naturally, this, which was obviously coupled with the suppression of private trade, was not conducive to agricultural productivity . Worse was to come, this was followed by grain requisition which simply meant that armed "Communist" detachments extorted the products of peasant's labour from them at gun point and frequently resorted to torture to find hidden stocks. Quotas were set at such a level that the producers were at times even left with insufficient food for themselves and insufficient seed for sowing. The result of this policy, which made zero economic or political sense, was major famine and millions of deaths. It is this and not "Western invasion, counter-revolutionary intervention, White Guard civil war . . . " which caused the famine. In fact the American Relief Association sent food supplies to Russia with the support of the American government and received praise from none other than Kremlin boss Kamenev for doing so.
I remember seeing a 'Daily Worker' cartoon of the time, criticising the lack of food aid for Russia, depicting the stereotype fat capitalist before a victim of starvation and saying (before doleing out the support) 'But first what is your politics' ; in actuality this was the Kremlin's policy - food was diverted from disloyal areas.
The Good Old Days.

Parenti devotes much of his book to the effects of 'capitalist restoration' post 1989 and leaves much unanswered, principally he gives no account of why, if life pre-1989 was so good and life post-1989 so terrible, was there no massive reaction against this 'capitalist restoration' . It does not occur to him that perhaps the social problems of post-"Communist" Eastern Europe gestated in the 70's and 80's rather than springing into life fully born in 1990 .
He gives a long litany of the crimes of various "capitalist restorative" governments in Eastern Europe, but seems to be confused as to exactly what is "capitalist restoration" and what is "communism". Witness the following description of one of those nasty restorers of capitalism (amazing the amount of these people produced in the upper echelons of "Communist" states ) "a self -professed admirer of Adolph Hitler's organisational skills, shut down the independent newspapers and radio stations " (of course thousands of these were allowed to openly exist throughout the Eastern bloc in the good old days) " and decreed the opposition parliament defunct." (exactly as Lenin had done in 1918! ). " was awarded with absolute power in a referendum that claimed an inflated turnout, with no one knowing how many ballots were printed or how they were counted." (all similarity to the 'Soviet' Union purely co-incidental ) . "Some opposition leaders fled for their lives" (something never known to happen under "Communism") . The only problem is that the politician so described is none other than Alexander Lukashenko, Tsar of Belarus, a state where not only is so-called "public ownership" very much alive and kicking ( most of the economy is state-owned) but which retains much of the trappings of the U.S.S.R. . Likewise the leaders of Poland's Solidarity party are attacked for various anti-Semitic outbursts, another nasty innovation of 'capitalist restoration' ? Yes, but only yes if the anti-Semitic campaigns of the Polish "Communist" state are sent down Orwell's 'memory hole' into oblivion.
Ultimately, however, even Parenti can give no account of post-1989 'capitalist restoration' without reference to the discontent felt by the subjects of the "Communist" states . That said, he does manage to ignore the long history of uprisings and revolutions against the "Marxist-Leninist" system, which date right back to it's inception . His explanation for this discontent in utopia is priceless: "People took for granted what they had in the way of human services and entitlements while hungering for the consumer goods dangling in their imaginations. The human capacity for discontent should not be underestimated. "
"Once our needs are satisfied, then our wants tend to escalate , and our wants become our needs. A rise in living standards often incites a still greater rise in expectations. As people are treated better , they want more of the good things and are not necessarily grateful for what they already have."
"In 1989, I asked the G.D.R. ambassador in Washington, D.C. why his country made such junky two-cylinder cars. He said the goal was to develop good public transport and discourage the use of costly private vehicles. But when asked to choose between a rational, efficient, economically sound and ecologically sane mass transportation system or an automobile with it's instant mobility, special status, privac , and personal empowerment, the East Germans went for the latter, as do most people in the world."
I am reminded of Bertold Brecht's poem 'The Solution' :
"The Secretary of the Writer's Union Had leaflets distributed in Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another?"
Notes: All quotations of Micheal Parenti are from his book 'Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism' , published by City Lights Books.
All comparisons between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic are purely for the purpose of exposing double standards and should not be taken as support for any state.
(1) Quoted in 'An Phoblacht/Republican News' 4 May 2000.
(2) Quoted in 'State Capitalism in Russia' by Tony Cliff page 69.
(3) From 'A People's Tragedy. A History of the Russian Revolution' by Orlando Figes page 683.
(4) From 'Eyewitness : The Autobiography of Gomulka's Interpreter' by Erwin Weit page 123.
(5) Quoted in 'The Harvest of Sorrow : Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror Famine' by Robert Conquest page 35.
(6) Quoted in 'The Guillotine at Work : Volume 1 : The Leninist Counter-Revolution' by Gregory Petrovich Maximoff page 53.
(7) Quoted in 'The Bolsheviks and Workers Control : 1917 to 1921 : the State and Counter-Revolution ' by Maurice Brinton pages 40/41.
(8) Quoted in 'A People's Tragedy. A History of The Russian Revolution' by Orlando Figes page 524.
(9) From 'The Unknown Revolution' by Voline page 431.
(10) Ibid. pages 456/457/458.
(11) From 'Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists' by Makhno, Mett, Archinov, Valevsky, Linsky, page 31.

[LeninBalls]

Personally I think it's b), seeing as how no one ever bothered to refute my critics of Leninism, in ANY thread I posted it, other than saying "you're wrong ololololol".

primarily because whenever someone actually bothers to get into a boring arguement with you the only response yourself can come up with is "you're wrong ololololol".

[revolution inaction]

This (http://libcom.org/history/anarchist-underground-leningrad) tells a bit of a different story about how some anarcho-syndicalists were treated in the early 20's. Granted, it was in the 20's, and deals with the GPU (not the Cheka), but that wasn't too long after the events previously mentioned in this thread.

in goldman's "my disillusionment in russa" she mentions unions being forced to elect Bolsheviks, and being suppressed


There was considerable excitement in Moscow at the time. The Printers' Union had been suppressed and its entire managing board sent to prison. The Union had called a public meeting to which members of the British Labour Mission were invited. There the famous Socialist Revolutionist Tchernov had unexpectedly made his appearance. He severely criticised the Bolshevik regime, received an ovation from the huge audience of workers, and then vanished as mysteriously as he had come. The Menshevik Dan was less successful. He alsc' addressed the meeting, but he failed to make his escape: he landed in the Tcheka. The next morning the Moscow Pravda and the Izvestia denounced the action of the Printers' Union as counter-revolutionary, and raged about Tchernov having been permitted to speak. The papers called for exemplary punishment of the printers who dared defy the Soviet Government.
The Bakers' Union, a very militant organization, had also been suppressed, and its management replaced by Communists. Several months before, in March, I had attended a convention of the bakers. The delegates impressed me as a courageous group who did not fear to criticise the Bolshevik regime and present the demands of the workers. I wondered then that they were permitted to continue the conference, for they were outspoken in their opposition to the Communists. "The bakers are 'Shkurniki' [skinners]," I was told; "they always instigate strikes, and only counter-revolutionists can wish to strike in the workers' Republic." But it seemed to me that the workers could not follow such reasoning. They did strike. They even committed a more heinous crime: they refused to vote for the Communist candidate, electing instead a man of their own choice. This action of the bakers was followed by the arrest of several of their more active members. Naturally the workers resented the arbitrary methods of the Government


...

The story told me by the bakers of their election experiences had the quality of our own Wild West during its pioneer days. Tchekists with loaded guns were in the habit of attending gatherings of the unions and they made it clear what would happen if the workers should fail to elect a Communist.

...





http://libcom.org/library/my-disillusionment-in-russia-emma-goldman-15