Continuing relevance of the Anti-Leninist left

[promethean]

How does the anti-Leninist left continue its relevance today in working class politics, given the predominance of the Leninist left?

[Nolan]

I think (I'm not sure) that anarchists dominate most anti fascist demonstrations.

[Widerstand]

I wouldn't know of any relevance RAAN ever had that could be continued.

[Widerstand]

So where do you draw the line between anti-Leninist and Leninist?

[Red Commissar]

I'd rather they work towards putting aside their differences with one another since considering that in the large scheme of things, Marxism isn't getting anywhere in many countries.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There will probably be a tendency towards irrelevance if the Kautsky Revival sustains momentum, subsuming appropriate elements of the "Leninist" back left into itself. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Both groups suffer from that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was not aware of a Kautsky Revival outside of Revleft.

Lars Lih, Mike Macnair, the CPGB, and various Marxists here and there have contributed. :)

BTW, one of the "anti-Leninist left" portions tailing the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie are the post-modernists. Most anarchist tendencies also tail, with the insurrectionists and class-struggle anarchists / anarcho-syndicalists being two notable exceptions.

[FreeFocus]

The Leninist left is predominant?

[Ovi]

Anti-Leninist left does not just include RAAN or anarchists, but even Marxists, council communists, libertarian socialists, left communists etc.
Left communists are anti-leninist? There is no predominant revolutionary leftist politics, we're all pretty much irrelevant in much of the world.

[Ravachol]

There will probably be a tendency towards irrelevance if the Kautsky Revival sustains momentum, subsuming appropriate elements of the "Leninist" back left into itself. ;)

God forbid we ever go back to the social-democratic, reformist politics that old man spawned. Also, I think you grossly overestimate the applicability of defunct early 20th century models to today's society, honestly.

[ZeroNowhere]

All currents of the left are equally relevant presently. Popularity in the current state of the world means nothing; when a mass workers' political movement begins, it will be more or less novel, and if it is to succeed must exceed the current socialist left by a very large margin, to the point where present figures are more or less insignificant. If the 'Leninist' left dominates anything now, it's more or less a pinhead.

[Jalapeno Enema]

All currents of the left are equally relevant presently. Popularity in the current state of the world means nothing; when a mass workers' political movement begins, it will be more or less novel, and if it is to succeed must exceed the current socialist left by a very large margin, to the point where present figures are more or less insignificant. If the 'Leninist' left dominates anything now, it's more or less a pinhead.I agree that different ideologies from the left are all relevant.

I personally suspect that a significant global leftist revolution would incorporate multiple schools of thought, and perhaps as there are different nations of people throughout the world, the parties by which leftist goals will be accomplished will vary somewhat.

[mosfeld]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the predominant and most relevant revolutionary movement ;)

[Devrim]

Left communists are anti-leninist?

Yes, I'd say so.

Devrim

[Devrim]

There will probably be a tendency towards irrelevance if the Kautsky Revival sustains momentum, subsuming appropriate elements of the "Leninist" back left into itself. ;)


Lars Lih, Mike Macnair, the CPGB, and various Marxists here and there have contributed. :)

BTW, one of the "anti-Leninist left" portions tailing the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie are the post-modernists. Most anarchist tendencies also tail, with the insurrectionists and class-struggle anarchists / anarcho-syndicalists being two notable exceptions.

I don't think it is right to describe the CPGB as 'Kautskyist'. You do realise though that the CPGB is an organisation with less members than the number of people involved in a football match. Of course today revolutionary organisations (I don't think the CPGB is one but that is another point) are tiny, but I just thought I would point it out as you seem to be a bit disconnected from reality sometimes.

There is no 'Kautskyist' revival with any 'momentum'. There are a couple of people reexamining what he said.

Devrim

[Kiev Communard]

The situation has changed much since the time of Lenin, so I doubt that former division between "Leninist" and "Anti-Leninist" Left will influence much. The new forms of organization are needed, not harkening back to some idealised alternatives of the past. In fact, the most successful non-Leninist left of the 1970s, the Italian Autonomists, did not strictly define themselves as "anti-Leninist".

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't think the Leninist left dominates revolutionary politics, in Britain anyway. All of the Leninist parties (especially the Trotskyist ones) like to give themselves a lot of credit, but in the midst of the latest student action, the movement seems to be a lot more grassroot orientated and even influenced quite boldly by anarchists who agitate students, as opposed to any Leninist parties, who seem to just hang around selling papers and then going home when everything really kicks off.

Ideology is not as important as the movement itself, which is a direct consequence of bourgeois parliamentary politics and would happen without Leninists or whatever. Labels like 'Leninist, Trotskyist or Anarchist' are becoming more and more irrelevent as the organization is being undertaken collectively and no organizations or parties can really take credit for it.

This is only in relation to the student movement though, things may change.

[bricolage]

Lars Lih, Mike Macnair, the CPGB, and various Marxists here and there have contributed. :)
So you include the CPGB, a member of the CPGB, someone who only gets any publicity because the CPGB are obsessed with him and 'varioys Marxists'... which I assume only refers to you.

[Dire Helix]

How does the anti-Leninist left continue its relevance today in working class politics, given the predominance of the Leninist left?

Relevance? What relevance? No one who seriously prides itself on being pro or anti-*insert some historical revolutionary figure here" can make claims to being relevant today. If Lenin knew that in the 21st century much of what is considered radical left would be dividing themselves along the lines of pro and anti-Leninist, he would`ve probably had a good laugh. The Bolsheviks and other revolutionary forces back then sure didn`t waste time role-playing as the Jacobins.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Speaking for Britain, the Leninist left is the one that has no relevance. I'm not saying this as some sort of cheap shot, but really they've become the absolute bottom of the pile (aside from the Nazis, perhaps) in terms of having any political weight.

Taking the current student protests as an example - mostly anarchistic in organisation and protest-style (though perhaps not in ideological terms), and there's really been comparatively little exposure for the already existing left parties, aside from the Socialist Workers and SPEW, perhaps. What this shows is that, really, there is no need for the existence of the many fractious groups on the UK left. They serve no purpose aside from to comfort their members. I'm sorry to spell out the miserable truth to the members of these organisations and I say it with no malice at all, believe me. It is simply the sober truth that the Leninist left, in this country, has become absolutely irrelevant.

[Widerstand]

I find that most working class and student initiatives don't really give a fuck what they are or what you are or what anyone else claims to be. The prevailing attitude where I live seems to be "(parliamentary) parties are bullshit."

The most relevant of movements (here) seem to be ideology-free grassroot movements. But of all the ideologies, the Anarchists and Autonomists are usually the most active ones (with a few Trots here and there), while the others prefer to have reading circles and sell news papers.

In other parts of the world I imagine the situation quite different. Especially in Asia, Maoism seems to be the dominant leftist ideology by far.

[Widerstand]

Maybe not in Russia or the US, where any "left" has little relevance. It is different however in Western Europe where Leninists have dominated workers politics since the early twentieth century, though this has changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The anti-Leninist left has been in existence in small numbers though the Cold War and came into prominence during 1968. The document that probably signalled the anti-Leninists' break with Leninism was Herman Gorter's Open Letter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm) to Lenin.

The 68s, at least in Germany, were anti-leninist mostly because Leninist groups were already increasingly irrelevant and stuck up in dogma, which is evenmoreso the case nowadays.

[Palingenisis]

Yes, I'd say so.

Devrim

Really? What about the Italians?

[Devrim]

Really? What about the Italians?

Which Italians? Bordigists obviously are. BC and the ICC aren't.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

God forbid we ever go back to the social-democratic, reformist politics that old man spawned. Also, I think you grossly overestimate the applicability of defunct early 20th century models to today's society, honestly.

What's so reformist about the emphasis on real organization?


I don't think it is right to describe the CPGB as 'Kautskyist'.

Others have derided them as "neo-Kautskyite." I haven't called them "Kautskyist." What I have put them under is "Kautsky Revival," the term which Lars Lih uses.


There is no 'Kautskyist' revival with any 'momentum'. There are a couple of people reexamining what he said.

Obviously you haven't looked beyond the CPGB much.


Maybe not in Russia or the US, where any "left" has little relevance. It is different however in Western Europe where Leninists have dominated workers politics since the early twentieth century, though this has changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The anti-Leninist left has been in existence in small numbers though the Cold War and came into prominence during 1968. The document that probably signalled the anti-Leninists' break with Leninism was Herman Gorter's Open Letter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm) to Lenin.

Again, I should say that a mass Kautsky Revival would come at the expense of the common tradition of 1968 and 1999 (WTO in Seattle).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Speaking for Britain, the Leninist left is the one that has no relevance. I'm not saying this as some sort of cheap shot, but really they've become the absolute bottom of the pile (aside from the Nazis, perhaps) in terms of having any political weight.

Taking the current student protests as an example - mostly anarchistic in organisation and protest-style (though perhaps not in ideological terms), and there's really been comparatively little exposure for the already existing left parties, aside from the Socialist Workers and SPEW, perhaps. What this shows is that, really, there is no need for the existence of the many fractious groups on the UK left. They serve no purpose aside from to comfort their members. I'm sorry to spell out the miserable truth to the members of these organisations and I say it with no malice at all, believe me. It is simply the sober truth that the Leninist left, in this country, has become absolutely irrelevant.
Exactly. The fragmented 'organized' left is essentially just a collection of groups that are concerned with bulking up their membership numbers and selling papers etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's wrong with bulking up membership numbers? Political support is much better measured by active membership (including the paying of dues) than by mere voting. Without majority political support from the working class towards a party-movement, you can't have a proper revolutionary period.

[Sasha]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the predominant and most relevant revolutionary movement ;)


from an 3th worldist perspective ;)

i think it very big chance that if any worthwile world "revolution" would happen its ideological dominance would be dived along the current 1st, 2nd and 3th world lines. just because every leftist ideoligy has its specific strenghts and weaknesses.
whats now the 1st world would propably be brought down by what we now classify as anarchists while the 3th world resistance would propably be mostly maoist dominated.
on the other hand groups like the zapatista's offer an inspiring and promesing fusion of tactics and ideoligies

[The Douche]

I disagree that the leninist left is in any way "predominant". Certainly in the US they are not the leading force in any areas or struggles I have been involved in. (though, I'm sure there are places and struggles where they are the leading force)

I think principles used by libertarian organizations, like participatory democracy, consensus, delegates/spokespeople instead of officials, and direct action are the "predominant" way of organizing. I also think that those ideas (whatever we call them) are inherently anti-leninist.


Left communists are anti-leninist?

They are against leninism as it has come to be defined now. Just as RAAN is against "platformism", but really just against how the current is expressed nowadays.


I wouldn't know of any relevance RAAN ever had that could be continued.

Oh are you all growed up and to cool now.:rolleyes:

[Fawkes]

I wouldn't know of any relevance RAAN ever had that could be continued.

Revolution by semen retention.


I was unaware that Leninists really had any large influence or relevancy. I don't really see that as changing either, and it doesn't help that they're named after a dead guy whose name most in the west consider a swear word. I'm not against attempts to reconcile ideological differences between different factions to form a more powerful and united front, but I don't see that as likely or even possible with certain groups (Leninism and anarchism are fundamentally oppositional ideologies with pretty irreconcilable differences).


Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the predominant and most relevant revolutionary movement
You're funny.




Ideology is not as important as the movement itself, which is a direct consequence of bourgeois parliamentary politics and would happen without Leninists or whatever. Labels like 'Leninist, Trotskyist or Anarchist' are becoming more and more irrelevent as the organization is being undertaken collectively and no organizations or parties can really take credit for it.

This.

[The Red Next Door]

The Party for socialism and liberation are pretty much big and apart of the movement. But some trots parties could make themselves more noticeable.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Speaking to the situation in Canada, the only Leninists who are in the streets, or doing organizing that is at all appealing outside of the universities, particular exile communities (eg various Iranian communist groupings, Greek sections of the PCQ), or the NDP (CMI) are Maoists. In terms of quantity and quality, anti-state/autonomist Marxists and anarchists are by far the most influencial "tendencies" on the Canadian "left". One simply needs to count the relative number of infoshops/social centres/bookstores, or the communiques, or even the predominance in meetings.
I think this is particularly, in the Canadian case, rising out of the failure of the Leninist left to adress the specificities of Canada as a settler state / questions of anticolonialism in ways that are interesting or resonate, the relative degree of co-optation by the NDP of the unions and other organs of the "official working class", and also the frustration of the skids with capital-P Politics.

IN CANADA, THE SKIDS ARE THE MOTOR OF HISTORY.

(That's a joke. A weird joke.)

[The Douche]

The Party for socialism and liberation are pretty much big and apart of the movement. But some trots parties could make themselves more noticeable.

The only interactions I've had with PSLers in real life were when they were ANSWER marshalls. They have some weight in the midwest and the west coast, but not quite as much out here, it seems.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Well, this isn't a massive troll thread.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

How does the anti-Leninist left continue its relevance today in working class politics, given the predominance of the Leninist left?

i lol'd

[Widerstand]

Oh are you all growed up and to cool now.:rolleyes:

Wasn't as much a stab at RAAN as an homage to the point that they're the most outspoken Anti-Leninists I know (and to semen retention).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What's wrong with bulking up membership numbers? Political support is much better measured by active membership (including the paying of dues) than by mere voting. Without majority political support from the working class towards a party-movement, you can't have a proper revolutionary period.

You're right, the aim in itself is quite correct.

The problem is simply that the Leninist parties of the left, in my eyes, have absolutely failed to strike any sort of chord with the working class, if we are talking of the past 20 years or so.

I merely used the example of the current student protests to show this - if the job of the Leninist vanguard is to lead, then it's not doing it's job and is thus irrelevant.

[Widerstand]

What's wrong with bulking up membership numbers? Political support is much better measured by active membership (including the paying of dues) than by mere voting. Without majority political support from the working class towards a party-movement, you can't have a proper revolutionary period.

The fact that the majority of groups/parties who do these reduce political struggle to paying dues and having some of their prominent members have a speech every now and then.

[Meridian]

The Leninist left is predominant?
I think USA is an exception, but in most countries Leninists are more predominant. I'd say by a long shot.

[Zanthorus]

There is no 'Kautskyist' revival with any 'momentum'. There are a couple of people reexamining what he said.

I think the term 'Kautsky revival' is probably misleading. First of all it's not just a revival of what Kautsky said, but of the strategy of the entire 'Marxist Centre' of the Second International, which includes figures like August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht. Secondly, no-one is uncritically parroting what Kautsky said or uncritically re-appropriating his strategical proposals. Macnair for example says that there were elements in the strategy of the Marxist Centre from the beggining, primarily statism and nationalism, which led to it's dissolution during the First World War. He also thinks that the tying of the Social-Democratic and Labour parties to the state apparatus makes the recreation of such parties in the current political climate impossible, instead we should attempt to build properly Communist parties. The fundamental aspect which the 'Kautsky revival' takes from the strategy of the Marxist Centre is the critique of economism and growing the economic struggle into the political struggle (Or any set of tactics more generally which involves a "slavish cringing to spontaneity") which is characteristic of Trotskyism and the 'transitional programme' approach (As well as opposition to coalitionism, although the latter should generally be taken as a given). Macnair called it the 'strategy of patience', and it is a strategy which I think is not incompatible with the tactical principles of say, the Italian Left in the 20's.

The other point of the 'Kautsky revival' is also the re-examination of Lenin's work, and the attempt to show that most of the modern Left, even the so-called 'Leninist' left have not actually learned a thing from the success of the Bolshevik party. The Bolsheviks were not a vanguard in the Stalinist sense of the monolothic ideologically pure bloc with the dictatorial Central Committee, in fact the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks both agreed on the role of the CC. The Bolsheviks were the vanguard in the sense that they did not 'tail' behind the immediate movement, did not "slavish[ly] cring[e] to spontaneity", and put forward demands as an independent party of the working-class.

I really think most critiques of the revival are pretty weak. They usually run along the lines of "oh but the SPD supported the war", which has nothing to do with the point at hand. No-one is calling for a detailed recreation of the SPD model, they are calling for an examination of what Lenin saw as positive in the SPD model, it's existence as an independent worker's organisation with independent tactics. DNZ may be overestimating it's current momentum, but if the revival is not overtaking the existing 'Leninist' left or the spontaneist/anarchist/councillist left, it should be.

[Widerstand]

I think USA is an exception, but in most countries Leninists are more predominant. I'd say by a long shot.

Which countries?

[Meridian]

Which countries?
My impression is that in most of them, anarchism and such remains a subgroup, largely unheard of/not understood by the majority of the working class. In many countries ML parties are a lot more known.

[Devrim]

I really think most critiques of the revival are pretty weak.

Is there any 'revival' apart from a couple of people around the CPGB, a tiny organisation that only exists in one country?


They usually run along the lines of "oh but the SPD supported the war", which has nothing to do with the point at hand.

I have no idea what today's neo-Kautskyists are actually saying. When people like Jacob on here argue directly for supporting imperialist wars (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1951051&postcount=20), I think that the above point is relevant.

Usually he waffles on about needing to set up cultural movements or some other such nonsense at which point it is not.


DNZ may be overestimating it's current momentum,

I think the word 'momentum' is "overestimating it's current momentum".


if the revival is not overtaking the existing 'Leninist' left or the spontaneist/anarchist/councillist left, it should be.

Why?

Devrim

[Widerstand]

My impression is that in most of them, anarchism and such remains a subgroup, largely unheard of/not understood by the majority of the working class. In many countries ML parties are a lot more known.

ML parties being "a lot more known" doesn't speak much of their relevance but rather of the fact that most people go vote and see their names on the ballot.

Again, I'm asking which countries you're talking about, because this is certainly not true in Germany, where the Autonomists by far dominate the radical left, and even in the biggest "leftist" party the MLs are a minority faction, and it's neither true in England as others pointed out, and from what I gather, neither is it true in the Netherlands (I may be wrong here).

I don't think you can make such blanket judgements at all, to be honest. I have no idea about the composition in France or Spain, but the CNT/IAA branches in both countries seem rather strong. In Greece the KKE seems to dominate the struggles, but even there, the Anarchists are by no measures a small or irrelevant faction.

So, which countries are we talking about? And is the existence of strong Maoist groups in some Asian countries "proof" of the Leninist "dominance?" Why is then not the existence of the Zapatista zones a "proof" of libertarian "dominance?"

[Zanthorus]

Is there any 'revival' apart from a couple of people around the CPGB, a tiny organisation that only exists in one country?

I don't think the issue of numbers is particularly relevant.


I have no idea what today's neo-Kautskyists are actually saying. When people like Jacob on here argue directly for supporting imperialist wars (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1951051&postcount=20), I think that the above point is relevant.

I don't think it is. I think it is an attempt to avoid the substance of what is being said. Jacob's position on war doesn't have much to do with the idea that every class struggle is a political struggle.


Why?

I think I already explained why in my previous post. Most of the modern Left is stuck between various forms of what was termed economism by Lenin, from the Trots to the Anarchists. History has shown these kind of strategies to be bankrupt.

[Devrim]

from an 3th worldist perspective ;)

i think it very big chance that if any worthwile world "revolution" would happen its ideological dominance would be dived along the current 1st, 2nd and 3th world lines. just because every leftist ideoligy has its specific strenghts and weaknesses.
whats now the 1st world would propably be brought down by what we now classify as anarchists while the 3th world resistance would propably be mostly maoist dominated.
on the other hand groups like the zapatista's offer an inspiring and promesing fusion of tactics and ideoligies

I think that what you seem to be suggesting here is that working class politics are not relevant in the so-called 'third world', and that working class interests should be subjugated to nationalist peasant politics instead.

Devrim

[Widerstand]

I think that what you seem to be suggesting here is that working class politics are not relevant in the so-called 'third world', and that working class interests should be subjugated to nationalist peasant politics instead.

Devrim

Oh you with your stab at Maoism. I wish I could both thank and negrep you for this post - because you are obviously right that "nationalist peasant politics" are usually quite reactionary, but also because I think you purposely misinterpreted psycho's post to raise that point.

[Pretty Flaco]

Jesus, this is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen on revleft. You're all arguing about who is more relevant.... wtf?
And we wonder why the left is largely fragmented...

[Thirsty Crow]

Most of the modern Left is stuck between various forms of what was termed economism by Lenin, from the Trots to the Anarchists. History has shown these kind of strategies to be bankrupt.
What exactly does "economism" refer to?
And could you provide a brief exposition of the history of this strategy?

[Obs]

You're funny.


So the third world just doesn't count?

As for the conflict between leninists and "anti-leninists" (not just non-leninists, ANTI) it would seem to me that one of the primary reasons that there is such a split is the tendency of anarchists and some marxist currents to go all Kronstadt whenever Leninists make some progress.

[Widerstand]

So the third world just doesn't count?

So the first world just doesn't count?

[Obs]

So the first world just doesn't count?
Are you implying that the left as a whole is even nearly as strong in numbers in the first world as in the third?

[Widerstand]

As for the conflict between leninists and "anti-leninists" (not just non-leninists, ANTI) it would seem to me that one of the primary reasons that there is such a split is the tendency of anarchists and some marxist currents to go all Kronstadt whenever Leninists make some progress.

Or maybe it is because of the tendency of some Leninists who prolly never leave the house except for ballots and Capital reading circles to massively overstate their own role in revolutionary movements and to constantly keep on talking about how Anarchists don't do anything despite this being a blatant lie?

[Widerstand]

Are you implying that the left as a whole is even nearly as strong in numbers in the first world as in the third?

I'm implying that "theres more leftists in the third world than in the first world" is not an argument about whether or not Lenists are "predominant" in all areas of the world. That aside, I would challenge the notion that nationalist genocide advocation and sexual oppression are leftist.

edit: I'm also challenging the notion that simply because there may be more leftists in the third than in the first world the first world can be ignored.

[mosfeld]

You're funny.

Anarchist clowns in Europe have never and will never carry a revolution through to the end due to anarchism's petty bourgeois political nature, and neither will a few hundred Trotskyite students in Europe with their fragmented political parties. As inspiring as the Greek uprising is, it will end in failure if it continues to stay under anarchist leadership. If you want to see a real revolutionary movement which is capable of, and will, shake the world then take a look at the Maoist revolutions in the third world.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anarchist clowns in Europe have never and will never carry a revolution through to the end due to anarchism's petty bourgeois political nature, and neither will a few hundred Trotskyite students in Europe with their fragmented political parties. As inspiring as the Greek uprising is, it will end in failure if it continues to stay under anarchist leadership. If you want to see a real revolutionary movement which is capable of, and will, shake the world then take a look at the Maoist revolutions in the third world.

Petty bourgeois nature, you say?
I suppose that if I asked for evidence you would provide a link to that idiotic article written by Stalin. And funny how you talk about a failure under anarchist leadership when the specter of May '68. hovers in the background.
Idiot.

[Widerstand]

Anarchist clowns in Europe have never and will never carry a revolution through to the end due to anarchism's petty bourgeois political nature, and neither will a few hundred Trotskyite students in Europe with their fragmented political parties. As inspiring as the Greek uprising is, it will end in failure if it continues to stay under anarchist leadership. If you want to see a real revolutionary movement which is capable of, and will, shake the world then take a look at the Maoist revolutions in the third world.

Yes, we need to deport more of these fukkking fir$t world petty bourgeois labor aristocrats to the third world so they can be taught WHAT REAL REVOLUTION LOOKS LIKE! We need more people running around with AKs shooting at random passerbys because they could've been "reactionary agents" or whatever the latest construction is.

Viva la genocide!

[mosfeld]

Petty bourgeois nature, you say?
The petty bourgeoisie is unable to maintain its hegemony and dictatorship due to its instability as a class, so a great example of petty bourgeois radicalism would be anarchism, which rejects the state completely, whether or not its of proletarian or bourgeois nature.


And funny how you talk about a failure under anarchist leadership when the specter of May '68. hovers in the background. May '68 did not overthrow the French bourgeoisie, and its entirely debatable whether or not it was under anarchist leadership.


Idiot.
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs22/f/2007/363/2/7/Bawwwww_by_Bawwplz.jpg


Yes, we need to deport more of these fukkking fir$t world petty bourgeois labor aristocrats to the third world so they can be taught WHAT REAL REVOLUTION LOOKS LIKE! We need more people running around with AKs shooting at random passerbys because they could've been "reactionary agents" or whatever the latest construction is.

Viva la genocide! Nice strawman there. I didn't claim anything which you posted.

[Thirsty Crow]

The petty bourgeoisie is unable to maintain its hegemony and dictatorship due to its instability as a class, so a great example of petty bourgeois radicalism would be anarchism, which rejects the state completely, whether or not its of proletarian or bourgeois nature.
So, total rejection of a state is a political position that can be exclusively linked to ideologies of the petite bourgeois character?
Wow, and I thought that historical events of rank-and-file workers of anarchist background seizing the means of production, organizing the workplace as socialized and collectivized, I thought that something of that couldn't elude a great mind like you.
Again, demonstrate how a political position which maintains that private property must be abolished and that the state must be smashed, and replaced by organs of proletarian self rule - demonstrate the petite bourgeois character of that political position.

May '68 did not overthrow the French bourgeoisie, and its entirely debatable whether or not it was under anarchist leadership. It does not matter if it was under anarchist leadership. What matters is the conduct of the official CP (i.e. the stalinists) which sided with the bourgeois government.

[Zanthorus]

What exactly does "economism" refer to?


The old Economism of 1894-1902 reasoned thus: the Narodniks[3] have been refuted; capitalism has triumphed in Russia. Consequently, there can be no question of political revolution. The practical conclusion: either "economic struggle be left to the workers and political struggle to the liberals" -- that is a curvet to the right -- or, instead of political revolution, a general strike for socialist revolution. That curvet to the left was advocated in a pamphlet, now forgotten, of a Russian Economist of the late nineties.- Lenin, The Nascent Trend of Imperialist Economism

That's the 'narrow' definition of economism anyway (Although most people even ignore the problematic of narrow economism). As Jack Conrad notes, there is also a much broader sense in which economism can be used:


As an aside, it is worthwhile here, once again, dealing with that term 'economism'. Naturally economists, including those mentioned above, define economism in a particularly jejune fashion. That way, in their own minds at least, they have to be found completely innocent of the ugly charge. Hence the plaintive cry. 'I can't understand why you in the CPGB call us economists'. If I have heard it once, I have heard it a thousand times.

Below are four specially selected, but representative, examples of economism self-defined; it is a self-replicating Hydra.

l Let us begin with Tony Cliff's decoy of a definition: "Socialists should limit their agitation to purely economic issues, first to the industrial plant, then to inter-plant demands, and so on. Secondly, from the narrow economic agitation the workers would learn, through experience of the struggle itself, the need for politics, without the need for socialists to carry out agitation on the general political and social issues facing the Russian people as a whole."

l Next an 'official communist' dictionary definition: "Its proponents wanted to limit the tasks of the working class movement to economic struggle (improving labour conditions, higher wages, etc). They held that political struggle should be waged by the liberal bourgeoisie alone."

l The International Socialist Group's Bob Jenkins can speak as the head of orthodox Trotskyism: economism is "orientating to daily trade union struggles" and this "leads them to underestimate the important new political issues and movements unless they are to be found in the unions"

l Finally we turn to the AWL's Pete Radcliff for a definition from unorthodox Trotskyism: "Economism was the term Lenin used to describe the politics and approach of revolutionaries who exclude themselves from the political struggle ... and merely concentrated on trade union agitation."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Even against the "old economism" of 1894-1902 Lenin fielded the term in the "broad sense" The principal feature of economism is lagging behind the spontaneous movement and a general tendency to downplay the centrality of extreme democracy. That is why in 1916 Lenin attacked those Bolsheviks who, citing war-torn capitalism's supposed inability to grant meaningful reforms, dismissed the demand for national self-determination. He branded this trend "imperialist economism"

Countless other manifestations of economism could be cited - eg, atheist economism, which, relying on technological and scientific progress, dismisses the need to combat religious superstition, or Trotskyite economism, which equates the former USSR with some kind of a workers' state due to nationalised property forms.http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=432

I disagree with the 'Imperialist economism' label by the way, since I don't think national self-determination has anything to do with political democracy.


And funny how you talk about a failure under anarchist leadership when the specter of May '68.

Where were there anarchists in Mai '68? mosfeld is also correct that the general strike failed to overthrow the bourgeoisie. In fact, I don't think there is a single example of a general strike ever actually managing to overthrow a bourgeois regime and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[ZeroNowhere]

In fact, I don't think there is a single example of a general strike ever actually managing to overthrow a bourgeois regime and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.To be fair, I don't think that there have been many general strikes intended to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, primarily because that wouldn't really make much sense.

[mosfeld]

and replaced by organs of proletarian self rule. The proletariat cannot establish its hegemony and dictatorship without the state. History has shown this, and the fact that anarchists dogmatically refuse to learn from history is another factor leading to it's failure.


that the state must be smashed Anti-statism is a petty bourgeois and unscientific ideology as I demonstrated above.

[Palingenisis]

Anarchist clowns in Europe have never and will never carry a revolution through to the end due to anarchism's petty bourgeois political nature, and neither will a few hundred Trotskyite students in Europe with their fragmented political parties. As inspiring as the Greek uprising is, it will end in failure if it continues to stay under anarchist leadership. If you want to see a real revolutionary movement which is capable of, and will, shake the world then take a look at the Maoist revolutions in the third world.

In fairness while a lot of the Anarchists here are clowns some arent (FreeFocus and NoPasaran in particular) and the anarchists that I have met in real life tend to be far more grounded in reality and generally nicer than Trotskyites. I would see Trotskyism as essentially different from anarchism also as the latter arises out of real material conditions while the former is just a troll on the Communist movement.

[red cat]

In fairness while a lot of the Anarchists here are clowns some arent (FreeFocus and NoPasaran in particular) and the anarchists that I have met in real life tend to be far more grounded in reality and generally nicer than Trotskyites.

Fact. If some anarchists were not serious in their practice, then their movement in Greece would have been destroyed years ago.


I would see Trotskyism as essentially different from anarchism also as the latter arises out of real material conditions while the former is just a troll on the Communist movement.

:lol:

[Widerstand]

The proletariat cannot establish its hegemony and dictatorship without the state. History has shown this, and the fact that anarchists dogmatically refuse to learn from history is another factor leading to it's failure.

Yeah, let's look at history:

- All attempts to establish communism through seizing state power, whether through reform or revolution, have ultimately (re-)produced capitalist structures or straight out social democracy capitalism (Cuba, USSR, China), with other cases being not so clear, but also relatively young.

- In many cases, primarily the Spanish revolution, the statist, leftist forces thought it more important to opress anti-statist forces than to unite in struggle against far rightists/fascists.

Statist revolutionaries in spite of this fail to realize that "the state" is not some entity isolated of capitalist social relations, but rather a direct product and reproducer of capitalism. In reality, statist "revolution" is little more than non-electoral reform.



Anti-statism is a petty bourgeois and unscientific ideology as I demonstrated above.

You haven't demonstrated anything to be honest.


the anarchists that I have met in real life tend to be far more grounded in reality and generally nicer than Trotskyites.

I thought they all were rapists?

[gorillafuck]

- In many cases, primarily the Spanish revolution, the statist, leftist forces thought it more important to opress anti-statist forces than to unite in struggle against far rightists/fascists.
Anarchist Catalonia was a workers state. It suppressed the bourgeois and imposed workers authority. It certainly wasn't a bastion of voluntaryism, it used force to try to achieve it's ends, and pretending that it wasn't a state is ridiculous.

There's a difference between anti-Stalinist and anti-Leninist.

Also, people who are laughing at the irrelevancy of the Leninist left in the US might wanna look at themselves. No section of the left is predominant or influential in the US.

[Widerstand]

Anarchist Catalonia was a workers state. It suppressed the bourgeois and imposed workers authority. It certainly wasn't a bastion of voluntaryism, it used force to try to achieve it's ends, and pretending that it wasn't a state is ridiculous.


True, and the CNT-FAI even entered government. I'll retract that point.



There's a difference between anti-Stalinist and anti-Leninist.

Indeed. There's also a difference between opposing Lenin's writings and opposing Leninist practice.



Also, people who are laughing at the irrelevancy of the Leninist left in the US might wanna look at themselves. No section of the left is predominant or influential in the US.

I thought this thread was about which group is more relevant within the left?

[gorillafuck]

Indeed. There's also a difference between opposing Lenin's writings and opposing Leninist practice.Leninist practice was one of dealing with a civil war, a 12 country invasion, as well as no other left parties cooperating with the Bolsheviks offers of a plural left government.

That doesn't excuse a lot of policies he enacted, though, I'll give you that. The policy on the stealing of grain was fucking ridiculous.


I thought this thread was about which group is more relevant within the left?It doesn't really matter.

[Widerstand]

Leninist practice was one of dealing with a civil war, a 12 country invasion, as well as no other left parties cooperating with the Bolsheviks offers of a plural left government.

That doesn't excuse a lot of policies he enacted, though, I'll give you that. The policy on the stealing of grain was fucking ridiculous.

Keep in mind that "Leninist practice" refers more to the practice and methods of those describing as Leninists than to Lenin's particular politics.



It doesn't really matter.

It does, because a group can be very relevant in the small isolated bloc that "the left" is, while being perfectly irrelevant on a larger scale.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Anarchist clowns in Europe have never and will never carry a revolution through to the end due to anarchism's petty bourgeois political nature, and neither will a few hundred Trotskyite students in Europe with their fragmented political parties. As inspiring as the Greek uprising is, it will end in failure if it continues to stay under anarchist leadership. If you want to see a real revolutionary movement which is capable of, and will, shake the world then take a look at the Maoist revolutions in the third world.

But some how a vanguard consisting of ageing academics will?

[Fawkes]

Anyone else think maybe this thread should be closed?

[gorillafuck]

Keep in mind that "Leninist practice" refers more to the practice and methods of those describing as Leninists than to Lenin's particular politics.
Oh. I was talking about Lenin and the Bolsheviks, rather than modern Leninist parties.


It does, because a group can be very relevant in the small isolated bloc that "the left" is, while being perfectly irrelevant on a larger scale.In the United States, there is basically no working class movement. The communist movements goal is to engage with the working class movement. If the working class movement is extraordinarily weak, then the left is irrelevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the United States, there is basically no working class movement. The communist movements goal is to engage with the working class movement. If the working class movement is extraordinarily weak, then the left is irrelevant.

No, the task is to build the worker-class movement (not some mere "labour movement") and merge with it. It isn't merely to "engage" or "establish links" with that movement.

[Sasha]

Troll answer to troll thread:

"selling newspapers never liberated anyone"

Carry on.

[Palingenisis]

But some how a vanguard consisting of ageing academics will?

Maoist groups and supporters of the People's Wars in western Europe generally dont tend to be ageing academics however.

[mosfeld]

According to Maoism, the petit bourgeoisie is a revolutionary class. Also, Maoism has its roots in the peasantry, which is a petit-bourgeois class. I'll let this one go since you're a self-described "n00b".

[ZeroNowhere]

No, the task is to build the worker-class movement (not some mere "labour movement") and merge with it. It isn't merely to "engage" or "establish links" with that movement.
I'm not sure that we're in any position presently to build a working-class movement, although on the other hand I suppose that one could say that it is the 'task' inasmuch as it is the goal.


I'll let this one go since you're a self-described "n00b".I'm not sure that this insult accomplishes much. I think it's probably better that if one did not wish to respond to something, one did not do so, rather than simply replying with an insult and raising the tension without reason. If one wishes to simply throw around insults indiscriminately, perhaps it would be best to post on the 'Philosophy' board.

[Fawkes]

Also, Maoism has its roots in the peasantry, which is a petit-bourgeois class.

I'm curious.

[mosfeld]

@marxistn00b


The Petty Bourgeoisie
Between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, stands the petty bourgeoisie:

"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed" (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London,' 1943; p. 231).

The English term 'petty bourgeoisie' is an anglicisation of the French term 'petite bourgeoisie', meaning 'little bourgeoisie'. Marxist-Leninists define the petty bourgeoisie as a class which owns or rents small means of production which it operates largely without employing wage labour, but often with the assistance of members of their families: "A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property", (Vladimir I. Lenin: Note to: 'To the Rural Poor', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 254).

As a worker, the petty bourgeois has interests in common with the proletariat; as owner of means of production, however, he has interests in common with the bourgeoisie. In other words, the petty bourgeoisie has a divided allegiance towards the two decisive classes in capitalist society.

Thus, the 'independent' petty bourgeois producer

"... is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is a capitalist; as a labourer he is his own wage- labourer". (Karl Marx: 'Theories of Surplus Value', Part 1; Moscow; undated; p. 395).

and consequently petty bourgeois "...are for ever vacillating between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie". (Joseph V. Stalin: 'The Logic of Facts', in: 'Works', Volume 4; Moscow; 1953; p. 143).

This divided allegiance between the two decisive classes in modern capitalist society applies also to a section of employed persons -- those who are involved in superintendence and the lower levels of management -- e.g., foremen, charge-hands, departmental managers, etc. These employees have a supervisory function, a function is to ensure that the workers produce a maximum of surplus value for the employer. On the one hand, such persons are exploited workers, with interests in common with the proletariat (from which they largely spring); on the other hand, their position as agents of the management in supervising the efficient exploitation of their fellow employees gives them interests in common with the bourgeoisie:

"An industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers) and sergeants (foremen, overlookers) who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist", (Karl Marx: 'Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production', Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 332).

"The labour of supervision and management... has a double nature. On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals cooperate necessarily requires a commanding will to coordinate and unify the process.... This is a productive job.... On the other hand, this supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer, as the direct producer, and the owner of the means of production. The greater this antagonism, the greater the role played by supervision". (Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 383-84).

Because of this divided allegiance, which corresponds to that of the petty bourgeoisie proper, Marxist-Leninists place such employees (and their dependents) in the petty bourgeoisie. For the same reason, Marxist-Leninists also place persons in the middle and lower ranks of the coercive forces of the capitalist state -- the army and police -- (and their dependents) in the petty bourgeoisie.


The Peasantry
The English word 'peasant is derived from the Latin 'pagus', meaning a "... country district". (Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 660) and is defined as "... one who lives in the country and works on the land". (The Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 11; Oxford; 1989; p.402).

The above definition excludes the landlord class from the peasantry since, even if a landlord 'lives in the country' he does not work on the land', but derives his income from ground rent.

The peasantry do not form a class of society, but consist of a number of different classes which live in the country and work on the land:

"It is best to distinguish the rich, the middle and the poor peasants" (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'To the Rural Poor: An Explanation for the Peasants of what the Social-Democrats want' (hereafter listed as 'Vladimir I. Lenin (1903'), in 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 261).

The peasantry is composed of:

Firstly, rich peasants, or rural capitalists, who employ labour, that is, who exploit poorer peasants:

"One of the main features of the rich peasants is that they hire farmhands and day labourers. Like the landlords, the rich peasants also live by the labour of others.... They try to squeeze as much work as they can out of their farmhands, and pay them as little as possible". (Vladimir I. Lenin (1903: ibid.; p. 265).

Sometimes rich peasants are called 'kulaks', a word derived from the Russian 'kulak', originally meaning a "... tight-fisted person". ('The Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 8; Oxford; 1989; p. 543).

Secondly, the middle peasants or the rural petty bourgeoisie, who own or rent land but who do not employ labour. Speaking of the middle peasantry, Lenin says:

"Only in good years and under particularly favourable conditions is the independent husbandry of this type of peasant sufficient to maintain him and for that reason his position is a very unstable one. In the majority of cases the middle peasant cannot make ends meet without resorting to loans to be repaid by labour, etc., without seeking subsidiary' earnings on the side". (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Development of Capitalism in Russia', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 1; p. 235).

Thirdly, the poor peasants or rural proletariat. The poor peasant lives

"... not by the land, not by his farm, but by working for wages.... He... has ceased to be an independent farmer and has become a hireling, a proletarian". (Vladimir I. Lenin (1900): op. cit.; p. 265-67).

Sometimes Marxist-Leninists describe poor peasants as "... semi-proletarians", (Vladimir I. Lenin (1900): ibid.; p. 267) to distinguish them from urban proletarians, regarded as 'full' proletarians.

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/Marxclass.htm

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

No, the task is to build the worker-class movement (not some mere "labour movement") and merge with it. It isn't merely to "engage" or "establish links" with that movement.

Srsly, is there another thread where you elaborate on what you mean by that?
No offense, but I actually have no idea what you're getting at, in terms of practical activity.

[Widerstand]

Srsly, is there another thread where you elaborate on what you mean by that?
No offense, but I actually have no idea what you're getting at, in terms of practical activity.

Welcome to my mind, every time I read a post of DNZ.

[The Douche]

Anarchist clowns in Europe have never and will never carry a revolution through to the end due to anarchism's petty bourgeois political nature, and neither will a few hundred Trotskyite students in Europe with their fragmented political parties. As inspiring as the Greek uprising is, it will end in failure if it continues to stay under anarchist leadership. If you want to see a real revolutionary movement which is capable of, and will, shake the world then take a look at the Maoist revolutions in the third world.

Anarchism is petty bourgeois? Fuck, never in my entire life have I ever heard this? Source?


My foundations have been shaken. Do you have some sort of newsletter to which I can subscribe?

[Devrim]

Maoist groups and supporters of the People's Wars in western Europe generally dont tend to be ageing academics however.

You are right. They tend to be 'middle class ' students.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

You are right. They tend to be 'middle class ' students.

Devrim

Thats crap....I have met members of the PCF-MLM and the MLPD are they were "blue collar" workers and/or immigrants.

[Ovi]

I am more prole than all of you.

[Devrim]

Thats crap....I have met members of the PCF-MLM and the MLPD are they were "blue collar" workers and/or immigrants.

It is my personal experience. In general the vast majority of Maoists that I have ever met came from middle class backgrounds, and were students. I have worked as a brick layer in five different countries (Turkey, Ireland, England, Germany, and Lebanon) and the only place that I have ever met Maoist building workers was here in Turkey.

You maybe right, but it is not my experience.

Devrim

[Ovi]

Anarchism is petty bourgeois? Fuck, never in my entire life have I ever heard this? Source?


My foundations have been shaken. Do you have some sort of newsletter to which I can subscribe?
He's referring to Proudhon. I don't see how not working for a capitalist makes you a capitalist though (petty bourgeois). Will people in socialism be all bourgeois?

[Palingenisis]

It is my personal experience. In general the vast majority of Maoists that I have ever met came from middle class backgrounds, and were students. I have worked as a brick layer in five different countries (Turkey, Ireland, England, Germany, and Lebanon) and the only place that I have ever met Maoist building workers was here in Turkey.


Maoist sympathizers in Ireland tend to come from heavily Republican working class areas and I have the impression that Maoists in England are mostly immigrants scrapping by. The MLPD is the least studenty part of the German left.

[Fawkes]

Will people in socialism be all bourgeois?
The idea is that economic classes will not exist in socialism, so it's rather ambiguous.

But to directly answer it: no.

[Android]

I have met members of the PCF-MLM and the MLPD are they were "blue collar" workers and/or immigrants.

Yes. From talking to a political friend from Switzerland, he said that the MLDP are extremely working class in their composition and there members who come from an academic background are made get jobs in industry apparently.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

No, the task is to build the worker-class movement (not some mere "labour movement") and merge with it. It isn't merely to "engage" or "establish links" with that movement.
No, it isn't.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think there is a single example of a general strike ever actually managing to overthrow a bourgeois regime and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Cuba, 1959, though the general strike occurred after the guerrillas had smashed the state.

[Meridian]

ML parties being "a lot more known" doesn't speak much of their relevance but rather of the fact that most people go vote and see their names on the ballot.

Again, I'm asking which countries you're talking about, because this is certainly not true in Germany, where the Autonomists by far dominate the radical left, and even in the biggest "leftist" party the MLs are a minority faction, and it's neither true in England as others pointed out, and from what I gather, neither is it true in the Netherlands (I may be wrong here).

I don't think you can make such blanket judgements at all, to be honest. I have no idea about the composition in France or Spain, but the CNT/IAA branches in both countries seem rather strong. In Greece the KKE seems to dominate the struggles, but even there, the Anarchists are by no measures a small or irrelevant faction.

So, which countries are we talking about? And is the existence of strong Maoist groups in some Asian countries "proof" of the Leninist "dominance?" Why is then not the existence of the Zapatista zones a "proof" of libertarian "dominance?"
Why arguing like you're offended? Seriously, I am not trying to score some sectarian point here.

All I meant was that from my own observations of the working class, working class families tend to know more about the ML-brand of Marxism than Anarchism. I could be right or wrong, I am not even providing an opinion, only an observation.

[Widerstand]

Why arguing like you're offended? Seriously, I am not trying to score some sectarian point here.

All I meant was that from my own observations of the working class, working class families tend to know more about the ML-brand of Marxism than Anarchism. I could be right or wrong, I am not even providing an opinion, only an observation.

It rather sounds like you're preaching to the choire of "ML = only true path" bullshiters with absolutely no basis in real life activism, who justify their absurdities by denouncing every other leftist as either petty bourgeois or lifestylist and call every sign of their irrelevancy "fabricated."

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Anarchist Catalonia was a workers state. It suppressed the bourgeois and imposed workers authority. It certainly wasn't a bastion of voluntaryism, it used force to try to achieve it's ends, and pretending that it wasn't a state is ridiculous.

Voluntaryists tend to be anarcho-capitalsts, not anarchists. So of course it wasn't. I don't remember reading much about anarcho-capitalists in anarchist Spain anyway.

Also, suppressing the bourgeois and imposing worker control doesn't make anarchists any less anti-state.

[Who?]

It rather sounds like you're preaching to the choire of "ML = only true path" bullshiters with absolutely no basis in real life activism, who justify their absurdities by denouncing every other leftist as either petty bourgeois or lifestylist and call every sign of their irrelevancy "fabricated."

I am yet to see a sign of Marxist-Leninist irrelevancy, considering that Marxist-Leninist-Maoist people's wars are taking place throughout the world and the increasing relevance of Marxist-Leninist parties in the west, as shown by the massive gains of the KKE in Greece.