Marxism Twisted

[Comrade1]

If all the revolutionarys never came along (lenin,mao,che) would Marxism have such an authoritarian feel?

[Widerstand]

Marx hated Anarchism and was involved in the Anarchists expelling from the First International, just saying.

[Paulappaul]

Not as much, but it did always have an authoritarian feel - particulary from Anarchists. The "Marxists" states sort of confirmed it.

[Comrade1]

Marx hated Anarchism and was involved in the Anarchists expelling from the First International, just saying.
Being anti-anarchist isent being authoritarian. Was Marx authoritarian is the question.

[Comrade1]

Not as much, but it did always have an authoritarian feel - particulary from Anarchists. The "Marxists" states sort of confirmed it.
TBH there has never been a "marxist" state. There have been socialist ones at best.

[Widerstand]

Being anti-anarchist isent being authoritarian. Was Marx authoritarian is the question.

Anarchists have since Marxism came into existence called it Authoritarian, and I'd think Marx' role in the expelling of Bakunin and other Anarchists from the First International could constitute an Authoritarian act, no?


TBH there has never been a "marxist" state. There have been socialist ones at best.

Marxism is not synonymous with communism. I fail to see how a Socialist state can not be Marxist.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Maybe other (less-authoritarian?) Marxists would of gained more prominence (DeLeonists, Left Communists, etc.) but who knows. It's just one of those stupid "What if..." questions that people dwell on too much.

Marx himself had a very authoritative personality (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshole).

[Comrade1]

No, just disagreeing and expelling anarchists isent authoritarian. Can you explain one part of marxism that is to be honest?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

No, just disagreeing and expelling anarchists isent authoritarian.
If trying to gain dominance and control over an organization by any means necessary so you have authority isn't authoritarian, then what is?

[Comrade1]

If trying to gain dominance and control over an organization by any means necessary so you have authority isn't authoritarian, then what is?
ok, fair enough, just explain to me an authoritarian part of marxism.

[Widerstand]

ok, fair enough, just explain to me an authoritarian part of marxism.

Dictatorship (of the "proletariat").

[Comrade1]

Dictatorship (of the "proletariat").
Common comrade dont be so ignorant, thats different. Thats a transition and its a part of liberation.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well I think you have to understand that this individuals did play a role as leaders of the bureaucratic caste that ruled this degenerated and deformed worker's states.

But it has to do more with the material conditions and the failure of other revolutions, that such "authoritarian" development happen.

And just some food for thought to all you anarcho-folks a Revolution is a very authoritarian act in of itself ;-)

[Widerstand]

Common comrade dont be so ignorant, thats different. Thats a transition and its a part of liberation.

How can increased inequality be part of a transition towards an egalitarian society?
How can liberation come through oppression?

When has "dictatorship of the proletariat" ever been anything but "dictatorship of the party", except for a very small period in Russia when the soviets still had power?

[Widerstand]

And just some food for thought to all you anarcho-folks a Revolution is a very authoritarian act in of itself ;-)

I'm afraid you will have to explain this.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

If trying to gain dominance and control over an organization by any means necessary so you have authority isn't authoritarian, then what is?
Proof?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

How can increased inequality be part of a transition towards an egalitarian society?
How can liberation come through oppression?

When has "dictatorship of the proletariat" ever been anything but "dictatorship of the party", except for a very small period in Russia when the soviets still had power?
I don't remember Marx every saying "dictatorship of the party," I believe that was Lenin you're talking about. Although he never "said" that, he just implemented that :lol:

[Comrade1]

How can increased inequality be part of a transition towards an egalitarian society?
How can liberation come through oppression?

When has "dictatorship of the proletariat" ever been anything but "dictatorship of the party", except for a very small period in Russia when the soviets still had power?
Ever heard of a workers' council. That what most "true" marxists advocate.

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't remember Marx every saying "dictatorship of the party," I believe that was Lenin you're talking about. Although he never "said" that, he just implemented that :lol:

Yes evil Lenin and the Bolsheviks crushed the Soviets to implant their party dictatorship....oh wait nvm they enjoyed mass support because they actually led workers to take complete power and defended the Soviets even though a lot of them were under the influence of Mensheviks.

[BIG BROTHER]

I'm afraid you will have to explain this.

You are taking some by sheer use of force and cohersion without any concent.

That being said it doesn't mean I don't support the Revolution ;-)

[Widerstand]

I don't remember Marx every saying "dictatorship of the party," I believe that was Lenin you're talking about. Although he never "said" that, he just implemented that :lol:

Yes, he implemented that, as have all Marxists after him. So far I am yet to see how what is called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not inevitably the dictatorship of a minority group, like the party.


Ever heard of a workers' council. That what most "true" marxists advocate.

As I said, the Soviets (worker's councils) lost their power very early and the Bolsheviks (party) where the de facto ruling power.

This is all perfectly in line with classical Marxism, what you are thinking of are Orthodox Marxists, which are closer to Anarchism than to most other Marxist tendencies.

[Comrade1]

Ok, Im going to come foward and say it. Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and The Soviet Union werent marxist. You wanna see marxism work look at the paris commune or the soviet union (1917-1924)

[Widerstand]

You are taking some by sheer use of force and cohersion without any concent.

What does a revolution take, and whose consent does it lack?

[BIG BROTHER]

What does a revolution take, and whose consent does it lack?

I think you know the answer to this questions. A Revolution wouldn't be called that if there wasn't a particular party that was going to be kinda you know, overthrown and crushed in the process.

[Comrade1]

What does a revolution take, and whose consent does it lack?
Let me try to explain, ITS A REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We will attack and probably kill some people in the process.

[Widerstand]

Ok, Im going to come foward and say it. Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and The Soviet Union werent marxist. You wanna see marxism work look at the paris commune or the soviet union (1917-1924)

That's not a view many Marxists would agree with ;D

[Comrade1]

That's not a view many Marxists would agree with ;D
You would be very suprised. Hey this is comming from a guy who just said most atempts at marxism turned authoritarian. :rolleyes: But hey, just saying, those states do not implent the DoTP

[Widerstand]

You would be very suprised. Hey this is comming from a guy who just said most atempts at marxism turned authoritarian. :rolleyes: But hey, just saying, those states do not implent the DoTP

That's also something many Marxists would disagree with. Also, I believe all of these states have claimed to have implemented the DotP, no?

[Comrade1]

That's also something most Marxists would disagree with.
Do tell how Vietnam implemented it? or China? or hell even the Soviet Union (1925-1991)

[BIG BROTHER]

Yea the only dictatorship of the proletariat existed in the Soviet Union(out of the states mentioned) also I usually refrain myself from putting an exact date on the degeneration of the DOTP in the Soviet Union as it was process albeit fast but with many contradictions and very complex.

[Widerstand]

You know you may say that these systems where not the DotP, but I'd say they were exactly what any notion of DotP inevitably leads to.

And the Soviet Union had a system of councils (Soviets) who where directly involved in the government, until the Bolsheviks stripped them off their power (I, too, can't really place an exact date on this).

[Comrade1]

You know you may say that these systems where not the DotP, but I'd say they were exactly what any notion of DotP inevitably leads to.

And the Soviet Union had a system of councils (Soviets) who where directly involved in the government, until the Bolsheviks stripped them off their power (I, too, can't really place an exact date on this).
This is so much BS, look councils dont lead to that. It was the death of Lenin that did. Stalin fucked shit up.

[Widerstand]

I think you know the answer to this questions. A Revolution wouldn't be called that if there wasn't a particular party that was going to be kinda you know, overthrown and crushed in the process.

That the bourgeois will be crushed doesn't make it authoritarian. If that was so, fighting against oppression would be inherently oppressive, which doesn't really make any sense.


Let me try to explain, ITS A REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We will attack and probably kill some people in the process.

The existence of violence does not make it authoritarian.

[Widerstand]

This is so much BS, look councils dont lead to that. It was the death of Lenin that did. Stalin fucked shit up.

Poor russian proletariat, if it's dictatorship couldn't exist without Lenin...

[BIG BROTHER]

The last statement is debatable. The Soviets were THE dictatorship of the proletariat along with is parties, out of the which the Bolsheviks were the ones that lead them to victory against the provisional goverment and the white army.

I do not reject however the notion that the Boshevik party ended up estripring the Soviets from its power. My reasons are different I base them on the fact that the Revolution in Russia remained isolated, the working class tiny already, was demoralized, a lot of them dead due to the war and the means of production were destroyed.

This allowed a privilege cast to rise up and do what both you and me oppose. Even a decentralized communes or whatever anarcho aproach you support this would happen if the revolution remained isolated and the material means to create socialism(or anarchism wtvr you wanna call it) were destroyed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Authoritarian" is a useless word in describing the left and is basically meaningless for anything other than a trite slur. It's the type of term that Democrats and Republicans use to slur their opponents: imprecise, misleading and open to interpretation. It's much clearer to just say that North Korea or the USSR or China are autocratic or one-party than to say "authoritarian".


I don't remember Marx every saying "dictatorship of the party," I believe that was Lenin you're talking about. Although he never "said" that, he just implemented that :lol:But he also constantly said that it was an emergency measure and just as he also allowed the bureaucrats back in even though he was against that... but I guess instead of trying to understand what went wrong and how it did, it's easier to read history backwards and blame induviduals or groups of induviduals for failures that resulted in a qualitatively different result than what people fought for (i.e. the USSR from the Russian Revolution). So if we judge the russian revolution and the ideas and politics of the Bolsheviks and even all of Marxism in this backwards and ahistorical way, then we also have to say that all anarchists are pro-rape and forced military conscription since that's what Makhno's anarchist forces ended up doing.

But a much more accurate way to look at these revolutionary failures IMHO is by looking at the circumstances in which these figures found themselves: revolutionaries do not make revolutions and they certainty don't choose the terms of the political landscape they find themselves in. Makhno's army was unsustainable without a social base suppporting him and worker's power could not be sustainable as Russia's industrial areas became de-populated and unstable.

My short answer to the OP is that the "authoritarianism" of China, the USSR and other so-called socialist states has much more to do with a failure to achieve socialism (i.e. working class control over society) than the personality or personal ideas of any individual revolutionaries. All these countries replaced one minority ruling class for another kind of minority ruling class rule and that (class rule) is the source of all unwarrented or unjust authority. What failed was that the working class never fully held power and couldn't as long as there was just an isolated revolution.

Had there been no (what I would argue is a) internal counter-revolution in Russia and the idea of working class rule of society replaced by the idea that socialism means a strong national economy based on nationalized industry, then Socialism would have no "authoritarian" connotation. 3rd world liberation movements would not have looked to a USSR model for "socialism" and people would think of it more like what anti-red propaganda in the US thought of socialism in 1917: "OMG how can mechanics and janitors possibly run society?"

If being for working class rule of society is authoritarian (it is just as a strike is authoritarian or a protest or a direct action by anarchists) then I am an authoritarian: I think the working class should collectively and cooperatively run society. If you mean authoritarian in the sense of wanting a party or induvidual to rule society, then no, I'm against that.

[Comrade1]

A revolution is authoritarian because the resistance is showing it can pose athority over the existing goverment. Understand?

[BIG BROTHER]

That the bourgeois will be crushed doesn't make it authoritarian. If that was so, fighting against oppression would be inherently oppressive, which doesn't really make any sense.



The existence of violence does not make it authoritarian.

No, the fact that is an authoritarian act does not make it oppressive because this is an act of the proletariat whose goal is to implement a stateless, classless society.

Yes violence is very authoritarian, if I was in a meeting and used a gun to get what I wanted instead of engaging in discussion and seeking concesus.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

It was the death of Lenin that did. Stalin fucked shit up.
Actually, a lot of the power of the soviets were being centralized into the party well before Lenin's death. It's an easy excuse to blame Stalin, but truth be told, the consolidation of power began while Lenin was alive (IIRC, 1918-ish?) Stalin only finalized the process. The sad thing is, while the handing over of power from soviets to party was in the process, the citizens still thought their soviet had power and could fix their problems...

You wanna see marxism work look at the paris commune
While admirable, it definitely wasn't Marxist or socialist.

[Comrade1]

"Authoritarian" is a useless word in describing the left and is basically meaningless for anything other than a trite slur. It's the type of term that Democrats and Republicans use to slur their opponents: imprecise, misleading and open to interpretation. It's much clearer to just say that North Korea or the USSR or China are autocratic or one-party than to say "authoritarian".

But he also constantly said that it was an emergency measure and just as he also allowed the bureaucrats back in even though he was against that... but I guess instead of trying to understand what went wrong and how it did, it's easier to read history backwards and blame induviduals or groups of induviduals for failures that resulted in a qualitatively different result than what people fought for (i.e. the USSR from the Russian Revolution). So if we judge the russian revolution and the ideas and politics of the Bolsheviks and even all of Marxism in this backwards and ahistorical way, then we also have to say that all anarchists are pro-rape and forced military conscription since that's what Makhno's anarchist forces ended up doing.

But a much more accurate way to look at these revolutionary failures IMHO is by looking at the circumstances in which these figures found themselves: revolutionaries do not make revolutions and they certainty don't choose the terms of the political landscape they find themselves in. Makhno's army was unsustainable without a social base suppporting him and worker's power could not be sustainable as Russia's industrial areas became de-populated and unstable.

My short answer to the OP is that the "authoritarianism" of China, the USSR and other so-called socialist states has much more to do with a failure to achieve socialism (i.e. working class control over society) than the personality or personal ideas of any individual revolutionaries. All these countries replaced one minority ruling class for another kind of minority ruling class rule and that (class rule) is the source of all unwarrented or unjust authority. What failed was that the working class never fully held power and couldn't as long as there was just an isolated revolution.

Had there been no (what I would argue is a) internal counter-revolution in Russia and the idea of working class rule of society replaced by the idea that socialism means a strong national economy based on nationalized industry, then Socialism would have no "authoritarian" connotation. 3rd world liberation movements would not have looked to a USSR model for "socialism" and people would think of it more like what anti-red propaganda in the US thought of socialism in 1917: "OMG how can mechanics and janitors possibly run society?"

If being for working class rule of society is authoritarian (it is just as a strike is authoritarian or a protest or a direct action by anarchists) then I am an authoritarian: I think the working class should collectively and cooperatively run society. If you mean authoritarian in the sense of wanting a party or induvidual to rule society, then no, I'm against that.
This guy gets it ^

[Comrade1]

While admirable, it definitely wasn't Marxist or socialist.[/QUOTE]
Marx qutoed it very well once I forget what it was though. Something like This is the first example of my work in progress

[Widerstand]

A revolution is authoritarian because the resistance is showing it can pose athority over the existing goverment. Understand?

No, not really. A revolution doesn't pose authority over anything, a revolution dissolves the existing government. Attacking authority is not the same as imposing a new authority.

[Comrade1]

No, not really. A revolution doesn't pose authority over anything, a revolution dissolves the existing government. Attacking authority is not the same as imposing a new authority.
Yeah you could call it authoritarian because your setting up a new goverment after the revolution. The DotP by workers' councils

[Widerstand]

Just because there's a government doesn't make it authoritarian :confused:

[Comrade1]

Just because there's a government doesn't make it authoritarian :confused:
Alright fine, then i guess it aint.

[28350]

Ok, Im going to come foward and say it. Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and The Soviet Union werent marxist. You wanna see marxism work look at the paris commune or the soviet union (1917-1924)

One can argue (a lot, if RevLeft has taught us anything) about the political or economic nature of various states like China or the USSR or Vietnam or Nazi Germany or what-have-you. However, it's very hard to argue about the ideological stance of a state (especially if it's "authoritarian"). If the Soviets considered themselves Marxists, they were Marxists. You can't deny someone "membership" to an ideology simply because you think they're doing it wrong.

[BIG BROTHER]

Just because there's a government doesn't make it authoritarian :confused:

A government is an oppressive institution even if its to ensure the power of the great majority of people and even if its very democratic.

[Comrade1]

One can argue (a lot, if RevLeft has taught us anything) about the political or economic nature of various states like China or the USSR or Vietnam or Nazi Germany or what-have-you. However, it's very hard to argue about the ideological stance of a state (especially if it's "authoritarian"). If the Soviets considered themselves Marxists, they were Marxists. You can't deny someone "membership" to an ideology simply because you think they're doing it wrong.
Actions speak louder than words. If I kept screaming I HATE NAZIS!!! while flying a swastika flag what would you call me.

[Widerstand]

A government is an oppressive institution even if its to ensure the power of the great majority of people and even if its very democratic.

Usually when authoritarian is used to describe a system of government it means that there exists a governmental body distinct from society which has absolute authority over society, that it can enforce this authority and that society has to obey it.

While a state is always authoritarian, as it is an instrument of class rule (in the Marxist sense) or an governmental body with a monopoly of force (in the Weberian sense), government, at least in the anarchist use of the word, merely means the way in which society is organized, and doesn't require the existence of a state.

[BIG BROTHER]

Anarchy = Communism

We just believe this is not possible as long as there are class divisions which is why we believe the DOTP is necessary.

[Comrade1]

Usually when authoritarian is used to describe a system of government it means that there exists a governmental body distinct from society which has absolute authority over society, that it can enforce this authority and that society has to obey it.

While a state is always authoritarian, as it is an instrument of class rule (in the Marxist sense) or an governmental body with a monopoly of force (in the Weberian sense), government, at least in the anarchist use of the word, merely means the way in which society is organized, and doesn't require the existence of a state.
A state is a tool for one class to opress another. So if you set up a new state its still authoritarian even if the prolitariat run it.

[Comrade1]

Anarchy = Communism

We just believe this is not possible as long as there are class divisions which is why we believe the DOTP is necessary.
The DotP iss the only difference between marxists and anarchists

[Widerstand]

Anarchy = Communism

Yes but:

Anarchism != Communism.


A state is a tool for one class to opress another. So if you set up a new state its still authoritarian even if the prolitariat run it.

Right, but a revolution doesn't necessarily set up a new state.

[Comrade1]

Yes but:

Anarchism != Communism.



Right, but a revolution doesn't necessarily set up a new state.
Yeah it does, unless its an anarchist revolution i guess but for marxists post revolution would be the DotP and labour vouchers and common property and such.

[Savage]

I think it's unfortunate that Marxism now has an authoritarian connotation, and i don't believe it to be at all productive for Anarchists and left Communists to fight like this. Going back to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, I don't consider this to be inherently Authoritarian, given that it is understood in it's original context. From my analysis, the main historical examples Anarchy (specifically the Free territory, Catalonia etc) are in fact examples of a Proletarian Dictatorship, and based on Marx's (incredibly broad) concept of the state they cannot be considered to be stateless (although certainly going in the right direction). The difference between Marx and Engel's communism (to Anarchism) was much smaller than what it was become now, they argued that no one can be an anti-authoritarian whilst advocating revolution, and there is no question to whether Anarchists used physical coercion in their revolutions in the Ukraine, Spain, Hungary etc.

[Comrade1]

I think it's unfortunate that Marxism now has an authoritarian connotation, and i don't believe it to be at all productive for Anarchists and left Communists to fight like this. Going back to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, I don't consider this to be inherently Authoritarian, given that it is understood in it's original context. From my analysis, the main historical examples Anarchy (specifically the Free territory, Catalonia etc) are in fact examples of a Proletarian Dictatorship, and based on Marx's (incredibly broad) concept of the state they cannot be considered to be stateless (although certainly going in the right direction). The difference between Marx and Engel's communism (to Anarchism) was much smaller than what it was become now, they argued that no one can be an anti-authoritarian whilst advocating revolution, and there is no question to whether Anarchists used physical coercion in their revolutions in the Ukraine, Spain, Hungary etc.
Me being a marxist I always run into people who say hey arent you authoritarian.

[Savage]

I think something that everyone can agree on is that Anarchism is inherently Anti-Authoritarian, Marxism is not. However that doesn't mean that Marxism is inherently Authoritarian either, and that should always be remembered.

[Lucretia]

Great book about Marx and anarchism: Karl Marx and the Anarchists by Paul Thomas (http://www.amazon.com/Karl-Marx-Anarchists-Library-Editions/dp/0415556023/)

[Comrade1]

I think something that everyone can agree on is that Anarchism is inherently Anti-Authoritarian, Marxism is not. However that doesn't mean that Marxism is inherently Authoritarian either, and that should always be remembered.
Yeah, I'm a marxist but not authoritarian. Im not liberalitarian either just a marxist. Not influenced by any other people.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Great book about Marx and anarchism: Karl Marx and the Anarchists by Paul Thomas (http://www.amazon.com/Karl-Marx-Anarchists-Library-Editions/dp/0415556023/)
$157 eh? I hope it's epic. Oh, and the Used selection is even more expensive....

[Lucretia]

$157 eh? I hope it's epic. Oh, and the Used selection is even more expensive....

I think you'll find more agreeable pricing by selecting the paperback version.

[Paulappaul]

TBH there has never been a "marxist" state. There have been socialist ones at best.

The Ideology of such "Socialist" states were pseudo Marxist. So yes from an ideological perspective there were states which fully embraced Marxism.


If trying to gain dominance and control over an organization by any means necessary so you have authority isn't authoritarian, then what is?

To be fair, most were on Marx's side and expulsion is a part of any organization.


But it has to do more with the material conditions and the failure of other revolutions, that such "authoritarian" development happen.


Yeah Material conditions which necessitated first a bourgeois revolution and not a proletarian revolution. Regardless such material conditions didn't necessitate the states transformation into the party form and with it the stripping of freedoms, not to mention the Kronstadt and such.


And just some food for thought to all you anarcho-folks a Revolution is a very authoritarian act in of itself ;-)

Authoritative against a class of exploiters. It's done out of necessity, it doesn't mean that when one class is overturned the new one should be just as exploitative.



When has "dictatorship of the proletariat" ever been anything but "dictatorship of the party", except for a very small period in Russia when the soviets still had power?

While we're at it, when as Socialism or Communism ever meant anything but death and despair :rolleyes:

[Widerstand]

While we're at it, when as Socialism or Communism ever meant anything but death and despair :rolleyes:

Tell me one socialist state that didn't degenerate into a party dictatorship then.

[Paulappaul]

Tell me one socialist state that didn't degenerate into a party dictatorship then

Tell me where Marx openly says "I want a Socialist State".

I can't because Marxism isn't for a "Socialist State".

[Lucretia]

Tell me one socialist state that didn't degenerate into a party dictatorship then.

Let's make a deal: you tell me one class society that has been overthrown and permanently transformed into a workers' paradise by anarchists, and I'll tell you the name of a class society that has been overthrown and permanently transformed into a workers' paradise by socialists. :)

[Widerstand]

Tell me where Marx openly says "I want a Socialist State".

I can't because Marxism isn't for a "Socialist State".

Whether or not Marx wants it, every attempt to establish DotP has so far lead to the creation of a party-dictatorship and a Socialist State, so is it really a stretch to suspect that, whether or not Marx was aware or in favor of it, the DotP is a flawed concept that will ultimately produce these forms?

[Widerstand]

Let's make a deal: you tell me one class society that has been overthrown and permanently transformed into a workers' paradise by anarchists, and I'll tell you the name of a class society that has been overthrown and permanently transformed into a workers' paradise by socialists. :)

If at all, the absence of both is an argument for the failure of both schools of thoughts, but to be fair to our Anarchist comrades, there have been far more attempts at Socialism than at Anarchism.

[Paulappaul]

every attempt to establish DotP has so far lead to the creation of a party-dictatorship and a Socialist StateAny attempt by Socialists had to this point lead to failure. Does that mean it's a worthless cause or that Socialism is a flawed concept?

Massive changes in society don't come over night and without failure. It took Capitalism over 500 years to gets its footing.


Plus those implementing the DOTP have always come from backward material conditions and have been Leninists.

[Savage]

Whether or not Marx wants it, every attempt to establish DotP has so far lead to the creation of a party-dictatorship and a Socialist State, so is it really a stretch to suspect that, whether or not Marx was aware or in favor of it, the DotP is a flawed concept that will ultimately produce these forms?
The misunderstanding of a theory is a misdemeanor to the practitioner, not to the theory itself. Workers control over the means of production is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the state will remain as long as antagonistic class interest does. If your definition of the state is something along the lines of ''A Hierarchical institution of Authority commanding an apparatus with the means to commit physical coercion'' then I am all for the immediate abolition of the state, but I consider the state to be something much more subtle than that.

[Lucretia]

If at all, the absence of both is an argument for the failure of both schools of thoughts, but to be fair to our Anarchist comrades, there have been far more attempts at Socialism than at Anarchism.

And the greater number of serious attempts at socialism by Marxists might speak to the more effective nature of Marxist organizing. I am sure you are familiar with the idea that it's bad practice to attribute the failure of political movements to accomplish their goals solely to the flaws inherent in their organizing principles, all the more when the failure results in a form of dictatorship entirely at odds with the movement's political aspirations and organizing principles.

[Widerstand]

Any attempt by Socialists had to this point lead to failure. Does that mean it's a worthless cause or that Socialism is a flawed concept?

Actually yes, I think seizing state power is a failed concept, even if it's done in the name of the proletariat (though rarely ever by the proletariat, but more often by a party).



Massive changes in society don't come over night and without failure. It took Capitalism over 500 years to gets its footing.

I'm pretty sure capitalists didn't try the same thing for five centuries until they got lucky and it worked?


The misunderstanding of a theory is a misdemeanor to the practitioner, not to the theory itself.

Which of course implies that there is a misunderstanding of the theory which is to blame, rather than a flaw of the theory.



Workers control over the means of production is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the state will remain as long as antagonistic class interest does.

Just as the state will remain as long as antagonistic class interests do, so will those class interests (and class society itself) remain as long as the state does. The state reproduces classes as long as it exists.


If your definition of the state is something along the lines of ''A Hierarchical institution of Authority commanding an apparatus with the means to commit physical coercion'' then I am all for the immediate abolition of the state, but I consider the state to be something much more subtle than that.

Ah, so you subscribe to the classical Marxist fetish that the state is an instrument, and as such a neutral institution that can be isolated from capitalism, although it can not be, because the state is deeply ingrained in capitalist social relations and can not be separated from those?

Or to refer to Holloway (http://libcom.org/library/change-world-without-taking-power-john-holloway):


Revolutionary movements inspired by Marxism have always been aware of the capitalist nature of the state. Why then have they focused on winning state power as the means of changing society? One answer is that these movements have often had an instrumental view of the capitalist nature of the state. They have typically seen the state as being the instrument of the capitalist class. The notion of an 'instrument' implies that the relation between the state and the capitalist class is an external one: like a hammer, the state is now wielded by the capitalist class in their own interests, after the revolution it will be wielded by the working class in their interests. Such a view reproduces, unconsciously perhaps, the isolation or autonomisation of the state from its social environment, the critique of which is the starting point of revolutionary politics. To borrow a concept to be developed later, this view fetishises the state: it abstracts it from the web of power relations in which it is embedded. The difficulty which revolutionary governments have experienced in wielding the state in the interests of the working class suggests that the embedding of the state in the web of capitalist social relations is far stronger and more subtle than the notion of instrumentality would suggest. The mistake of Marxist revolutionary movements has been, not to deny the capitalist nature of the state, but to underestimate the degree of integration of the state into the network of capitalist social relations.


And the greater number of serious attempts at socialism by Marxists might speak to the more effective nature of Marxist organizing.

The effectiveness of organizing isn't really an argument for or against a political strategy, is it?



I am sure you are familiar with the idea that it's bad practice to attribute the failure of political movements to accomplish their goals solely to the flaws inherent in their organizing principles, all the more when the failure results in a form of dictatorship entirely at odds with the movement's political aspirations and organizing principles.

I'm not at all familiar with that, no. I would very much believe that there can be ideological flaws which can lead to a flawed organization which can in turn lead to a flawed outcome, which can perfectly well be entirely at odds with anything claimed or desired by those pursuing it. Pro-capitalists prove this entirely well over and over again - they want equality, they want liberty, they want people to live a good life, yet they advocate things which have times and times again proven to not provide such.

[Lucretia]

The effectiveness of organizing isn't really an argument for or against a political strategy, is it?

Sure it is. What value is a political movement that has no real chance of ever realizing its political goals?


I'm not at all familiar with that, no. I would very much believe that there can be ideological flaws which can lead to a flawed organization which can in turn lead to a flawed outcome, which can perfectly well be entirely at odds with anything claimed or desired by those pursuing it. Pro-capitalists prove this entirely well over and over again - they want equality, they want liberty, they want people to live a good life, yet they advocate things which have times and times again proven to not provide such.There might be flaws in organizing principles which encourage flaws in organizing that undercut a group's political aspirations. My problem is with attributing the undercutting of the group's political aspirations entirely to the organizing principles, like the connection between the two occurs outside of history.

[Paulappaul]

Actually yes, I think seizing state power is a failed concept, even if it's done in the name of the proletariat (though rarely ever by the proletariat, but more often by a party).

Totally agree, and no argument in Marxism for this.


Just as the state will remain as long as antagonistic class interests do, so will those class interests (and class society itself) remain as long as the state does. The state reproduces classes as long as it exists.

Which why Marxists want its abolition.

I'm pretty sure capitalists didn't try the same thing for five centuries until they got lucky and it worked?

Nor do Marxists. It's Trial and Elimination.


Ah, so you subscribe to the classical Marxist fetish that the state is an instrument, and as such a neutral institution that can be isolated from capitalism, although it can not be, because the state is deeply ingrained in capitalist social relations and can not be separated from those?

Marx didn't believe. Sounds to me you just haven't really studied Marx. I am pretty sure Marx said the "Existence of the State is the Existence of Slavery"

[Widerstand]

Sure it is. What value is a political movement that has no real chance of ever realizing its political goals?

What value is a political movement that has tons of members but isn't going anywhere?



There might be flaws in organizing principles which encourage flaws in organizing that undercut a group's political aspirations. My problem is with attributing the undercutting of the group's political aspirations entirely to the organizing principles, like the connection between the two occurs outside of history.

I'm not entirely sure what that means. To what then do you attribute the failure of many movements with shared organizing principles which occurred at different points in history and under different material conditions?

[Widerstand]

Totally agree, and no argument in Marxism for this.

So did Lenin make it up and everyone after him just thought it was a hip thing?



Which why Marxists want its abolition.

Yet not before its utilization as a supposedly "socialist" instrument.



Nor do Marxists. It's Trial and Elimination.

Then why hasn't anyone come to think of eliminating the DotP yet?



Marx didn't believe. Sounds to me you just haven't really studied Marx. I am pretty sure Marx said the "Existence of the State is the Existence of Slavery"

I too am pretty sure he said that. This is entirely inconsistent with what Marxists have done for decades, though.

[Savage]

Ah, so you subscribe to the classical Marxist fetish that the state is an instrument, and as such a neutral institution that can be isolated from capitalism, although it can not be, because the state is deeply ingrained in capitalist social relations and can not be separated from those?

As I said my understanding of the State is broad, and in regards to the transition into statelessness I agree more or less with Anarchists, it's just that my terminology differs, hence my main objection to Anarchism is theoretical and not practical. I'm not sure what particular school of leftist thought you subscribe to (as your Revleft groups range from Leninism to Anarchism), but If your an anarchist, don't distance yourself from the Communist left, you can reject the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but in any Anarchist revolution I would consider the DotP to be in action, so let's not allow the barrier of language to divide us.

[Widerstand]

As I said my understanding of the State is broad, and in regards to the transition into statelessness I agree more or less with Anarchists, it's just that my terminology differs, hence my main objection to Anarchism is theoretical and not practical. I'm not sure what particular school of leftist thought you subscribe to (as your Revleft groups range from Leninism to Anarchism), but If your an anarchist, don't distance yourself from the Communist left, you can reject the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but in any Anarchist revolution I would consider the DotP to be in action, so let's not allow the barrier of language to divide us.

So what does your concept of state entail? Are you of the "'state' just means that reactionaries will be repressed" type?

And how do you explain that in every instance of someone claiming to establish the DotP it has turned into a party dictatorship? Even if it really is not directly the cause, the concept of DotP certainly seems to be a ready justification for it.

And no, I don't really consider myself an Anarchist, though I generally agree with Anarchist analysis. I guess I could be described as sympathizing with operaismo.

[Paulappaul]

So did Lenin make it up and everyone after him just thought it was a hip thing?First of all, one person doesn't shape a whole movement. Movements come out of material conditions. Revolutionaries latch onto movements. Lenin was a psuedo - marxist. Russia had yet to have a bourgeoisie revolution. Lenin used aspects of Marxism and combined them with the material conditions of Russia whose historical mission was a Bourgeois Revolution.

The vast majority of Western Marxists didn't apperciate Lenin's contribution. Infact many didn't even know who Lenin was during the pre and inter war period. In Germany, which had the largest Workers' Movement in Europe, the Third International and Bolshevik sponsored KPD in its rivalry with the KAPD (non Bolshevik marxists party) and AAUD was the minority party. Italian Marxists, the "Left Wing Communists" disagreed with Lenin on many issues. Rosa Luxemburg was critical too of Lenin and the polices of the Soviet Government.


Yet not before its utilization as a supposedly "socialist" instrument.Marx - “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”


Then why hasn't anyone come to think of eliminating the DotP yet?Because it's just another word for Communism. It has no super significant meaning. Operaismo is a clear example of those type of Marxists who don't consider qualities of Communism a distinct from the Dictatorship of the Proletarian. Council Communism too and most forms of Humanist Marxism.


I too am pretty sure he said that. This is entirely inconsistent with what Marxists have done for decades, though. Some Marxists yes, some not. I can't defend those who truly betrayed the nature of Marxism.

[Lucretia]

What value is a political movement that has tons of members but isn't going anywhere?

A good question. It depends, really, on why the movement isn't going anywhere.



I'm not entirely sure what that means. To what then do you attribute the failure of many movements with shared organizing principles which occurred at different points in history and under different material conditions?

You can attribute the similar failures to one constant variable: the presence of formalized hierarchy within the revolutionary agent. Or you can attribute it to another constant factor: the fact that so-called "marxist" revolutions have only taken place in relatively undeveloped countries where the possibility for socialism (a socialism that was not primitive communism) depended upon revolution and access to material resources in the more advanced, capitalist countries.

[Widerstand]

First of all, one person doesn't shape a whole movement. Movements come out of material conditions. Revolutionaries latch onto movements. Lenin was a psuedo - marxist. Russia had yet to have a bourgeoisie revolution. Lenin used aspects of Marxism and combined them with the material conditions of Russia whose historical mission was a Bourgeois Revolution.

The vast majority of Western Marxists didn't apperciate Lenin's contribution. Infact many didn't even know who Lenin was during the pre and inter war period. In Germany, which had the largest Workers' Movement in Europe, the Third International and Bolshevik sponsored KPD in its rivalry with the KAPD (non Bolshevik marxists party) and AAUD was the minority party. Italian Marxists, the "Left Wing Communists" disagreed with Lenin on many issues. Rosa Luxemburg was critical too of Lenin and the polices of the Soviet Government.

If I am to take all of this into account it seems even more in support of my notion that the failure that was ascribed to Leninism is rather a flaw of Marxism, as I said, or maybe a confusion or misunderstanding of Marx that was and is prevalent amongst many/almost all Marxists.




Marx - “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.[SIZE=2]”

But it can wield a "new" and "different" state?

If you'd note, the passage by Holloway I quoted above speaks very badly of this concept, and Holloway is a Marxist, not an Anarchist, and you can, in Marx work, find concepts that support Holloway's view.

Though of course, what Marx said isn't Marxism, and many of it is up to interpretation. Historically, the interpretation of most Marxist movements has been that the state-machinery can indeed be wielded by the working class for it's purposes.



Because it's just another word for Communism. It has no super significant meaning.

If Communism means a classless society, how can the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (the dictatorship of a Class) be synonymous with it? How can there be a class in a classless society?



Some Marxists yes, some not. I can't defend those who truly betrayed the nature of Marxism.

You mean like ... those who constantly refuse to view the Grundrisse as a valid political work?

[Widerstand]

You can attribute the similar failures to one constant variable: the presence of formalized hierarchy within the revolutionary agent. Or you can attribute it to another constant factor: the fact that so-called "marxist" revolutions have only taken place in relatively undeveloped countries where the possibility for socialism (a socialism that was not primitive communism) depended upon revolution and access to material resources in the more advanced, capitalist countries.

I guess we will have to wait then until a revolution that lacks one of these factors occurs before we can settle this question.

[Savage]

So what does your concept of state entail? Are you of the "'state' just means that reactionaries will be repressed" type?

And how do you explain that in every instance of someone claiming to establish the DotP it has turned into a party dictatorship? Even if it really is not directly the cause, the concept of DotP certainly seems to be a ready justification for it.

And no, I don't really consider myself an Anarchist, though I generally agree with Anarchist analysis. I guess I could be described as sympathizing with operaismo.
My concept of the socialist transition stage is as follows-The means of production have been seized by the Proletariat, it (the MOP) becomes common property. All production is managed by the workers, the aim of production being the satisfaction of needs (rather than accumulation). Workers councils exist to organize collective exchange between communes of local, regional, national size (the Workers councils do not tell their respective communes what to do, they have no governing authority). There is no longer any sort of party or parliament, and the repressive mechanisms (Police force, standing army, bureaucracy, prisons system etc) of the former state have been abolished. Whilst the bourgeois class has had their privileged expropriated, their class interest remains, thus their interest is not the benefit of all but the benefit of themselves. Marx's concept of the state is ‘’the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests.’’ therefore the state still exists until the bourgeois class either accepts their position of equality or dies (no, they will not be physically exterminated). The bourgeois class will be able to protest all they want, they can spray pro-private property slogans all over their commune, but if they take up arms and attempt to insert their authority over their commune they will be disarmed and removed as they would have been originally.

[Savage]

And on your accusation of the failure of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, your criticism only applies to Leninism, not to Marxism as a whole. Your argument is against Democratic Centralism and the Vanguard party, not against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It is large mistake to assume Leninism is a representation of Marxism as a whole, this is what the right has done for 90 years.

[Paulappaul]

If Communism means a classless society, how can the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (the dictatorship of a Class) be synonymous with it? How can there be a class in a classless society?

By setting a foot the workers' as the rulers of society you destroy what makes the Capitalists a class and with it, destroy class distinctions ushering in a Classless society.


Though of course, what Marx said isn't Marxism, and many of it is up to interpretation. Historically, the interpretation of most Marxist movements has been that the state-machinery can indeed be wielded by the working class for it's purposes.

In the past the vast majority of Revolutionary Marxists did not see the Working class as capable to use the state apparatus for its own means.


If I am to take all of this into account it seems even more in support of my notion that the failure that was ascribed to Leninism is rather a flaw of Marxism, as I said, or maybe a confusion or misunderstanding of Marx that was and is prevalent amongst many/almost all Marxists.

Anyone can derive the most bizarre things for any theory. That's natural.


You mean like ... those who constantly refuse to view the Grundrisse as a valid political work?

Basically any work of Marx.

[Widerstand]

Marx's concept of the state is [FONT=&quot]‘’the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests.’’ therefore the state still exists until the bourgeois class either accepts their position of equality or dies (no, they will not be physically exterminated).

But if the "bourgeois" do not control the means of the production anymore, how exactly are they still bourgeois?

And what about the other classes, the lumpen, the bureaucrats or the peasants? What happens with them?


And on your accusation of the failure of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, your criticism only applies to Leninism, not to Marxism as a whole. Your argument is against Democratic Centralism and the Vanguard party, not against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It is large mistake to assume Leninism is a representation of Marxism as a whole, this is what the right has done for 90 years.

"Marxism as a whole", aside from Operaismo (and related tendencies, which are very small and basically confined to West Europe) and Council Communism (which is even smaller), pretty much boils down to Leninism, doesn't it? All instances of DotP certainly do.

[Widerstand]

By setting a foot the workers' as the rulers of society you destroy what makes the Capitalists a class and with it, destroy class distinctions ushering in a Classless society.

I agree that you destroy the capitalists as a class (at least as the capitalist class) if you strip them of control over the means of production, but if that were indeed enough to end class society you'd already be in communism wouldn't you? Then why hold onto the construct of a transitional phase of DotP?



In the past the vast majority of Revolutionary Marxists did not see the Working class as capable to use the state apparatus for its own means.

Yet the vast majority of (in fact all) Marxist revolutions have attempted to use it as such (a new, changed apparatus, yes, but still a state apparatus).



Anyone can derive the most bizarre things for any theory. That's natural.

And the frequency with which it is done does not maybe open up the possibility of it being inherent in the theory?



Basically any work of Marx.

I'm sure most Leninists are familiar with a great number of Marx' works.

[Palingenisis]

If all the revolutionarys never came along (lenin,mao,che) would Marxism have such an authoritarian feel?

If all the capitalists and imperialists did come along Marxism wouldnt have an authoritarian feel....Authoritarianism is an expression of weakness.

[Widerstand]

If all the capitalists and imperialists did come along Marxism wouldnt have an authoritarian feel....Authoritarianism is an expression of weakness.

Elaborate?

[Palingenisis]

Marx hated Anarchism and was involved in the Anarchists expelling from the First International, just saying.

Bakunin was a bit of a creep though, just saying ;).

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm

I found the above essay very helpful...I particularly liked this bit...

"
We can now see that when Marxists and anarchists refer to such concepts as “human nature” and “freedom”, they have diametrically opposed definitions in mind and therefore are frequently talking at cross-purposes. Bakunin’s notion of spontaneity stands starkly opposed to Marx’s notion of collective, rational action. Each author, armed with his own definition, could then logically categorize the other as a tyrant. One can understand, therefore, why Bakunin labeled Marx an “authoritarian” when Marx would not concede to Bakunin’s impulsive politics. Marx, on the other hand, viewed Bakunin’s conceptual framework as mired in an antiquated 18th century Enlightenment philosophy, lacking any historical dimension, theoretically inconsistent, and parading metaphysics as if it were materialism. As far as Marx was concerned, Hegel could easily have been speaking of Bakunin when he declared:
“Since the man of common sense makes his appeal to feeling, to an oracle within his breast, he is finished and done with anyone who does not agree; he only has to explain that he has nothing more to say to anyone who does not find and feel the same in himself. In other words, he tramples underfoot the roots of humanity. For it is in the nature of humanity to press onward to agreement with others; human nature only really exists in an achieved community of minds.”59 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm#n1)
Neither the early nor the later Marx was a figure of the late Enlightenment, a philosophic school which trumpeted the autonomy of the isolated individual, divorced from a human community. And Marx had little to say about socialist alternatives, except by suggesting broad parameters, since socialism, in the final analysis, is to be defined and created by the participants themselves, i.e. by “freely associated men” engaged in “universal intercourse” who in this way achieve “control and conscious mastery” of their lives."

[Palingenisis]

Elaborate?

If you have to be authoritarian it shows that power is under threat, I mean in real life people who are overly assertive are generally pretty insecure...thats not rocket science.

[Savage]

Whilst the bourgeois class is no longer privileged they will maintain their class interest, hence they are still the bourgeoisie. All exploited classes have the same interest, they are all the proletariat, and they will remain as the proletariat until all class interest (apart from the interests of the entire class) dies.
Most Left Communists reject Leninism (even if they are not that different from it), Operaismo and Councilism ( and don't forget DeLeonism) maybe the most hostile towards Leninism but most Left Communists are in general. The fundamental difference between the Communist Left and Leninism is their concept of the Proletarian Dictatorship, Leninists consider a vanguard party to be crucial( something you and I are both hostile towards), whereas most Left Communists see this as anti-Marx, a betrayal of the real DotP, this being workers control. If you see the practical examples of State Capitalism to be failures of Marxism then I suggest you read some left Com literature, or better yet, Marx himself.

[Widerstand]

Bakunin was a bit of a creep though, just saying ;).

Certainly, and he was a conspiratorial fucknut, but I'm amused that no one brought this up in defense of him being expelled from the International.


If you have to be authoritarian it shows that power is under threat, I mean in real life people who are overly assertive are generally pretty insecure...thats not rocket science.

I agree, but I just...like...am rather intrigued that this comes from a Stalinist.


Whilst the bourgeois class is no longer privileged they will maintain their class interest, hence they are still the bourgeoisie. All exploited classes have the same interest, they are all the proletariat, and they will remain as the proletariat until all class interest (apart from the interests of the entire class) dies.

You seem to have a idealist conception of classes, where they are constituted by their "interests", rather then by their relation to the means of production. I'm afraid I have to disagree. I think that classes are only constituted by their relation to the means of production, and that their class interests only arise from that relation.
So the bourgeois cease to be bourgeois once they are stripped off their control of the means of production, though the ex-bourgeois certainly may aspire to become bourgeois again, as long as class society continues to exist.



Most Left Communists reject Leninism (even if they are not that different from it), Operaismo and Councilism ( and don't forget DeLeonism) maybe the most hostile towards Leninism but most Left Communists are in general.

I thought Left Communism just rejects some of Lenin's politics, but not Leninism per se?

And DeLeonism I mean...really? Does that even exist?



The fundamental difference between the Communist Left and Leninism is their concept of the Proletarian Dictatorship, Leninists consider a vanguard party to be crucial( something you and I are both hostile towards), whereas most Left Communists see this as anti-Marx, a betrayal of the real DotP, this being workers control. If you see the practical examples of State Capitalism to be failures of Marxism then I suggest you read some left Com literature, or better yet, Marx himself.

Okay so here we have some small, mostly irrelevant Marxist sects (that you and I are sympathetic towards), which claim that the much bigger sects of Marxism are in fact anti-Marxist. Sorry but I don't think this works out to make any statements about Marxism really, unless we were to adopt the rather inaccurate definition that Marxism is strictly what Marx wrote (much of which is still up to how you interpret it and how selectively you read it), rather than what those who call themselves Marxists interpret it as and do.

[Savage]

The Communist Left differs quite a bit, whilst Luxemburg herself was critical but not entirely hostile towards Lenin, Luxemburgism (and the Communist Left in general) has now adopted predominately anti-Leninist stance. In regards to Deleonism, yes it is incredibly small but it does exist. Yes I believe that class interest is important even after the expropriation of privilege, i don't think this is important to argue over, doing so would be irrelevant and sectarian. I do realize that my views represent a vast minority amongst Marxists (although I am fairly well represented by the ICC), for this reason I try to be as accepting as possible towards Anarchists, I consider myself much closer to Anarchism than Leninism. If I found myself in the middle of an Anarchist revolution I would actively support and contribute towards it, although if it were successful i would quietly consider the immediate product of revolution to be socialism rather than statelessness.

[Savage]

Also I think you should look up Chomskys opinion on a topic similar to this, he maintains that Lenin did not represent the majority of Marxists at the time and actively repressed what has become known as the communist left, and that U.S. and Soviet propaganda has now warped Marxism as taught by Marx. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that a vanguard party is anti-Marx, it's not as if the man was speaking in riddles (most of the time), its pretty obvious what he meant by most things, especially the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Widerstand]

Also I think you should look up Chomskys opinion on a topic similar to this, he maintains that Lenin did not represent the majority of Marxists at the time and actively repressed what has become known as the communist left, and that U.S. and Soviet propaganda has now warped Marxism as taught by Marx. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that a vanguard party is anti-Marx, it's not as if the man was speaking in riddles (most of the time), its pretty obvious what he meant by most things, especially the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

But it certainly is so that he said things which can be contradictory, and that certain works of his lay greater focus on some things than others (for example Das Kapital and Die Grundrisse have vastly different focal points).

Also I'm yet to read anything by Marx which gives a clear account of what is and is not the DotP.

And where exactly did Chomsky say those things?

[Savage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

That's Chomsky on Lenin and the Communist Left, he elaborates slightly in the interview entitled ''Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future.''

In regards to the Proletarian Dictatorship the first quote by Marx that comes to mind is;

Bakunin:The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Marx:Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.

[Savage]

Whilst there certainly are contradictions in his work I think there are less than those proposed by opportunists who seek to twist his words to serve their own cause, and yes, you can easily accuse me of being one such opportunist but I seek no political authority whatsoever, unlike many leftists.

[Palingenisis]

The Communist Left differs quite a bit, whilst Luxemburg herself was critical but not entirely hostile towards Lenin, Luxemburgism (and the Communist Left in general) has now adopted predominately anti-Leninist stance. .

The Communist Left came along after Rosa Luxembourg's death though it took on her theory of Imperialism. It would be wrong to call her a Left Communist.

[Savage]

The Communist Left came along after Rosa Luxembourg's death though it took on her theory of Imperialism. It would be wrong to call her a Left Communist.
I actually wasn't really implying that she was, certainly she became a major influence on the communist left but luxemburgism is actually more anti-Leninist than Rosa was herself.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

Tell me where Marx openly says "I want a Socialist State".

I can't because Marxism isn't for a "Socialist State".
Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[Paulappaul]

Yet the vast majority of (in fact all) Marxist revolutions have attempted to use it as such (a new, changed apparatus, yes, but still a state apparatus).

Lenin took Marxism and applied it to the Material Conditions of Russia, which had yet to have a bourgeois revolution. The Historical goal of Russia was not Communism, since it had not had Capitalism. Lenin's Marxism, and the outcome of Bolshevik Policy and the Soviets was Capitalism with Socialism as its ideology. Lenin ideology was pseudo Bourgeois-Marxism. Because it had to fight the Czar and the church first.

Leninism is the current model of organizations for still largely backwards and peasant based economies. Vietnam, China, Nepal and Cuba. In super advanced Capitalism, Germany, France, America and Britain - it fails miserably as any sort of Revolutionary Party. At best it enters government and capitulates to reforms.

So yes all "Marxist" Revolutions have created new State apparatus'. Mainly because there material conditions force them to do so - semi feudal societies, largely peasant based populations, etc. Mainly because these "Marxist" Revolutions come forth from Leninism which has the repeated failure of recreating a State Apparatus.


Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Oh was it in Dr. Seuss edition of Gotha Programme? Give me a fucking quote and stop wasting my time. Gotha Programme is largely considered one of Marx's most libertarian of pieces.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

From Part IV:

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Zanthorus]

Marx hated Anarchism and was involved in the Anarchists expelling from the First International, just saying.

Bakunin and his followers were allowed entrance into the International on the understanding that they would break up their 'International Alliance of Social Democracy', an organisation whose principles included sections which were contrary to the principles of the IWMA. They failed to do this, and for that reason Bakunin and James Guillaume were expelled. I should emphasise the point that the people being expelled were not the entirety of the Anarchists in the IWMA but only Bakunin and Guillaume. In addition to their membership of an organisation with principles opposed to those of the International, it should be noted that there is evidence of Bakunin's attempting to take over the International himself. For example, in 1869 when it looked possible for him and his followers to take over the General Council, it was him who proposed granting greater authority to the Council. Later the Bakuninists opposed the 'authority' of the GC and advocated turning it into a purely statistical body, with the individual sections of the international being granted complete autonomy. Incidentally, note that the Bakuninists were not just opposed to 'hierarchical' authority but the 'authority' of collective decision making.

Besides, Marx did not only come into conflict with the Anarchists. He also came into conflict with the Lassalleans over what he, Bebel and Liebknecht saw as the dictatorial centralism of the ADAV. It was as a reference to the Lassalleans that he made the following remark which probably should be more famous than it is: "Here, where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him, the main thing is to teach him to walk by himself." (Marx to Schweitzer, 13th October 1868) And lest we forget Marx's comments in the Critique of the Gotha Programme on the Lassalle/Bismarck programme of socialism through state aid: "Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being". It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway!"


If trying to gain dominance and control over an organization by any means necessary so you have authority isn't authoritarian, then what is?

Except of course you have no evidence that Marx was trying to dominate the International. In fact, the evidence would seem to point the opposite way. For example, when Marx was originally offered a position of authority within the International, he rejected it on the grounds that he himself was too bourgeois and reccomended the tailor Johann George Ecarius. Engels similarly rejected a position managing the finances of the International because of his social position. We also have to wonder, if Marx was really trying to personally dominate the International, why he focused in particular on the Bakuninists, instead of taking aim at say, the English trade-unionists.


for example Das Kapital and Die Grundrisse have vastly different focal points

Perhaps I missed something but both works focus on the critique of political economy. Indeed, the Grundrisse contains the preparatory work he did before beggining the writing of Das Kapital. I would be interested where you see the works as having 'vastly different focal points'.

[Widerstand]

Lenin took Marxism and applied it to the Material Conditions of Russia, which had yet to have a bourgeois revolution. The Historical goal of Russia was not Communism, since it had not had Capitalism. Lenin's Marxism, and the outcome of Bolshevik Policy and the Soviets was Capitalism with Socialism as its ideology. Lenin ideology was pseudo Bourgeois-Marxism. Because it had to fight the Czar and the church first.

Leninism is the current model of organizations for still largely backwards and peasant based economies. Vietnam, China, Nepal and Cuba. In super advanced Capitalism, Germany, France, America and Britain - it fails miserably as any sort of Revolutionary Party. At best it enters government and capitulates to reforms.

So yes all "Marxist" Revolutions have created new State apparatus'. Mainly because there material conditions force them to do so - semi feudal societies, largely peasant based populations, etc. Mainly because these "Marxist" Revolutions come forth from Leninism which has the repeated failure of recreating a State Apparatus.

Yet this assumes that Leninism is fundamentally different from Marxism, something yet to be proven.

Your point about feudalism may well stand, but I fail to see how a lack of economic resources leads to a party dictatorship, although I can well see how it leads to capitalism.



Perhaps I missed something but both works focus on the critique of political economy. Indeed, the Grundrisse contains the preparatory work he did before beggining the writing of Das Kapital. I would be interested where you see the works as having 'vastly different focal points'.

Antonio Negri in Marx Beyond Marx - Lessons on Die Grundrisse:



We could pause at this point to begin to measure the exceptional importance of the Grundrisse. But this importance is also underlined by the fact that in the Grundrisse we can read the outline of Marx's future development of his work, the outline of Capital. We will borrow here from Rosdolsky the list of outlines foreseen by Marx and the sketch of the most important modifications that occurred between the outline in the Grundrisse (which Rosdolsky calls "the original structure") and that of Capital (or the "modified structure") (see Table 1).

But is this philological approach correct? I have some doubts. But for the moment I will leave it at that; we will see, as we proceed with this research, whether these doubts will lead to something positive. Let us simply say at this point that one doubt is of a philological order: I ask myself if it is correct to consider the completed work of Marx, Capital, as the book which exhaustively recapitulates all of Marx's research. The genesis of Capital, which our very illustrious and knowledgeable camrades tell us about, according to me, invalidated by the fact that it supposes that Capital constitutes the most developed point in Marx's analysis. To see that they believe this, we have only to look, for example, at the explanation given by Rosdolsky (pp. 61--62) for Marx's "renouncing" of a specific volume on wage labor. Certainly this book, which is announced in the Grundrisse, does not exist, and part of the material put together for this chapter was finally incorporated in Volume I of Capital. But is this sufficient evidence for concluding that Marx "renounced" it? If to this philological doubt we add other, more substantial doubts, the question becomes even more problematical. The wage, such as it appears in the first volume of Capital, is on the one side a dimension of capital, on the other side it plays the role of motor in the production-reproduction of capitaL The pages on the struggle over the reduction of the working day are fundamental for this question, and from three points of view: the dialectic between necessary labor and surplus labor, the reformist function of the wage, the role of the state in the regulation of the working day. These three perspectives, as we find them in the Grundrisse, determine later on a concept of the wage in which antagonism rebounds on the concept of working class-which, in the Grundrisse, is always a concept of crisis and of catastrophe for capital, leaving aside the way in which it is also a very powerful allusion to communism. This specific volume on the wage, which is formally foreseen in the outline of the Grundrisse, this concept of the wage which in the Grundrisse is closely linked to that of the working class and to that of revolutionary subjectivity, can we really find these links in the first volume of Capital? We must respond to this question. Let us say right off that the usual path followed by the mOst famous interpreters does not seem to us to be the right one. Could it nOt be, as in the preparatory outlines, that Capital is only one part, and a non-fundamental part at that, in the totality of the Marxian thematic? A part which has been overevaluated because it is the only one fully developed, and for less noble reasons, one that can, because of its partial nature, be limited and be led back within a field of interpretations fundamentally inadequate to the spirit of the total work of Marx?

Kautsky, who had in his possession all of Marx's manuscripts, published (with vulgar errors) Einleitung in 1903 (Neue Zeit, XXI, 1) but did not publish the rest of the Grundrisse. Was this an accident? Maybe. The vicissitudes of the revolutionary movement rather prove the contrary. The fact is that the Grundrisse is not a text that can be used only for studying philologically the constitution of Capital; it is also a political text that conjugates an appreciation of the revolutionary possibilities created by the "imminent crisis" together with the theoretical will to adequately synthesize the communist actions of the working class faced with this crisis; the Grundrisse is the theory of the dynamics of this relationship. Reading the Grundrisse forces us to recognize not so much their homogeneity as their differences from other Marxian texts, particularly Capital. Inversely, Capital is quite seriously perhaps only one part of Marx's analysis. More or less important. In any case its effectiveness is often limited and transformed by its categorial presentation. Our Italian comrades recognized that "the ensorcelling of the method" in Capital is weak, and concluded that this "blocked research." The objectification of categories in Capital blocks action by revolutionary subjectivity. Is it not the case--and we will see this shortly-that the Grundrisse is a text dedicated to revolutionary subjectivity? Does it not reconstruct what the Marxist tradition has too often torn apart, that is to say the unity of the constitution and the strategic project of working class subjectivity? Does it not present Marx as a whole, where other texts cut him apart and give unilateral definitions?

- Marx Beyond Marx, Chapter I, pg. 4-8


(3)
As Cristina Pennavaja (in her presentation of Vygodskij) has underlined, the analysis is conducted at a level where antagonism is such that we can in no case consider the theory of value as a closed theory, nOr can we base upon it any theory of reproduction and circulation in equilibrium. "In the Grundrisse, Marxism is an anti-economic theory, criticism does not lead back to political economy, but, on the contrary, science is an antagonistic movement." All of so-called socialist economics is put into question by this understanding of the law of value. Marxism has nothing in common with a socialist economy, be it utopian or already realized.

(4)
The "system," a dynamic and open system, is completely dominated by the question of the relation between the crisis and the emergence of revolutionary subjectivity. This relationship is so fundamental that Marxism could well be entitled the science of the crisis and of subversion. To want to consider the crisis as a sickness to treat and to cure is not only to betray the revolutionary movement, it is also to fall into a banter that has nothing in common with Marxian categories. To want to reduce subjectivity to exploitation is to avoid the definition of subjectivity in Marx which is presented as subversion and transition. The Grundrisse are, from this point of view, perhaps the most important--even if not the only-Marxian texts on the transition. Let us take note how strange it is that none of the thousands of commentaries on the transition takes account of this.

(5)
The Marxist definition of communism that we find in the Grundrisse takes an extremely radical form, which goes far beyond the features that normally characterize it. Notably, the articulation communism-class composition plays a fundamental role . We have nete a conception of power that has nothing in common with those traditional political science, Marxism included. Class composition-power, class cornposition-transition, the articulation of these relations are based on the materiality of the behaviors, the needs, and the structure of self-valorization. The theme of power in Marxism must be subjected to the fire of critique; we can only give it a new base by exploring these kinds of articulations. This is a problem that today we can no longer underestimate.

- Marx Beyond Marx, Chapter I, pg. 10f.

[Paulappaul]

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

I read this like 4 times and still haven't found the place where Marx says " I want a Socialist state" - so yeah, shut the fuck up.


Yet this assumes that Leninism is fundamentally different from Marxism, something yet to be proven.

To a great extent its described by Anton Pannekoek a leading theoretical in Social Democratic and Marxist schools in "Lenin as a Philosopher".

I can just say that the Material Conditions of Russia necessitated a different sort of analysis and tactics then that of Marxism.


Your point about feudalism may well stand, but I fail to see how a lack of economic resources leads to a party dictatorship, although I can well see how it leads to capitalism.

The "Party" form is an expression of bourgeois politics. The dictatorship of a party corresponds completely with Parliamentary style. Did that answer your question?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Maybe other (less-authoritarian?) Marxists would of gained more prominence (DeLeonists, Left Communists, etc.) but who knows. It's just one of those stupid "What if..." questions that people dwell on too much.

Marx himself had a very authoritative personality (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshole).

Regardless, he dedicated his life to putting down inequality and authoritarianism.

[Widerstand]

I read this like 4 times and still haven't found the place where Marx says " I want a Socialist state" - so yeah, shut the fuck up.


Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

If, during the transitional period the state "can be nothing but", that of course necessitates that there is a state. So yes, Marx in this passage definitely talks about a transitional state. And yes, Marx also says that this state is the DotP.



To a great extent its described by Anton Pannekoek a leading theoretical in Social Democratic and Marxist schools in "Lenin as a Philosopher".

Ah, care to elaborate what additions were made by Lenin exactly that change the nature of Marxism so that it produces the outcomes discussed?



I can just say that the Material Conditions of Russia necessitated a different sort of analysis and tactics then that of Marxism.

What then, are the tactics of Marxism, exactly? Surely if we could easily and without question identify such a thing as tactics in Marx' writings, there wouldn't be so much quarrel about it up until today.


The "Party" form is an expression of bourgeois politics. The dictatorship of a party corresponds completely with Parliamentary style. Did that answer your question?

Very unsatisfyingly. It does explain why a party, as a bourgeois political form, may be a revolutionary force or even a necessity under feudalism, yes. But it does not explain why Marx himself talked about and supported a party (for example in the Manifesto of the Communist Party), especially since he does barely, if at all, in his works assume a Communist revolution taking place in a (semi-)feudal society.

[StalinFanboy]

Anarchists have since Marxism came into existence called it Authoritarian, and I'd think Marx' role in the expelling of Bakunin and other Anarchists from the First International could constitute an Authoritarian act, no? To be fair, revolution itself could be considered an authoritarian act. And Bakunin wasn't exactly a saint in the whole Marx-Bakunin feud.

[Widerstand]

To be fair, revolution itself could be considered an authoritarian act. And Bakunin wasn't exactly a saint in the whole Marx-Bakunin feud.

No obviously Bakunin wasn't and it's perfectly justified of the First International to expel an organisation in violation with its principles, but the question is whether or not this was actually a scapegoat for repressing Anarchists or not.

[Savage]

I think we should get over the whole Bakunin thing, saying Fuck Off to the crazy guy in the corner going on about the Jews poisoning everyone's food and whatnot isn't authoritarian (or even political at all), nor is it relevant.

[Paulappaul]

If, during the transitional period the state "can be nothing but", that of course necessitates that there is a state. So yes, Marx in this passage definitely talks about a transitional state. And yes, Marx also says that this state is the DotP.

Once again, I said find me a quote where Marx says "I want a Socialist State" - The Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a Socialist State. It's the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat. By assuming state power it's recognized that this tears down the State and in turn a new workers' government is set up.


Ah, care to elaborate what additions were made by Lenin exactly that change the nature of Marxism so that it produces the outcomes discussed?

Militarized, Centrally formulated Party. The need to seize State Power and use it for a transitional period wherein the Economy is controlled by a State apparatus. The use of Middle Class Materialism, etc.


What then, are the tactics of Marxism, exactly? Surely if we could easily and without question identify such a thing as tactics in Marx' writings, there wouldn't be so much quarrel about it up until today.

We actually can " The Emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself" but was constitutes and organises class is the question. Your Fallacy here is that you recognize Marxism as the the writings of Marx. It's more then that.


Very unsatisfyingly. It does explain why a party, as a bourgeois political form, may be a revolutionary force or even a necessity under feudalism, yes.

It doesn't, it merely says that Parties arose with the Rise of Capitalism, they are mutually bound to it. In Russia, Parties arose with the Rise of Capitalism, which came into full flourishing under the Soviet Union.


But it does not explain why Marx himself talked about and supported a party (for example in the Manifesto of the Communist Party), especially since he does barely, if at all, in his works assume a Communist revolution taking place in a (semi-)feudal society.

Marx never assumed that a revolution would happen in Feudal society, quite the contrary he presumed it would happen in highly advanced Capitalist Society. Marx supported a party out of his Material Conditions in that a Proletarian Revolution was not destined to happen in his life time because Capitalism had not fully been established.

[scarletghoul]

If all the revolutionarys never came along (lenin,mao,che) would Marxism have such an authoritarian feel?
Short answer is no. Authoritarianism is born of practical necessity. If there were no revolutionaries there would be no need to adjust socialist theory to deal with reactionary forces, and therefore no need for authoritarianism.

But if you want any practical success in revolution you will need to adopt some kind of authoritarianism. As Engels said, a revolution is the most authoritarian act. Needless to say authoritarian actions taken against the oppressors will be dressed up and sold to us by the bourgeois propaganda machine as signs of the universal evil that revolutionary socialism represents..

[Zanthorus]

Antonio Negri in Marx Beyond Marx - Lessons on Die Grundrisse:

- Marx Beyond Marx, Chapter I, pg. 4-8

- Marx Beyond Marx, Chapter I, pg. 10f.

Unfortunately, like a certain one of my ideological influences, I have something of a disdain for the 'modernisers' of Marxism. You happen to have quoted a fairly notorious one. Negri is correct to note that Marx's completed critique of political economy remained unfinished. In fact, he seems to have underestimated the scale of the problem. Aside from the book on Wage-Labour, Marx was also planning to write four other books - on landed property, the state, foreign trade and the world-market. This still doesn't justify your claim that the two works have 'vastly different focal points' though. It means that Capital is a part of a whole, a still incomplete whole. Still less does it justify your assertion that there is any direct contradiction between the Grundrisse and Capital.


To a great extent its described by Anton Pannekoek a leading theoretical in Social Democratic and Marxist schools in "Lenin as a Philosopher".

Lenin as a Philosopher is probably one of the worst critiques of Lenin's thought from a Marxist perspective. He correctly criticises Lenin for holding to a pre-Marx form of mechanistic 'contemplative' materialism, and then goes and uses a rigidly economical determinist logic to show how this supposedly means that Lenin was really a bourgeois revolutionary. The ICC has published a four part critique of Pannekoek's work by Internationalisme on it's site, which I think really gets to the nub of the matter. From the introduction:


To try to derive the nature of a historical event as important as the October revolution, or the role of the Bolshevik party, from a philosophical polemic -- however important it may have been -- is a long way of establishing the proof of what one is saying. Neither Lenin's philosophical errors in 1908, nor the ultimate triumph of the Stalinist counter-revolution, prove that the October revolution was not made by the proletariat but by a third class -- the intelligentsia (?). By artificially grafting false political conclusions onto correct theoretical premises, by establishing a crude link between causes and effects, Pannekoek slipped into the same un-Marxist methods which he rightly criticizes in Lenin.http://en.internationalism.org/node/3102


The "Party" form is an expression of bourgeois politics.

Yes, I suppose the Chartists or the Knights of Labour were in fact bourgeois organisations where they? Indeed, according to your reasoning the KAPD was also an expression of bourgeois politics.


If, during the transitional period the state "can be nothing but", that of course necessitates that there is a state. So yes, Marx in this passage definitely talks about a transitional state. And yes, Marx also says that this state is the DotP.

Yes, but the original point was as to wether or not Marx advocated a socialist state. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a socialist state, it exists under capitalism. That is the point, the proletariat organised as the ruling-class revolutionises the mode of production, and once this is completed there is no state. To say that a state continues to exist where class antagonisms have ceased is nonsense in the terms of Marxist theory.


Militarized, Centrally formulated Party.

That would the er 'Militarized, Centrally formulated Party' which arose during the Russian Civil War in response to the decimation of the Russian proletariat and the need to organise life in the RSFSR towards the end-goal of winning the war against the military dictatorships of Kolchak and Denikin would it?

Of course here we have the great irony of our 'Anti-Leninists' - they claim to be restoring Marxism to it's pristine pure pre-Lenin state, only to do so they forego anything like a Marxist analysis. Everything is blamed on Lenin and the apparent mistakes he made, and the character of the Russian revolution is derived, not from an analysis of the historical material, but from the fact that a couple of Lenin's speeches or resolutions during the time contain things which give a scare to our 'Anti-Leninists'. I don't agree with Lenin on many things. I don't agree with the idea of the 'Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry', I disagree with his peculiar form of materialism, I disagree with his post-Civil War emphasis on 'discipline' and dictatorial centralism. Above all I disagree with the conception of socialism as merely state-monopoly capitalism turned towards the interests of 'the people'. None of these disagreements have anything to do however with the class character of the Russian revolution or how this class composition ended up in Stalinism and the dictatorship of the party.


We actually can " The Emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself" but was constitutes and organises class is the question. Your Fallacy here is that you recognize Marxism as the the writings of Marx. It's more then that.

No, Marx has a fair bit to say about what will best organise the class. And he does advocate a party, not just because of 'material conditions', but to organise the proletariat as a class in opposition to all other classes. Read the resolutions on working-class political parties of the First International. He does not view the party as a bourgeois political form, you are imputing the dogmas of councillism back onto Marx. He took the experience of things like the Chartist movement in Britain and saw that a political party based on individual membership could be a vehicle for the self-organisation of the working-class as a class and it's self-emancipation.

[Widerstand]

Unfortunately, like a certain one of my ideological influences, I have something of a disdain for the 'modernisers' of Marxism. You happen to have quoted a fairly notorious one. Negri is correct to note that Marx's completed critique of political economy remained unfinished. In fact, he seems to have underestimated the scale of the problem. Aside from the book on Wage-Labour, Marx was also planning to write four other books - on landed property, the state, foreign trade and the world-market. This still doesn't justify your claim that the two works have 'vastly different focal points' though. It means that Capital is a part of a whole, a still incomplete whole. Still less does it justify your assertion that there is any direct contradiction between the Grundrisse and Capital.

It's not so much about him "modernizing" really - although I fail to see what is necessarily bad about modernizing an 150 year old theory -, as it is about him not rejecting the content of Die Grundrisse unlike almost all other Marxist schools of thought - usually under the premise that it were nothing but drafts for Das Kapital, which as demonstrated isn't true, because it covers far more than Das Kapital, and not even scarcely so (the published version of Grundrisse is, after all, around 900 pages long).

Also where have I said there is a direct contradiction? I'd very much doubt there is, but I don't doubt that it is entirely possible to read and interpret the content of Kapital in a way that is contrary to what is suggested in Grundrisse.



Yes, but the original point was as to wether or not Marx advocated a socialist state.

Then, according to you, who started advocating it?



The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a socialist state, it exists under capitalism.

... what?

Let me reiterate what you're saying here:

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is in fact the winning of power over the capitalist state, and then uses state power to reach socialism? How does this differ from reformism at all?


That is the point, the proletariat organised as the ruling-class revolutionises the mode of production, and once this is completed there is no state. To say that a state continues to exist where class antagonisms have ceased is nonsense in the terms of Marxist theory.

Or maybe it's nonsense to assume that the mode of production could be revolutionized while the state continues to exist?

[Zanthorus]

I fail to see what is necessarily bad about modernizing an 150 year old theory

The theory that the world is made of Atoms dates back to around the third century BC and was put forward by the Greek thinker Democritus. The theory that current life on earth dates back even earlier and primitive forms of it were among some of the first products of systematic intellectual inquiry. Or to hit somewhere closer to home, the idea that man is somehow alienated from his own essential self dates back to Jewish mythology. A theories age has no bearing on it's truth value, unless we assume that scientific inquiry is constantly moving closer to the truth, but that assumption is false.


It's not so much about him "modernizing" really... as it is about him not rejecting the content of Die Grundrisse unlike almost all other Marxist schools of thought - usually under the premise that it were nothing but drafts for Das Kapital, which as demonstrated isn't true, because it covers far more than Das Kapital, and not even scarcely so (the published version of Grundrisse is, after all, around 900 pages long).

The whole 'multitude' theory is definitely 'modernising'. I would also like to see where anyone has 'rejected' the content of the Grundrisse.


Also where have I said there is a direct contradiction?

Apologies, I misread you.


Then, according to you, who started advocating it?

This is not at all relevant to the point under discussion. The point under discussion is Marx's theory of the state and whether it warrants the idea that a 'socialist state' could ever exist. I claim it does not, since the existence of socialism in Marx's sense necessarily excludes the existence of the state in Marx's sense.


The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is in fact the winning of power over the capitalist state,

I'm not sure what is meant by 'capitalist state' here. If it means winning power over a state which guides the capitalist social system, then of course ths is what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means. However you seem to take it to mean that instead of the working-class wielding political power, some socialist party will take hold of the existing state machinery and use it to bring about communism, which is not the case. What 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means is that the working-class excercises political control over society. It is that mind-numbingly simple.


and then uses state power to reach socialism? How does this differ from reformism at all?

Because state power in this context refers to the working-class organised as the ruling-class, and because this state power is being used to revolutionise the whole mode of production


Or maybe it's nonsense to assume that the mode of production could be revolutionized while the state continues to exist?

I don't see what would justify this proposition, unless we assert that practically all revolutions in history were not actually revolutions, since so far no succesful revolution has eliminated the state apparatus.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

I read this like 4 times and still haven't found the place where Marx says " I want a Socialist state" - so yeah, shut the fuck up.
I have shown that Marx advocated what Lenin and Stalin would have called a socialist state. Whether or not it´s socialism according to your definition of the word is irrelevant.

[ZeroNowhere]

I have shown that Marx advocated what Lenin and Stalin would have called a socialist state.
Marx wasn't referring to the initial phase of communism, though.

As for Stalin:


Future society will be socialist society. This means primarily, that there will be no classes in that society; there will be neither capitalists nor proletarians and, consequently, there will be no exploitation. In that society there will be only workers engaged in collective labour.

[...]

Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.


The socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, capture of power by the proletariat—this is what the socialist revolution must start with.

This means that until the bourgeoisie is completely vanquished, until its wealth has been confiscated, the proletariat must without fail possess a military force, it must without fail have its "proletarian guard," with the aid of which it will repel the counter-revolutionary attacks of the dying bourgeoisie, exactly as the Paris proletariat did during the Commune.

The socialist dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to enable the proletariat to expropriate the bourgeoisie, to enable it to confiscate the land, forests, factories and mills, machines, railways, etc., from the entire bourgeoisie.

The expropriation of the bourgeoisie—this is what the socialist revolution must lead to.

This, then, is the principal and decisive means by which the proletariat will overthrow the present capitalist system.

That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1847 :

". . . The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class. . . . The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands . . . of the proletariat organised as the ruling class . . ." (see the Communist Manifesto).

That is how the proletariat must proceed if it wants to bring about socialism.

[...]

Thus, to bring about socialism, the socialist revolution is needed, and the socialist revolution must begin with the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the proletariat must capture political power as a means with which to expropriate the bourgeoisie.

[Widerstand]

A theories age has no bearing on it's truth value, unless we assume that scientific inquiry is constantly moving closer to the truth, but that assumption is false.

A theory on society can only be ageless if we assume that society doesn't change. Even if we leave aside that painfully obvious fact, you treat it as if Marx was impossible to have erred, in fact you treat his word as scripture by putting it on a pedestal beyond critique.

I'll not even get back to your examples, because they are concerned with such simplified forms that you could well as well say the idea of Anarchism/Communism predates Marx and Proudhon by years was in fact invented by Rousseau (or even earlier) and claim it be true.



The whole 'multitude' theory is definitely 'modernising'.

Fair enough.



I would also like to see where anyone has 'rejected' the content of the Grundrisse.

Pretty much every non-operaist Marxist theoretician that didn't flatout ignore them (and that's the vast majority) has treated them as historical curiosity rather than actual content.



This is not at all relevant to the point under discussion. The point under discussion is Marx's theory of the state and whether it warrants the idea that a 'socialist state' could ever exist. I claim it does not, since the existence of socialism in Marx's sense necessarily excludes the existence of the state in Marx's sense.

Actually a few moments ago the point of discussion was whether or not states in the manner of the USSR, China, etc. could be justified by Marxist thought, and if anything is irrelevant here, it appears to be whether or not such a state would be called "socialist" by Marx.



What 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means is that the working-class excercises political control over society. It is that mind-numbingly simple. I'm not sure what is meant by 'capitalist state' here. If it means winning power over a state which guides the capitalist social system, then of course ths is what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means. However you seem to take it to mean that instead of the working-class wielding political power, some socialist party will take hold of the existing state machinery and use it to bring about communism, which is not the case.

I know of no state existing today which was organized in a manner that the working class as a whole could exercise political power through it, but in fact I'm not even sure if that's even relevant to whether or not the concept you describe is being reformist.

Reformism means the belief that society's economic, political and social can be radically changed through reform (" A change for the better; an improvement."), which seems to be exactly what is suggested when you say that "the proletariat" uses the state to introduce communism. How is this different from "the social democrat party" or "the Leninist vanguard" using the state to introduce communism?



Because state power in this context refers to the working-class organised as the ruling-class, and because this state power is being used to revolutionise the whole mode of production

How can the state be used to destroy a mode of production (capitalism) of which it is an inseparable part? As long as the state exists so does class society, and it is yet to be proven how state power can be used to destroy itself. Wasn't it the exact opposite in the USSR? Rather of the state being gradually reduced as certain keep claiming it will, wasn't it rather being steadily expanded, with the state being much bigger and more powerful under Stalin than under Lenin, and even moreso after Stalin (until, finally, capitalism reclaimed what was formerly his)?


I don't see what would justify this proposition, unless we assert that practically all revolutions in history were not actually revolutions, since so far no succesful revolution has eliminated the state apparatus.

Well I would say that any "revolution" leading to a new group having political power, but leaving the state in tact, isn't really a revolution but rather a coup.

[Paulappaul]

Lenin as a Philosopher is probably one of the worst critiques of Lenin's thought from a Marxist perspective. He correctly criticises Lenin for holding to a pre-Marx form of mechanistic 'contemplative' materialism, and then goes and uses a rigidly economical determinist logic to show how this supposedly means that Lenin was really a bourgeois revolutionary.I don't really sees how this is true, but I am guessing your opinion comes from the ICC, so I will have to check it out. 4 Parts and being that it's ICC, it'll take me a while to formulate my thoughts on the review.

I can review this however,


To try to derive the nature of a historical event as important as the October revolution, or the role of the Bolshevik party, from a philosophical polemicLenin is the forefront of the Bolshevik Party. His ideology, his leadership, has much to do with the internal nature of the party. The october revolution was in large part by the Bolshevik Party under Lenin. His philosophical views for which his understanding of the movement is founded on is of grave importance to the historical event.


Yes, I suppose the Chartists or the Knights of Labour were in fact bourgeois organisations where they? Indeed, according to your reasoning the KAPD was also an expression of bourgeois politics.

Yeah I would in large party consider the KAPD a party. Possibly in Ruhle's conception of it.


No, Marx has a fair bit to say about what will best organise the class. And he does advocate a party, not just because of 'material conditions', but to organise the proletariat as a class in opposition to all other classes. Read the resolutions on working-class political parties of the First International. He does not view the party as a bourgeois political form, you are imputing the dogmas of councillism back onto Marx. He took the experience of things like the Chartist movement in Britain and saw that a political party based on individual membership could be a vehicle for the self-organisation of the working-class as a class and it's self-emancipation.

I was in the original context referring to the Manifesto of the Communist Party and particulary the 10 point program. Marx did support a party, no doubt about it. From his perspective I would too. I would even willingly jump in line with the Second International Politics, if I didn't know the historical tendency of Parties, Reformism, etc. In acknowledging Marxism from a more philosophical perspective I think modern conditions, modern lessons, no longer necessitate the organization of class alongside a party.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If you want to see "Marxism Twisted," talk to your nearest Marxist.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
It´s definietly not capitalism, in any case.

[Widerstand]

It´s definietly not capitalism, in any case.

And neither is it communism! The question now is of course, is it socialism?

[Zanthorus]

A theory on society can only be ageless if we assume that society doesn't change.

This would be true if the theory of society in question was about a part of society that has changed. But Marx's theory is not just about any old thing in society in general, but one aspect of society in particular - the capitalist mode of production. More specifically, it is about how capital produces and reproduces itself on the basis of a society of commodity producers. We may be wearing much newer and more comfortable clothes than our ancestors, using technology that may never have dreamed of, but some things never change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_2008–2009).


Even if we leave aside that painfully obvious fact, you treat it as if Marx was impossible to have erred, in fact you treat his word as scripture by putting it on a pedestal beyond critique.

I don't put Marx on a pedestal beyond critique. I do however put Marx on a pedestal where you can only critique his ideas if you have a decent reason to do so. So far, no-one's given us any reason why Marx needs 'updating' besides the fact that he's 'old', and apparently everyone knows that 'old' theories must be wrong.


I'll not even get back to your examples, because they are concerned with such simplified forms that you could well as well say the idea of Anarchism/Communism predates Marx and Proudhon by years was in fact invented by Rousseau (or even earlier) and claim it be true.

lol, the idea of Communism actually does predate Marx by hundreds of years. The first person to advocate communism in a form that would be recognisable to us would probably be Gracchus Babeuf, whose conspiracy of the equals occured during the French revolution.


Pretty much every non-operaist Marxist theoretician that didn't flatout ignore them (and that's the vast majority) has treated them as historical curiosity rather than actual content.

I think this is at the very best stretching it. For example, the Monthly Review writer John Bellamy Foster, whose politics are certainly far from Operaism, used various comments from the Gundrisse in his book Marx's Ecology when discussing Marx's notion of the metabolic interaction between man and nature. The Left-Communist Loren Goldner certainly takes the Grundrisse seriously as a work and not as a 'historical curiosity'. These are only the first two examples of the top of my head. Their are studies of the Grundrisse by various Marx scholars, and it is certainly a key point in the arguments that there is no significant 'epistemological break' between the 'young' and 'old' Marx.


Reformism means the belief that society's economic, political and social can be radically changed through reform (" A change for the better; an improvement."), which seems to be exactly what is suggested when you say that "the proletariat" uses the state to introduce communism.

Well, if you're using that wide definition of reform as a change for the better, then we're all 'reformists'. Usually a 'reformist' is someone who wants to leave capitalism intact but add some nice shiny new features like free healthcare, a better welfare a system and so on, not someone who advocates a complete overhaul of existing society. I have in fact previously been called a 'reformist' by the user robbo203 for advocating the dictatorship of the proletariat, an especially ironic claim considering that that particular user believes that commodity production begins to be abolished by the existence of the socialist movement engaging in all kinds of utopian experiments prior to even posing the question of state-power, and moreover that for the final destruction of capitalism the working-class will capture state power in a peaceful and democratic fashion without any resistance from the executive bureaucracy. And if a 'reformist' is merely someone who isn't dazzled by pseudo-revolutionary phrases which would appear to be the case with you and robbo, then please, just call me Eduard Bernstein.


How is this different from "the social democrat party" or "the Leninist vanguard" using the state to introduce communism?

lol, how is the working-class introducing communism different from a substitionist party introducting it, you'll have to give me a couple of minutes on that one, it appears my poor reformist Marxist brain is no match for the relentless logic of our 'Anarchists'...


Well I would say that any "revolution" leading to a new group having political power, but leaving the state in tact, isn't really a revolution but rather a coup.

Then every revolution throughout the entire history of the human race has in fact been a coup. This is clearly not the case.

[Savage]

Above all I disagree with the conception of socialism as merely state-monopoly capitalism turned towards the interests of 'the people'.

I know that this is definitely true of Lenin's followers but I was under the impression that Lenin believed the Soviet Union in his time was not yet socialist but certainly on the right path, If this is completely wrong I apologize for my ignorance.

[Zanthorus]

I know that this is definitely true of Lenin's followers but I was under the impression that Lenin believed the Soviet Union in his time was not yet socialist but certainly on the right path, If this is completely wrong I apologize for my ignorance.

Lenin's definitions are vague and inconsistent throughout his work. In some places he refers to socialism as the abolition of commodity production, as synonymous with the lower phase of communism. In his article on "'Left-Wing' Childishness" he refers to it as state-monopoly capitalism turned to the interests of the people. It is true, however, that Lenin did not believe that the Soviet Union during his lifetime had achieved socialism, and even later on polemically referred to the Soviet state apparatus as being the Tsarist state apparatus with a socialist label slapped on. Lenin's later comments on the nature of the Soviet Union are actually particularly interesting, because they could reveal a lasting difference of perspective between him and Trotsky. In Lenin's 'revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry scheme', the Russian revolution would be a democratic ('Anti-feudal') revolution unless aided by the conflagration in Europe, for Trotsky, the revolution would immediately pose the tasks of the Socialist revolution. This difference in perspective was exploited by Bordiga in his theory of state-capitalism to show that the Russian revolution had been initially an anti-feudal revolution carried out by the proletariat and the socialist tasks had never been posed. Have you read Loren Goldner's article on this?

[Savage]

No I haven't, what's It called? I find it strange that Leninists disagree with Lenin on an event as important as the Russian Revolution.

[Android]

No I haven't, what's It called? I find it strange that Leninists disagree with Lenin on an event as important as the Russian Revolution.

This is the text (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/bordiga.html) (I'm pretty sure!) Zanthorus' is referring to.

[Zanthorus]

^
That's the one.


No I haven't, what's It called? I find it strange that Leninists disagree with Lenin on an event as important as the Russian Revolution.

Actually, I believe the official Stalinist line is that the RSFSR/USSR was state-capitalism under the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry until 1928 when it became socialist. This at least was what prompted Trotsky to write his book on The Permanent Revolution, so it would appear to have been the line at the time. As for the Trotskyists, well they're Trotskyists. Although I actually think there are some problems with taking Lenin's side over Trotsky's in this particular debate - the Russian revolution clearly went much further than anticipated by Lenin in his articles on the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship. Goldner's view is still very interesting however.

[Paulappaul]

So far, no-one's given us any reason why Marx needs 'updating' besides the fact that he's 'old', and apparently everyone knows that 'old' theories must be wrong.

Because hovering in the shadow of the past, for the conditions today is generally just bad. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I think Marx himself excellently illustrates this in the first chapter of 1869 German edition of 18th Brumaire. "The Tradition of all the dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the brain of the living"

[DuracellBunny97]

Marx's ideas seek the same ultimate goal as most anarchists, but have different means of getting there. But I don't seriously think he hated anarchists, Marx even wrote a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon which can be red at marxists.com. Mikhail Bukanin offered a valid criticism of Marxian theory:

"anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved"

[Savage]

^



Actually, I believe the official Stalinist line is that the RSFSR/USSR was state-capitalism under the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry until 1928 when it became socialist.
Oh really, usually I hear Stalinists/Stalinist sympathizers calling it a socialist state from the beginning, or from the NEP onwards, although they're probably just unaware of their own tendencies opinions. They also imply that the dictatorship of the proletariat itself is socialism rather than the force that dismantles capitalism and leads to socialism.

[Pretty Flaco]

How can increased inequality be part of a transition towards an egalitarian society?
How can liberation come through oppression?

When has "dictatorship of the proletariat" ever been anything but "dictatorship of the party", except for a very small period in Russia when the soviets still had power?

To my understanding, the "dictatorship" is best understood as being more in meaning to "dictation". At that time period, nations which used capitalism were referred to by the socialists as "dictatorships of the bourgeoisie". So when he wrote that, he meant that the point was for the proletariat to institute a governing body which would largely work for objectives that would increase proletarian power in government and eventually lead to the dissipation of class disparity and finally the achievement of communism.

Sorry if someone else answered that... I didn't want to read the rest of the pages.

[Savage]

To my understanding, the "dictatorship" is best understood as being more in meaning to "dictation". At that time period, nations which used capitalism were referred to by the socialists as "dictatorships of the bourgeoisie". So when he wrote that, he meant that the point was for the proletariat to institute a governing body which would largely work for objectives that would increase proletarian power in government and eventually lead to the dissipation of class disparity and finally the achievement of communism.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply the workers control over the means of production.

[Paulappaul]

^ Not to mention the Proletariat's control over distribution and government.

[Zanthorus]

Actually a few moments ago the point of discussion was whether or not states in the manner of the USSR, China, etc. could be justified by Marxist thought, and if anything is irrelevant here, it appears to be whether or not such a state would be called "socialist" by Marx.

For the answer to this, we can turn to Marx's theory of alienation. To recap, under capitalism all labour is private labour, labour for the account of private entities, but also social labour, labour which produces social use-values. Private labour becomes it's opposite, immediately social labour, through the medium of value. A commodity cannot express it's value apart from through bringing itself into relation with another commodity in some way, and the particular way it does this is the form of value. Under capitalism then, the social character of human labour no longer appears as an act of the producers themselves, but instead this social character is expressed as an act of the commodities themselves. In his 1844 Comments on James Mill, Marx notes the prescience of Mill's definition of money as the 'medium of exchange'. The character of money is precisely to act as a mediating instrument that affirms the social character of labour within a society where the producers are divided against each other as private property owners, the social powers of man become alienated to money. The general characteristic of commodity production is to turn the social relations between men into social relations between things and material relations between the producers, for mans social powers to become something alien to him. This is expressed most clearly in capital, the substance of which is in actual fact nothing but labour performed by the producers in the past. Their social relations become someting which stands over them and dominates them. In this way, capitalism stands in contrast to pre-capitalist societies. In these societies, production was dominated by various groups such as the feudal landlords. The relations which preponderated were relations of personal domination. In capitalism, the relations of personal domination are broken apart, only to be replaced with material domination, the domination of things over man.

In contrast to the social forms characterised by both personal and material domination, socialism is a form free of all such domination. Marx famously characterises it as the 'free association of producers'. As a materialist, Marx concieved of freedom not in the idealist sense of the self-determination of the will, but in the sense of control. This form of society, the 'free association of producers', the only social form which can escape Marx's critique of personal and material domination, is thus characterised by the control of the whole of society over the process of production. So the question we then have to ask ourselves is, did the whole of society control production in the societies you mention? Or, on the contrary, did a small group of bureaucrats control production in their own interests? If the latter, then they could not be regarded by Marx as socialist societies.


How can the state be used to destroy a mode of production (capitalism) of which it is an inseparable part?

It is correct to note that the state is an inseperable part of capitalism, but this in itself does not justify your bewilderment at using it as a tool to destroy capitalism. The proletariat is also an inseperable part of capitalism, without a class which sells it's labour-power as a commodity, capitalism cannot exist. Marx's conception of revolution is closely tied to Hegel's notion of 'Aufheben', which implies a supersession which comes from within the internal dynamics of the thing being superceded. The state is an 'illusory community' which exists while the real community of men (Communism) has not yet come into being, yet it is still based on the 'real ties' between men. Marxist theory does not state that Communism means the freedom of the self-determining individual will from collective control, but rather that this collective administration ceases to be something standing opposed to the individuals which make up society, and instead represents a real common interest. It is not that the public power is destroyed, but rather that it loses it's political character, it's status as an institution standing over and against society is ended. To find an analogy, we can look at capital itself. Capital is also a power which stands over and against humanity, it is a social power which dominates them until the resumption by men of their own social powers. It is not the social forces of production which are destroyed by the Communist revolution, but merely their status as capital, as something which stands opposed to human beings and which dominates them.


Lenin is the forefront of the Bolshevik Party.

Not really, from the April Theses up until the October revolution he found himself in a struggle with the party Central Committee over the line to take. The 'Old Bolsheviks' wanted to give support to the Constituent Assembly, whereas Lenin was pushing for the 'All Power to the Soviets' line. At one point he even threatened to go public with his criticism of the party line. Even after the revolution there were decisions being made against Lenin's will. It wasn't until Lenin actually threatened to form a split in the party that the majority of the Bolsheviks supported the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. In 1919, Bukharin and Pyatakov (I think that's his name?) also managed to have the Bolshevik party line on national liberation struggles amended to a compromise between their own position which I believe was similar to the position put forward by Luxemburg and Lenin's position on the 'right of nations to self-determination'.


His philosophical views for which his understanding of the movement is founded on is of grave importance to the historical event.

To be honest, I don't really think having a correct philosophical line is necessary to have correct tactics. If that were the case, we'd have to scrap most of 20th century Marxism outside of a couple of academics.

[Paulappaul]

To be honest, I don't really think having a correct philosophical line is necessary to have correct tactics. If that were the case, we'd have to scrap most of 20th century Marxism outside of a couple of academics. I would generally consider the later true. Alot of 20th Century Marxism isn't valid. Philosophic Line is what defines tactics. The too are mutually attached. Consider this, we toss out the qualities of Scientific Socialism we can fall in line with the ideas that plagued the early British Socialist movement - Religious Socialism and Utopian Socialism.


Not really, from the April Theses up until the October revolution he found himself in a struggle with the party Central Committee over the line to take......Dude, you know what I mean. There's no denying that Lenin had the biggest backing and was most inspirational within the party and within the revolutionary movement at large. Furthermore, the material conditions in Russia naturally gave way for Bourgeois ideas to be implemented into the movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't agree with Lenin on many things. I don't agree with the idea of the 'Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry'


Lenin's later comments on the nature of the Soviet Union are actually particularly interesting, because they could reveal a lasting difference of perspective between him and Trotsky. In Lenin's 'revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry scheme', the Russian revolution would be a democratic ('Anti-feudal') revolution unless aided by the conflagration in Europe, for Trotsky, the revolution would immediately pose the tasks of the Socialist revolution. This difference in perspective was exploited by Bordiga in his theory of state-capitalism to show that the Russian revolution had been initially an anti-feudal revolution carried out by the proletariat and the socialist tasks had never been posed. Have you read Loren Goldner's article on this?


Although I actually think there are some problems with taking Lenin's side over Trotsky's in this particular debate - the Russian revolution clearly went much further than anticipated by Lenin in his articles on the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship. Goldner's view is still very interesting however.

Did I ever sent you Lars Lih's paper(s) on Lenin's particular position in 1917, being distinct from both Trotsky's Permanent Revolution and his older RDDOTPP, where the author says that said position was derived from a "Kautsky route"? It's a different paper than his CPGB article on the relationship between the April Theses and Kautsky's early 1917 work on Russia.

P.S. - I see here a convergence of pre-October Kautsky the renegade, Lenin, Bordiga, and Lars Lih regarding full-fledged anti-feudalism, all on one side vs. Trotsky's version. Notwithstanding my rants about Caesar, could you please explain other reasons for your disagreement with RDDOTPP besides the relative inactivity of the peasant soviets?

[Zanthorus]

Alot of 20th Century Marxism isn't valid.

So, in terms of tactics, you think that there are barely any lessons to be drawn or ideas to be had from the ranks of 20th century Marxism because their views on philosophy were slightly skewed? These experiences 'aren't valid' simply because they weren't up to speed with the latest developments in Marxist interpretation?


Philosophic Line is what defines tactics.

Would you care to explain the link then, between Materialism and Empirio-Criticism or the Philosophical Notebooks and attempting to turn the trade-unions into revolutionary organs, or building united fronts with the social-democratic parties?

Will reply to the rest later, got to go.

[Zanthorus]

Consider this, we toss out the qualities of Scientific Socialism we can fall in line with the ideas that plagued the early British Socialist movement - Religious Socialism and Utopian Socialism.

'Scientific socialism' does not in itself imply any specific set of tactics. What it does imply is the understanding that Communism will not be brought about simply by preaching the gospel of socialism to everyone who wishes to hear it, but by the movement of the working-class, whose conditions of life force it to organise collectively and to stand in solidarity with each other against the capitalist class, which thus brings the workers into an antagonistic relationship with the basis of existing society, with the only logical conclusion of this collective organisation being the supersession of capitalist society and all it entails. But beyond an orientation toward the working-class there seems to be little that can be gleamed from merely citing 'scientific socialism'. Clearly different groups have different ideas about how the workers can best emancipate themselves and so on. The history of Marxism for the past one hundred years is precisely a debate with the most varied of tactics being presented to achieve this aim.


Furthermore, the material conditions in Russia naturally gave way for Bourgeois ideas to be implemented into the movement.

But the ideas which Lenin brought into the Russian Social-Democratic movement were not gleamed from any Russian intellectual traditions or on any unique analysis of the Russia situation, on the contrary he gleamed them from the cream of European, and in particular German, revolutionary Marxism. If the material conditions were really so ripe for bourgeois ideas to enter the movement, why were the Mensheviks, who advocated a tailist alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie during the democratic revolution, not the leading force. Why, on the contrary, were the Bolsheviks, who believed that the bourgeoisie was a counter-revolutionary force in Russia, and who relied on the social might of the peasantry and urban proletariat to bring about lasting change, the successful ones?


Did I ever sent you Lars Lih's paper(s) on Lenin's particular position in 1917, being distinct from both Trotsky's Permanent Revolution and his older RDDOTPP, where the author says that said position was derived from a "Kautsky route"?

I think I know the one you're talking about. It's the one that mentions the influence of the article by Kautsky, which talks about the stratification of the Russian peasantry, on the April Theses, correct?


I see here a convergence of pre-October Kautsky the renegade, Lenin, Bordiga, and Lars Lih regarding full-fledged anti-feudalism, all on one side vs. Trotsky's version. Notwithstanding my rants about Caesar, could you please explain other reasons for your disagreement with RDDOTPP besides the relative inactivity of the peasant soviets?

The peasantry was not able to act as an independent political force during the Russian Civil War. The main conflict was between the Bolsheviks whose social base was in the urban working-class, and the military dictatorships of Kolchack and Denikin who gained support from the cossacks and elements of the old imperial army. The peasant uprisings were able occasionally to block supply lines and so on but they could never provide an alternative form of political administration to Soviet power or military dictatorship.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think I know the one you're talking about. It's the one that mentions the influence of the article by Kautsky, which talks about the stratification of the Russian peasantry, on the April Theses, correct?

Not that one, but I've corrected my mistake and sent you the goods, not having been saved anywhere.


The peasantry was not able to act as an independent political force during the Russian Civil War. The main conflict was between the Bolsheviks whose social base was in the urban working-class, and the military dictatorships of Kolchack and Denikin who gained support from the cossacks and elements of the old imperial army. The peasant uprisings were able occasionally to block supply lines and so on but they could never provide an alternative form of political administration to Soviet power or military dictatorship.

Thanks for clarifying from Macnair's video, but what about the peasant Green army in the Ukraine? He didn't discuss them.