Leftcommunists and Leninists Unite!

[Kalifornia]

People’s resistance to the injustice and lack of equality around them needs to be cultivated and organised into a strong and fundamentally revolutionary Organisation, capable of not only fighting the system, but uniting all revolutionary forces, Anarchists, Councilists or Leninists.

Revolutionaries have unifying things in common, they seek to abolish the exploitation of man by man, they seek to crush the dominant culture of patriarchy and sexual oppression, they envision a time where we produce according to our ability and receive according to our need.

Our only Argument is how to bring this radically different system about, the revolutionary left has torn itself apart and reproached one another as “social democrat” to “anti-worker”.


You will hear Anarchists and Leninists slander one another more than the Bourgeoisie does, we see through recent history groups that have become Isolated and smashed by the state, when if a broad alliance was established based on mixed revolutionary principles and comradeship, the capabilities of an organisation would strengthen and build a culture of resistance, would be able to fight the forces of reaction on a more vast and versatile scale.


But, you might say, how can people with such different views on how to bring about and maintain a revolution unite?
Well, it is simple, in my view, all persuasions of the revolutionary left want to see workers councils and the maximum workers control possible.

The main difference I can see between Leninists and left communists is the stance on the state and armed forces.

However this is not a dividing line if handled correctly, a compromise could be met, where we get Leninist wishes to see a strong military to defend from Imperialist invasion and occupation, yet at the same time, not remove the workers control of society that left communists want to see.

The workforce would be organised by workers councils, who can elect and recall council boards to a federation that runs through the liberated territory and organises the logistical and transportation issues and basically runs the administration side of the workplace.

For schools and hospitals, each member and patient would get vote on how things were ran and voice their views, students and parents would get to participate in the choices of what the curriculum will offer in their school and will get to safeguard against any remnants of the old society maintaining its grip on the education system.


The Military would also be under the command of the people’s councils, where each council can vote on matters like if we should troops to say, the next Rwanda like genocide, or if our troops should intervene on behalf of the colonised people of the world.
The military would have no power in civilian matters and would not be allowed to pledge support to any particular politician or leader, rather, they would swear loyalty to the councils.


The workers and students would all belong to regional militias, who would be armed and train themselves and maintain themselves individually of the Military and any governing force.
Free press and dissent by workers should not and could not be supressed by the Military or state, as there would be no state, just governing bodies, and the people would be armed and ready to fight any potential Military junta.


This would remove the danger of a revisionist leadership betraying the workers or a centrist state being higher than the workers and remove the chance of leaders making decisions without the consent of the people.
The police force would be replaced by civilian guard, where each community elects members of their own community to prevent and investigate any possible crimes; the civil guard would not be there to enforce private property or cage us for taking back our produce like in the old society, but rather to help the people, to serve the people.


The penal system in its current model would be abolished, any all crimes against capital would be wiped and only the rapists and paedophiles and psychopaths would be made to stay locked up, and only in humane conditions where rehabilitation and treatment were the focus.
Immigration would be freely allowed, refugees would be welcomed with open arms and put into the workforce as productive members of society, and the only ones who would be refused are those with convictions for violent and sexual crimes.

A council for immigration and work allocation would be established and made up of a certain amount of people from each region, which would serve a month then be replaced, so all people are included in the running of society.
Religious institutions should be allowed to run independent of governance and religious people should not be judged but treated just the same as anyone else, as the only way religion will be done away with is when inhuman conditions and despair are also done away with.
People would vote on everything from drug legalisation to public transport routes.

This system would give the liberated territory the defensive capabilities needed to defend from imperialism, and the ability to spread and aid workers movements abroad, but also remove the possibility of any betrayal of the workers, it would effectively put the peoples destiny in their own hands, and combine true democracy with a strong defensive military and infrastructure.

[ZeroNowhere]

It seems that you may be confusing 'left communists' with 'anarchists'.

[Kalifornia]

It seems that you may be confusing 'left communists' with 'anarchists'.

I mean all revolutionary persuasions unite.

[pranabjyoti]

Well, actually you are advocating for a united front of petty-bourgeoisie and workers. That can certainly be possible in specific conditions. But, the question is what can be the leading ideology? Petty-bourgeoisie ideology or workers ideology i.e. dialectic materialism i.e. Marxism?

[Kalifornia]

but dialectically looking at the contradiction where the forces of revolution are isolated into sects, thus the only way to make revolution and end the contradiction is to unite the forces of revolution.

How are councilists and Anarchists petit bourgoeisie?

they are workers same as most leninists.

your class is determined by your relationship to the MOP, not if your Leninist or Councilist.

[zimmerwald1915]

But who are the "forces of revolution"? Surely not the leftist sects that pass themselves off as "leninist" parties. Surely not the itty-bitty left communist groups. Surely the "forces of revolution" are the working class itself, on most of whose motions none of the groups you identify as "forces of revolution" have much of an influence at the moment.

[Kalifornia]

your exactly right of course, the masses are the main force, however if you come from a working class area, you know that people dont think up marxian economic models, infact not one member of my family could tell me what socialism, communism or fascism is, and neither could most people I know.

Wether we like it or not, people need those of us already class consciouss need to organise and propogandise and build up a movement that has real aims rather than just showing anger.

Of course the workers are the force of revolution, but to educate them about the economic system they have, and the one they could have, we need a broad "vanguard" to build up support, raise peoples collective consciousness and build a culture of resistance and an organised movement that is capable of actually changing things.

I think if we are revolutonary, we could compromise with one another, unless we care more about stubborn non changing dogmatic concrete ideas that we are happy to argue amongst ourselves at a time when the workers are coming under attack by the state.

[pranabjyoti]

but dialectically looking at the contradiction where the forces of revolution are isolated into sects, thus the only way to make revolution and end the contradiction is to unite the forces of revolution.

How are councilists and Anarchists petit bourgoeisie?

they are workers same as most leninists.

your class is determined by your relationship to the MOP, not if your Leninist or Councilist.
Your ideology is determined by your relationship to the MOP. Petty-bourgeoisie is basically unorganized and as a call, they aren't solid like industrialist or working class. They something like a jelly or liquid and their basic ideology is INDIVIDUALISM.
Basically, it's always that straight and simple that every worker is a follower of "workers ideology". Remember the mentality of huge number of British workers during Marx. In India and many other Asian countries, IT sector workers, who are comparatively higher salaried, are worst kind of supporters of imperialism. While in rural and semi-rural areas, feudal mentality isn't uncommon. A single persons accepted ideology is often determined by the culture and environment, in which he/she was born and brought up. First world countries has a long history of anti-communist propaganda and a worker, born and brought up in such a scenario has some sort of blind hate against socialism and socialist leaders. While his/her daily practice and experience put him/her in anti-capitalist position. In such a scenario, he/she can certainly be attracted towards anarchy for something in between, but that doesn't make anarchy some kind of workers ideology.
The matter isn't that straight and simple, that you want to think and represent.

[Kalifornia]

but how are workers who advocate council communism or anarchism petit bourgoesie?

[pranabjyoti]

but how are workers who advocate council communism or anarchism petit bourgoesie?
Do you want to mean as most of the workers of the world believe in God, so we can take God and its existence as a part of workers ideology? Mentality of workers differ from country as per their surrounding, in which they are born and brought up. Even I have observed difference in mentality of workers in urban and rural areas. Workers, who live in rural areas, often got some land which they themselves ploughed by using agricultural field workers. The tragic point is, they (rural workers) are often united in matter of increasing wages, while at the same time they are against increasing the wages of agricultural workers. WHAT A TRAGEDY!
If you observe, you can observe such complexity and contradictions among workers and therefore, some workers may support anarchy, but by that means anarchy can not be workers ideology.

[The Douche]

Well, it is simple, in my view, all persuasions of the revolutionary left want to see workers councils and the maximum workers control possible.

The main difference I can see between Leninists and left communists is the stance on the state and armed forces.


This might be the way you see it, but that does not make it the historical truth.

The bolsheviks did employ the soviets as a model of organization, but the soviets who did not fall under bolshevik control were disbanded, and soviets which were established which began to make demands of the bolshevik government were attacked.

Leninists do not support independent organizations of the working class, they support organs of working class power under the control/supervision/advisorship of the party. Or in their language, the most advanced section of the working class.


In my opinion the leninists and the "other" communists do not have positions which can be reconciled.

[Kalifornia]

This might be the way you see it, but that does not make it the historical truth.

The bolsheviks did employ the soviets as a model of organization, but the soviets who did not fall under bolshevik control were disbanded, and soviets which were established which began to make demands of the bolshevik government were attacked.

Leninists do not support independent organizations of the working class, they support organs of working class power under the control/supervision/advisorship of the party. Or in their language, the most advanced section of the working class.


In my opinion the leninists and the "other" communists do not have positions which can be reconciled.

To be a Leninist you have to be first and foremost a Dialectical Materialist, and if you look at things dialectically, we can see that the old regimes that supposedly upheld marx had some fundamental contradictions, the main one being central planning and the lack of worker controlled independent councils, so to reconcile this contradiction between a working class movement, that, by being centrally planned and authoritarian, paved its own downfall and the restoration of capitalism.

So as a Dialectical Materialist i see placing government subservient to councils would ultimately reconcile the contradiction.

Only Dogmatists uphold the shortcomings of past movements.

[The Douche]

Only Dogmatists uphold the shortcomings of past movements.

Only fools ignore the material realities of past movements.

[Kalifornia]

Only fools ignore the material realities of past movements.

meaning........

Am i detecting a sectarian shitstorm on the horrizon?

[ckaihatsu]

So as a Dialectical Materialist i see placing government subservient to councils would ultimately reconcile the contradiction.

Only Dogmatists uphold the shortcomings of past movements.


If by 'government' you mean the general thought and activity of all people engaging in politics, including a workers' vanguard -- by whatever definition -- then this formulation will *not* do.

Consider that, for our purposes here in this discussion, a workers' vanguard may very well be the leading political opinion on what is in the workers' best interests at any given moment. If this is an acceptable formulation, there will always be *some* degree of difference between this 'vanguard' position and all other, *non*-vanguard, positions.

That means, then, that the workers themselves, in whatever councils, may *not necessarily* hold the correct position on what is in their best interests at any given point in time -- the *vanguard*, instead, may actually hold the best, correct position.

It would be dogmatic to assume that the workers' councils will somehow automatically always have correct political consciousness.

[The Douche]

I don't think its gonna be a shitstorm, I don't plan on throwing any shit, at least.

I just don't understand why people want to unite movements which have been seperate/opposed for so long. There has been no unity between leninism and "other" communism since the very first opportunity for working class revolution.

I think there are quite a few leninists who have important things to offer me regarding theory, but I am not a leninist. Thats about the most "unity" that can exist, and I'd say its more useful than calling yourself a "leninist" or "anarchist" or "tiqqunista".

[Kalifornia]

If by 'government' you mean the general thought and activity of all people engaging in politics, including a workers' vanguard -- by whatever definition -- then this formulation will *not* do.

Consider that, for our purposes here in this discussion, a workers' vanguard may very well be the leading political opinion on what is in the workers' best interests at any given moment. If this is an acceptable formulation, there will always be *some* degree of difference between this 'vanguard' position and all other, *non*-vanguard, positions.

That means, then, that the workers themselves, in whatever councils, may *not necessarily* hold the correct position on what is in their best interests at any given point in time -- the *vanguard*, instead, may actually hold the best, correct position.

It would be dogmatic to assume that the workers' councils will somehow automatically always have correct political consciousness.

When the revolution is won, councils established and logistical routes and transport for the production and distribution of produce sorted, the vanguard and the party would be absolved and all power taken by the councils, the only remaining "government" institution would be the armed forces, the Militias and Civil guard would be totally autonomous, the Armed forces would have no civil authority in the liberated territory.

[ckaihatsu]

When the revolution is won, councils established and logistical routes and transport for the production and distribution of produce sorted, the vanguard and the party would be absolved and all power taken by the councils,


Agreed.





the only remaining "government" institution would be the armed forces, the Militias and Civil guard would be totally autonomous, the Armed forces would have no civil authority in the liberated territory.


Your formulation was misleading, then, because such forces (militia / civil guard) would not govern, and so would not constitute a 'government' in any sense of the term.

[Kalifornia]

yes they would, however it would not be centralised and each regional council may vote on things such as drug legalisation or how their institutions are ran, which in turn would would mean the laws enforced by each militia and civil guard would vary, so it would be more a federation of liberated areas, not one government for all, each community would have a certain ammount of differing laws I am sure.

A good example of this is some zapatista communities have banned alcohol, others have not.

[ckaihatsu]

yes they would, however it would not be centralised and each regional council may vote on things such as drug legalisation or how their institutions are ran, which in turn would would mean the laws enforced by each militia and civil guard would vary, so it would be more a federation of liberated areas, not one government for all, each community would have a certain ammount of differing laws I am sure.

A good example of this is some zapatista communities have banned alcohol, others have not.




the laws enforced by each militia and civil guard would vary,


If you're saying that each militia and civil guard would *enforce* laws, then that's distinctly different from saying that they would *govern* -- that is, the *creation* of laws.

I have to take exception to this whole line, because a vanguard-led proletarian revolution that usurped bourgeois rule would also pave the way for a highly *centralized* -- meaning broad-based and standardized, like the Internet -- form of decision-making, one which would also *not rely* on the steady creation of new laws, as we're used to seeing with the grand con job called "governance" today....

[Kalifornia]

If you're saying that each militia and civil guard would *enforce* laws, then that's distinctly different from saying that they would *govern* -- that is, the *creation* of laws.

I have to take exception to this whole line, because a vanguard-led proletarian revolution that usurped bourgeois rule would also pave the way for a highly *centralized* -- meaning broad-based and standardized, like the Internet -- form of decision-making, one which would also *not rely* on the steady creation of new laws, as we're used to seeing with the grand con job called "governance" today....

Sorry don't get your point, could you be clearer?

[Salyut]

The Anarcho-Juche synthesis is inevitable.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry don't get your point, could you be clearer?


Sure, no prob -- which part are you having difficulties with?

[Kalifornia]

[QUOTE/]If you're saying that each militia and civil guard would *enforce* laws, then that's distinctly different from saying that they would *govern* -- that is, the *creation* of laws.

I have to take exception to this whole line, because a vanguard-led proletarian revolution that usurped bourgeois rule would also pave the way for a highly *centralized* -- meaning broad-based and standardized, like the Internet -- form of decision-making, one which would also *not rely* on the steady creation of new laws, as we're used to seeing with the grand con job called "governance" today....[QUOTE\]

The above, I dont get what part of what I said you did not agree with.

[Kalifornia]

If you're saying that each militia and civil guard would *enforce* laws, then that's distinctly different from saying that they would *govern* -- that is, the *creation* of laws.

I have to take exception to this whole line, because a vanguard-led proletarian revolution that usurped bourgeois rule would also pave the way for a highly *centralized* -- meaning broad-based and standardized, like the Internet -- form of decision-making, one which would also *not rely* on the steady creation of new laws, as we're used to seeing with the grand con job called "governance" today....

Basically, what did you not agree with, your words seem somewhat abstract and vague.

[ckaihatsu]

Allow me to copy-and-paste from a recent exchange on this issue....








Yes sure A few very large scale projects might be organised at a global level. But that is not a society-wide planning. Society-wide or central planning means the totality of production is organsed from a single centre and under the aegis of a single plan. Some vast large scale project organised globally would still be concerned with only a minuscule portion of the world's total inputs and outputs and even then I suspect that such project would entail a significant degree of decentralised decisionmaking





Realistically I'd imagine that such a scale of emergent coordination would be particularly useful for things like standards -- for what fuels to use, how to supply electricity, the arrangement and construction of long-distance transportation networks, planning for forthcoming Internet services / protocols, etc. The issue of *standards*, or policy, is really central -- excuse the pun -- to politics altogether, because if things are *decentralized* enough then there *is no* politics, since there's no need for it. But politics are needed precisely to decide on policy standards so that not everyone has to provide their own fuel, generate their own electricity, drive only cars on unpaved roads, and use local bulletin-board systems (BBSes) for online information sharing.

So if we *are* to realize mass economies of scale -- so as to avoid a d.i.y.-type stasis -- then we *are* talking about things like policy, standards, politics, and society-wide / centralized planning.

[Kalifornia]

you seem to think I am advocated dispersed regional councils with no central foundation whatsoever.

I am not.

What I am saying is that by reducing the power of the government, you reduce the chance of betrayal for the people.

If we have regional Councils made up of elected delegates from each individual workplace council in that region, and in each region local Militias and civil guards, then the government has no force to destroy the councils, as it has no tool of enforcing anything onto the people.

So we would have an elected government, but it would merely act as an administrative body, to link up all the areas of liberated territory etc.

The government in other words, would not be able to remove institutions of the workers.

I am not advocating total anarchy nor a built up state, but a middle ground.

[ckaihatsu]

---











4. Ends -- Flat, all-inclusive mode of participation at all levels without delegated representatives




[In] this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.




Given that people make *points* on any of a number of *issues*, which may comprise some larger *topics* -- and these fall into some general *themes*, or *categories* -- wouldn't this very discussion-board format of RevLeft be altogether suitable for a massively parallel (ground-level) political participation among all those concerned, particularly workers, for *all scales* of political implementation -- ?

I think there's conventionally been a kind of lingering anxiety over the political "workload" that would confront any regular person who would work *and* wish to have active, impacting participation in real-world policy, along the lines of the examples you've provided for this thread's discussion.

But I'll note that, for any given concrete issue, not everyone would *necessarily* find the material need to individually weigh in with a distinct proposal of their own -- as I think we've seen here from our own regular participation at RevLeft, it's often the case that a simple press of the 'Thanks' button is all that's needed in many cases where a comrade has *already* put forth the words that we would have said ourselves, thereby relieving us from the task of writing that sentiment ourselves.

Would concrete issues at higher, more-generalized levels be so different, so inaccessible to the regular, affected person on the ground? Wouldn't the information gathered within such an appropriate thread of discussion "clue everyone in" as the overall situation at that level -- say, from the participants of several different countries -- ?

I'll ask if delegated representatives *are* really required anymore when our current political vehicle, the Internet-based discussion board, can facilitate massively participatory, though orderly and topic-specific conversations, across all ranges of geography and scales of populations.

tinyurl.com/concise-communism-model

[revolution inaction]

People’s resistance to the injustice and lack of equality around them needs to be cultivated and organised into a strong and fundamentally revolutionary Organisation, capable of not only fighting the system, but uniting all revolutionary forces, Anarchists, Councilists or Leninists.

You see the problem is right here at the start, leninists are simply not revolutionaries, in fact they have often been counter revolutionaries.

The other problem is you seem to see a revolution as being instigated by a revolutionary organisation, and therfore that we need to build the biggest revolutionary organisation that we can. This is not the case, revolution is what happens when the self activity of the working class in there own interests becomes generalised and workers stop demanding things and start organising for themselves. This can't be brought about by building the biggist organisation that you can and declaring revolution/seizing some building/shooting some capitalists. It emerges from a working class that is active in defending its interests and organising its self.

[Kalifornia]

You see the problem is right here at the start, leninists are simply not revolutionaries, in fact they have often been counter revolutionaries.

The other problem is you seem to see a revolution as being instigated by a revolutionary organisation, and therfore that we need to build the biggest revolutionary organisation that we can. This is not the case, revolution is what happens when the self activity of the working class in there own interests becomes generalised and workers stop demanding things and start organising for themselves. This can't be brought about by building the biggist organisation that you can and declaring revolution/seizing some building/shooting some capitalists. It emerges from a working class that is active in defending its interests and organising its self.

Sorry, but this is not true, if you have ever lived in a working class area you would surely know that people never ever have any idea about how they would go about changing things.

People dont even know what the system is about, let alone know what they want to change about it.

Only middle class students seem to think insurrectionary autonomous anarchist rebelion will happen, yet, the most popular view in most working areas is exenephobia and casual racism, this whole no leaders thing is so utopian.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sorry, but this is not true, if you have ever lived in a working class area you would surely know that people never ever have any idea about how they would go about changing things.

People dont even know what the system is about, let alone know what they want to change about it.

Only middle class students seem to think insurrectionary autonomous anarchist rebelion will happen, yet, the most popular view in most working areas is exenephobia and casual racism, this whole no leaders thing is so utopian.The rising composition of capital is a secular trend.

In any case, the point of my objection was that you seemed to take the view that the main rift between left communists and 'Leninists', whatever they are, has to do with how 'libertarian' a revolution is or something of the sort. It's not, that's the Leninist-anarchist bickering. Left communists view most 'Leninists' as parts of the left wing of capital for different reasons, as previously discussed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simple-question-one-t149207/index.html?p=2007264) and elsewhere. I imagine that the Bordigists could find this amusing on many levels, though.

Ultimately, as I have said earlier, stop whining, because 'we' are not that important. The revolution won't begin because the working class are socialists, and our job is not giving recipes for the cooking-pots of the future, nor arguing about how revolutions should take place in every country and condition at some point in the future, seeking answers to questions which are "in the clouds."


The general demands of the French bourgeoisie laid down before 1789 were roughly just the same, mutatis mutandis [with corresponding alterations] as the first immediate demands of the proletariat are pretty uniformly to-day in all countries with capitalist production. But had any eighteenth-century Frenchman the faintest idea a priori beforehand of the way in which the demands of the French bourgeoisie would be accomplished? The doctrinaire and necessarily fantastic anticipations of the programme of action for a revolution of the future only divert us from the struggle of the present. The dream that the end of the world was at hand inspired the early Christians in their struggle with the Roman Empire and gave them confidence in victory. Scientific insight into the inevitable disintegration of the dominant order of society continually proceeding before our eyes, and the ever-growing passion into which the masses are scourged by the old ghosts of government--while at the same time the positive development of the means of production advances with gigantic strides--all this is a sufficient guarantee that with the moment of the outbreak of a real proletarian revolution there will also be given the conditions (though these are certain not to be idyllic) of its next immediate modus operandi.
- Marx, 1881 to Nieuwenhuis.

[revolution inaction]

Sorry, but this is not true, if you have ever lived in a working class area you would surely know that people never ever have any idea about how they would go about changing things.

People dont even know what the system is about, let alone know what they want to change about it.

you have no idea where i live, don't make stupid assumptions about people on the internet.
secondly, most people are not class conscious or organised, if they where there would have been a revolution already, this is obvious, the question is how to change it.




Only middle class students seem to think insurrectionary autonomous anarchist rebelion will happen, yet, the most popular view in most working areas is exenephobia and casual racism, this whole no leaders thing is so utopian.

more stupid assumptions and a complete ignorance of anarchism, along with insulting generalisations about working class people and aparently you are utopian enough to think leaders are a good idea.
Also you show with your attitude how when you call for unity between anarchist, left communists and leninists, what you really mean is "shut up and accept leninism"

[Kalifornia]

I know Anarchists Councilists and Marxists who all advocate prganising and leadership, yet I have only encountered a handfull of people that removed from reality they think leadership and infrastructure is obsolete:lol:

We see the lack of organisation in the poor handling of the spanish revolution, if the left had united Franco would not have won.

You can blame them they can blame you, but I just think this self made division in the revolutionary left is so self defeating, its like Obama being a socialist yet being as imperialist as Bush and maintaining the capitalist system, as if anyone would believe that........ oh wait :)

Also you say i should not make judgements, however, your statements are so incredibly utopian to anyone living in a working class area, that these assumptions are ones most would have.

Though I dont mean any offence, sorry if any was given.

[Paulappaul]

We see the lack of organisation in the poor handling of the spanish revolution, if the left had united Franco would not have won.The Left did unite in 36. And under the banner of the International Brigades (i.e. Marxist-Leninists) it's actually that Uniting which destroyed the movement.

[pranabjyoti]

You see the problem is right here at the start, leninists are simply not revolutionaries, in fact they have often been counter revolutionaries.
And probably for that reason, they are under the strongest of attack from imperialists.

The other problem is you seem to see a revolution as being instigated by a revolutionary organisation, and therfore that we need to build the biggest revolutionary organisation that we can. This is not the case, revolution is what happens when the self activity of the working class in there own interests becomes generalised and workers stop demanding things and start organising for themselves. This can't be brought about by building the biggist organisation that you can and declaring revolution/seizing some building/shooting some capitalists. It emerges from a working class that is active in defending its interests and organising its self.
REALLY? Then by that theory, Thailand would be an workers state now. History is full of examples that how popular movements were destroyed due lack of proper organization and still some are advocating "spontaneity" now.
Basically, anarchists are just unable to understand that to impose class rule, every class, even the working class need a solid structured organization. The bourgeoisie governs by political parties and they also have their own organization of Chamber of commerce and other such bodies and in a flourished capitalist society, they rarely clash. But some are still unable to learn from this examples.

[Paulappaul]

REALLY? Then by that theory, Thailand would be an workers state now. History is full of examples that how popular movements were destroyed due lack of proper organization and still some are advocating "spontaneity" now.Nice job fixing historical situations to your own advantage. Real Materialist of you.

How about Hungary in 1956, a so called "Workers' State" or "Communist State" where the oppressed workers overthrew its "Socialist" masters put in motion a revolution by Workers' Councils which overthrew the government, won the revolution and had to forcefully crushed by the Soviet Union in an Invasion? Hmm.. Spontaniety wins a revolution!

Frankly, conditions will tell what sort of political organization (if any) is needed, not you.


Basically, anarchists are just unable to understand that to impose class rule, every class, even the working class need a solid structured organization. The bourgeoisie governs by political parties and they also have their own organization of Chamber of commerce and other such bodies and in a flourished capitalist society, they rarely clash. But some are still unable to learn from this examples. Anarchists aren't against any sort organization as long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberty of people. They aren't against Government, ruled by the people through a system of Councils or Communes as the DOTP would be, they are however against the State - a notion perfectly justified by anyone who understands what the State is.

[The Militant]

All leftists should work together to overthrow capitalism and then we can work out are differences.

[RedTrackWorker]

Wether we like it or not, people need those of us already class consciouss need to organise and propogandise and build up a movement that has real aims rather than just showing anger.

Of course the workers are the force of revolution, but to educate them about the economic system they have, and the one they could have, we need a broad "vanguard" to build up support, raise peoples collective consciousness and build a culture of resistance and an organised movement that is capable of actually changing things.

I think if we are revolutonary, we could compromise with one another, unless we care more about stubborn non changing dogmatic concrete ideas that we are happy to argue amongst ourselves at a time when the workers are coming under attack by the state.

The desire for working-class and revolutionary unity is very important, the key. The question is: "unity for what?" You have some parts of the left (especially the Stalinists) pointing to a "two-stage" solution in Tunisia and Egypt (first democracy, then socialism sometime later). Almost all realize you have to do something with the army. The Stalinists there say to win the whole army to the revolution, rather than splitting the working-class and poor soldiers from the officer corp that is trained by and tied to capitalism and imperialism. Others say the army should be split, but do not say how and are perhaps even opposed to the tactics to do so (such as arming the masses by the soldiers and for the soldiers to fight to elect their own officers).
Then some may be for those things but are against revolutionaries organizing themselves to do that (i.e. the "left" communists).
One can look at the debates among self-proclaimed revolutionaries in past revolutions, especially the Russian, German, Spanish and Chinese, to see that a commitment to working-class revolution in the abstract does not determine one's commitment to the actual achievement of that goal.
And now, one can compare political group's statement on the ongoing revolutions (see my group's in my signature) and compare them and ask, "Does this policy represent the interests of the workers and oppressed peoples? Will this further the international revolution?"
I am not going to unite with people just because they say they're for revolution.
You said: "I think if we are revolutonary, we could compromise with one another, unless we care more about stubborn non changing dogmatic concrete ideas"
Compromise yes--but not fundamentals, not principles. It is not about the "Russian question" in the abstract (i.e. that my group says in the late 30's there was a social counterrevolution led by the Stalinists in Russia, converting it back into a capitalist state) as a kind of dogma, it is a question of worldview, theory, method, strategy, principals and tactics that can guide the workers' to power. Some kinds of differences can be worked out within a common party, but some kinds of things cannot or should not be.

[pranabjyoti]

Nice job fixing historical situations to your own advantage. Real Materialist of you.

How about Hungary in 1956, a so called "Workers' State" or "Communist State" where the oppressed workers overthrew its "Socialist" masters put in motion a revolution by Workers' Councils which overthrew the government, won the revolution and had to forcefully crushed by the Soviet Union in an Invasion? Hmm.. Spontaniety wins a revolution!

Frankly, conditions will tell what sort of political organization (if any) is needed, not you.
I don't have any proper idea about the Hungarian uprising, therefore don't want to comment. But just curious, why it's so much praised by imperialist bustards as an example "communist brutality"?
In India, during the 60s and 70s, the Naxalbari uprising was crushed by the Govt. i.e. the ruling with help from USSR. But, rarely that incident was mentioned in any imperialist experts writings. In contrast, the Hungarian "workers revolution" was much more discussed. I am also curious why imperialist powers joined the USSR to crush the "workers revolution"? Doesn't that seem contradictory regarding their nature.

Anarchists aren't against any sort organization as long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberty of people. They aren't against Government, ruled by the people through a system of Councils or Communes as the DOTP would be, they are however against the State - a notion perfectly justified by anyone who understands what the State is.
Well, any Marxist know that state is nothing but apparatus of class oppression. But, the question is which class. You anarchists are just unable to understand that to abolish state, you have to destroy the class based society and THAT ISN'T A JOKE OR DISCUSSION WITH TEA/COFFEE. As the class based system remain intact in the world, the workers must have a state apparatus to counter the threat from imperialism.

[pranabjyoti]

All leftists should work together to overthrow capitalism and then we can work out are differences.
Yes, first overthrow the bourgeoisie and then the petty-bourgeoisie.

[ZeroNowhere]

But just curious, why it's so much praised by imperialist bustards as an example "communist brutality"?I must say, I've always been fond of your 'bustards' and 'gobbets'. They're rather cute, in a perversely humorous sort of way. Keep it up.


All leftists should work together to overthrow capitalism and then we can work out are differences.Except that leftists wish to sacrifice proletarian independence, and I don't see that a principled left communist could consciously aid them in getting a platform, much less wish to be associated with them, any more than they would unite with left-liberals and social democrats.

[pranabjyoti]

I must say, I've always been fond of your 'bustards' and 'gobbets'. They're rather cute, in a perversely humorous sort of way. Keep it up.
Answer my question. Don't try to divert. It's the basic trend of anarchos like you to go on personal attack when you don't have something logical to say.

[scarletghoul]

Some Leftist unity is usually a good idea. as I said elsewhere we should certainly be working together at least at this point when the task is raising consciousness.

But at the same time, the Left is very small right now (I'm talking about the UK specifically, but this applies to many countries) and the movement wouldnt be missing out on too much if some obscure tendency refused to work with the larger organisation(s). Instead of trying to build bridge between small groups of leftists, time would be better spent building class consciousness and a mass base.

Still, I would love to see local revolutionary assemblies set up with discussion and meeting places for all sorts of leftists and people in general, regardless of party. sometimes an area can have a lot of leftists but they never meet because theyre confined to their small party meetings.

Some of our differences are irreconcilable yes but if we have proper debate among the people, the correct line will make itself known hopefully.

As for the structure of the workers state it is a bit premature to start planning all these things. But still I think having a party-state with one dominant line is a dangerous thing, we should have debate and revolutionary committees etc everywhere. There must still be a centralised authority though, not just for things like defence, but for generally coordinating things like the economy, and preventing antagonisms.

[revolution inaction]

I know Anarchists Councilists and Marxists who all advocate prganising and leadership, yet I have only encountered a handfull of people that removed from reality they think leadership and infrastructure is obsolete:lol:

organisation and infrastructure do not require leaders





Also you say i should not make judgements, however, your statements are so incredibly utopian to anyone living in a working class area, that these assumptions are ones most would have.

Though I dont mean any offence, sorry if any was given.
you still think i don't live in a working class area?
really i think it is vary strange to be called a utopian by someone who belives in revolutionary leaders and thinks all of "the left" is on the same side and could unite.




REALLY? Then by that theory, Thailand would be an workers state now. History is full of examples that how popular movements were destroyed due lack of proper organization and still some are advocating "spontaneity" now.
Basically, anarchists are just unable to understand that to impose class rule, every class, even the working class need a solid structured organization. The bourgeoisie governs by political parties and they also have their own organization of Chamber of commerce and other such bodies and in a flourished capitalist society, they rarely clash. But some are still unable to learn from this examples.

If you where new i might belive you actually didn't know anything about anarchism, but you have been here for to long for that to be an exucess, so you must the crap you repeat about anarchists being opposed to organisation must be do with the knowledge that it is not true.
really you would look less stupid if you where not quoting a post that says the working class organising its self if part of a revolution, writen by a member of an anarchist organisation.

[revolution inaction]

All leftists should work together to overthrow capitalism and then we can work out are differences.

my biggist single difference with leftists is what methods will work to overthrow capitalism.

[pranabjyoti]

If you where new i might belive you actually didn't know anything about anarchism, but you have been here for to long for that to be an exucess, so you must the crap you repeat about anarchists being opposed to organisation must be do with the knowledge that it is not true.
really you would look less stupid if you where not quoting a post that says the working class organising its self if part of a revolution, writen by a member of an anarchist organisation.
A leaderless organization is like a headless body. At least I can not depend on that for any necessity. In the time of war, decisions must be quick and if you are demanding to take every decision to take "democratically", the enemy will flood you before your meeting will end. The role of democracy in such a scenario is to choose the right person and monitor his/her activity. NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.

[Paulappaul]

I don't have any proper idea about the Hungarian uprising, therefore don't want to comment. But just curious, why it's so much praised by imperialist bustards as an example "communist brutality"?
In India, during the 60s and 70s, the Naxalbari uprising was crushed by the Govt. i.e. the ruling with help from USSR. But, rarely that incident was mentioned in any imperialist experts writings. In contrast, the Hungarian "workers revolution" was much more discussed. I am also curious why imperialist powers joined the USSR to crush the "workers revolution"? Doesn't that seem contradictory regarding their nature.It would have been best if you sticked to the first thing you said for this entire comment. Capitalist media will exploit any situation for their own advantage. I remember a while back during the DNC convention Fox News exploited a Anti War March by Socialists as a Pro War March against Dems.

By Imperialist powers I meant the USSR. Which did have to go in and crush the Workers' Revolution put on by the mass of people in true soviets.


Well, any Marxist know that state is nothing but apparatus of class oppression. But, the question is which class. You anarchists are just unable to understand that to abolish state, you have to destroy the class based society and THAT ISN'T A JOKE OR DISCUSSION WITH TEA/COFFEE. As the class based system remain intact in the world, the workers must have a state apparatus to counter the threat from imperialism. I'm not an Anarchist, I just recognize the Anarchist Line is almost exactly the same as the Marxist Line in all practical ways. The State in Dictatorship of the Proletariat is an abstract thing, not a state in the traditional sense of the word. Workers' Democracy which Anarchists and Marxists alike want is the State in the Marxist Sense of the Word as it is the Class Rule of the Workers alone. So while Anarchists may not call it a State, Marxists want the same thing.


A leaderless organization is like a headless body. At least I can not depend on that for any necessity. In the time of war, decisions must be quick and if you are demanding to take every decision to take "democratically", the enemy will flood you before your meeting will end. The role of democracy in such a scenario is to choose the right person and monitor his/her activity. NOTHING MORE THAN THAT. Any situation where there isn't time for decisions to be made democratically by the Workers is a situation that has a given answer. Workers Democracy is used for those big questions, and application of big projects, anything less then that doesn't require a formal decision making body. You're creating an artificial situation to defend your position, that isn't necessary based in any sort of reality. In a real example, take Spain 36 for example there were Democratic Militias which differed from other traditional militias in that a Commanding officer could not send Soldiers into impossible situations or to perform stupid duties. Guess what those Militias kicked ass and wasn't until they were made in very formal military structures under the International Brigades (united left) that they sucked.

[pranabjyoti]

It would have been best if you sticked to the first thing you said for this entire comment. Capitalist media will exploit any situation for their own advantage. I remember a while back during the DNC convention Fox News exploited a Anti War March by Socialists as a Pro War March against Dems.
It's an example of cheating. But, does that true about the "Hungarian revolution" too? I am curious how much capitalist media quote Mao, when he was sharpening his attacks on the revisionist USSR under Khrushchev? And another question, if the Hungarian revolution was an "workers revolution", why don't they tried to contact Mao and other anti-USSR leftist organizations worldwide for support?

By Imperialist powers I meant the USSR. Which did have to go in and crush the Workers' Revolution put on by the mass of people in true soviets.
Well, in that case I again want to ask the same question above.

I'm not an Anarchist, I just recognize the Anarchist Line is almost exactly the same as the Marxist Line in all practical ways. The State in Dictatorship of the Proletariat is an abstract thing, not a state in the traditional sense of the word. Workers' Democracy which Anarchists and Marxists alike want is the State in the Marxist Sense of the Word as it is the Class Rule of the Workers alone. So while Anarchists may not call it a State, Marxists want the same thing.
NO, totally different. As per Marxists, a classless society is the basis of a stateless society. As per Marxism, abolish the class and the state will automatically vanish. State and Dictatorship of Proletariat is necessary when there are other classes and they are trying to bring the old system back.
In contrary, state is the main enemy, whoever may be in ruler, to the anarchists. They are basically unable to understand that we have to abolish class to abolish state. In present scenario, basic activities of anarchists and Marxists may look same, because both are fighting against same enemy. Anarchists are fighting against the state and Marxists against the class in charge of the state, apparently no difference. But, the inherent difference still remains.

Any situation where there isn't time for decisions to be made democratically by the Workers is a situation that has a given answer. Workers Democracy is used for those big questions, and application of big projects, anything less then that doesn't require a formal decision making body. You're creating an artificial situation to defend your position, that isn't necessary based in any sort of reality. In a real example, take Spain 36 for example there were Democratic Militias which differed from other traditional militias in that a Commanding officer could not send Soldiers into impossible situations or to perform stupid duties. Guess what those Militias kicked ass and wasn't until they were made in very formal military structures under the International Brigades (united left) that they sucked.
Do you have any idea about the real situation in some countries after revolution? Do you have any idea that how much USSR suffered from counterrevolutionary activities, internal sabotages? What you are calling as an artificial situation, was normal from 1917 to 1945 and for USSR, every month was like September,01.
And I also want to ask you whether you are ever in any kind of revolutionary army? I guess not. If so, then you can certainly understand that "impossible situations" are very normal in such cases and if commanders can not send soldiers into that, that would ultimately endanger the whole military.

[Paulappaul]

And another question, if the Hungarian revolution was an "workers revolution", why don't they tried to contact Mao and other anti-USSR leftist organizations worldwide for support?No idea, probably because there was an ideological difference between their demands and what Mao was doing or maybe because it isn't easy for average people to ask for assistance like that. Regardless, It doesn't rule out the class character of the revolution or its demands.


Well, in that case I again want to ask the same question above.What question


NO, totally different. As per Marxists, a classless society is the basis of a stateless society. As per Marxism, abolish the class and the state will automatically vanish. State and Dictatorship of Proletariat is necessary when there are other classes and they are trying to bring the old system back.
In contrary, state is the main enemy, whoever may be in ruler, to the anarchists. They are basically unable to understand that we have to abolish class to abolish state. In present scenario, basic activities of anarchists and Marxists may look same, because both are fighting against same enemy. Anarchists are fighting against the state and Marxists against the class in charge of the state, apparently no difference. But, the inherent difference still remains.Once again it is only in terms of words that there is a difference. The "state" in the DOTP would be the same as the Government of Anarchists.


Do you have any idea about the real situation in some countries after revolution? Do you have any idea that how much USSR suffered from counterrevolutionary activities, internal sabotages? What you are calling as an artificial situation, was normal from 1917 to 1945 and for USSR, every month was like September,01. Cool. The USSR is nothing like modern conditions for one, so stop jacking off to it and two that doesn't rule out anything I've said. You said there are "Counter Revolutionary activities" and "Internal Sabotage" - that doesn't rule out formal democratic structures.


And I also want to ask you whether you are ever in any kind of revolutionary army?I have actually.


If so, then you can certainly understand that "impossible situations" are very normal in such cases and if commanders can not send soldiers into that, that would ultimately endanger the whole military. No. I don't know about the armed situations you've been in, but frankly it isn't that simple. No one Captain has the combined experience and knowledge of his whole combined officers. No Anarchist though is against a Democratically elected Captain as long as they questioned and or recalled. As was done in the Spanish Militias.

[blake 3:17]

I don't have any proper idea about the Hungarian uprising, therefore don't want to comment. But just curious, why it's so much praised by imperialist bustards as an example "communist brutality"?


1956 Hungarian revolution was socialist in character. The Soviet suppression only provided ideological fuel to the imperialists.


And another question, if the Hungarian revolution was an "workers revolution", why don't they tried to contact Mao and other anti-USSR leftist organizations worldwide for support?


The Chinese were very close to the Russians at this period while steering an independent course.

[pranabjyoti]

No idea, probably because there was an ideological difference between their demands and what Mao was doing or maybe because it isn't easy for average people to ask for assistance like that. Regardless, It doesn't rule out the class character of the revolution or its demands.
It certainly does. If you are doing an workers revolution, it would be most idiotic not to contact and appeal other workers organizations and sympathizer for support. If they willingly do that, I can not call it some kind of workers revolution at all.

Once again it is only in terms of words that there is a difference. The "state" in the DOTP would be the same as the Government of Anarchists.
NO AGAIN. Not only terms. It seems similar at present scenario, but after revolution, it would be totally different. Marxist would then want to take the state power, while anarchists still continue their anti-state action and in that case, as the state is in the hand of workers, that will be ultimately against the working class.

Cool. The USSR is nothing like modern conditions for one, so stop jacking off to it and two that doesn't rule out anything I've said. You said there are "Counter Revolutionary activities" and "Internal Sabotage" - that doesn't rule out formal democratic structures.
Do you have any experience to continue a state in such a scenario? I guess not. If yes, then you will certainly understand that how tough it is to continue like the time of peace.

I have actually.
Which revolutionary army can I ask?

No. I don't know about the armed situations you've been in, but frankly it isn't that simple. No one Captain has the combined experience and knowledge of his whole combined officers. No Anarchist though is against a Democratically elected Captain as long as they questioned and or recalled. As was done in the Spanish Militias.
Well, at least a good captain know his limitations and know well which one to depend on which matter. If everytime, he/she calls for a meeting for decisions, probably he will endanger the whole army and him/herself too.
THAT'S COMMONSENSE I SUPPOSE.

[pranabjyoti]

1956 Hungarian revolution was socialist in character. The Soviet suppression only provided ideological fuel to the imperialists.
Soviet suppression can be observed in other parts of the world too. Why they just stuck to the GREAT "Hungarian Revolution" and just ignored the others. USSR at that time directly supported bourgeoisie rulers against their fight in Maoist communist parties in their countries. Why don't that kind of examples provided ideological fuel to the imperialists?

The Chinese were very close to the Russians at this period while steering an independent course.
TOTALLY WRONG. At that time, Khrushchev came into power and the ideological battle between Mao and him already started and the gap is widening. Moreover, Khrushchev's Stalin bashing had also made real communists angry about him. In such a scenario, it's highly suspicious why organizers of a "workers revolution" never tried to contact the communist parties worldwide.

[Paulappaul]

It certainly does. If you are doing an workers revolution, it would be most idiotic not to contact and appeal other workers organizations and sympathizer for support. If they willingly do that, I can not call it some kind of workers revolution at all.Except every revolutionary in Europe knew that China bore little difference too the Soviet Union. Frankly China and Russia weren't enemies either, not in the same way America and Russia were.


It seems similar at present scenario, but after revolution, it would be totally different. Marxist would then want to take the state power, while anarchists still continue their anti-state action and in that case, as the state is in the hand of workers, that will be ultimately against the working class.In the course of a revolution the state is smashed and the Proletariat advances its own State: the Commune or like system of Delegates for the purpose of suspressing Capitalism.

Anarchists: In the course of the revolution the state is smashed and the Proletariat advances its own government: the Commune or like system of delegates for the purpose of surpressing the Capitalism.

THE LATER IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED UNDER THE CNT-FAI IN SPAIN.


Why they just stuck to the GREAT "Hungarian Revolution" and just ignored the others. USSR at that time directly supported bourgeoisie rulers against their fight in Maoist communist parties in their countries. Why don't that kind of examples provided ideological fuel to the imperialists?I'm guessing you're from Europe or America? First of all you should know, Western History is Euro-Centric. Second the Hungarian Revolution was a big deal for Americans in that it solidified European (again euro-centric) dismay with the Soviet Experiment.


TOTALLY WRONG. At that time, Khrushchev came into power and the ideological battle between Mao and him already started and the gap is widening. Moreover, Khrushchev's Stalin bashing had also made real communists angry about him. hmmm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Mao_Ts%C3%A9-toung%2C_portrait_en_buste%2C_assis%2C_faisant_fac e_%C3%A0_Nikita_Khrouchtchev%2C_pendant_la_visite_ du_chef_russe_1958_%C3%A0_P%C3%A9kin.jpg

What an Ideological battle!

[Kalifornia]

Stalin and Churchill shook hands, whats your point?

[Paulappaul]

Yeah Stalin and Churchill WERE ALLIES. What's your point? Oh yeah you made yourself like a complete tard.

Regardless, Khrushchev send 7% of the soviet unions' national income between 1954 and 1959 on aid to China.

[pranabjyoti]

Except every revolutionary in Europe knew that China bore little difference too the Soviet Union. Frankly China and Russia weren't enemies either, not in the same way America and Russia were.
So, it's clear that the "workers revolution" can not differentiate between the ideological stand of USSR and China, and it was basically anti-communist.

In the course of a revolution the state is smashed and the Proletariat advances its own State: the Commune or like system of Delegates for the purpose of suspressing Capitalism.
Well, if the state is smashed, how can you fight with the other imperialist states? That's how the Paris commune fall before the German attack.

Anarchists: In the course of the revolution the state is smashed and the Proletariat advances its own government: the Commune or like system of delegates for the purpose of surpressing the Capitalism.

THE LATER IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED UNDER THE CNT-FAI IN SPAIN.
And again, it broke before the Nazi and Fascist aided Franco attack.

I'm guessing you're from Europe or America? First of all you should know, Western History is Euro-Centric. Second the Hungarian Revolution was a big deal for Americans in that it solidified European (again euro-centric) dismay with the Soviet Experiment.
NOT AT ALL. I am from India. Well, in your theory, there is also some flaw. Why present China has been presented as a success of capitalism? That matter doesn't fit into the euro-centric history theory.

hmmm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Mao_Ts%C3%A9-toung%2C_portrait_en_buste%2C_assis%2C_faisant_fac e_%C3%A0_Nikita_Khrouchtchev%2C_pendant_la_visite_ du_chef_russe_1958_%C3%A0_P%C3%A9kin.jpg

What an Ideological battle!
This kind of photos proved nothing. I want to know when this picture was taken? When Khrushchev was the President of USSR or before as he meet Mao as representative of Stalin? Even if it was taken during his presidency, this kind of pictures don't prove anything. Just show some examples where Mao openly supported the action of Khrushchev.

[Paulappaul]

So, it's clear that the "workers revolution" can not differentiate between the ideological stand of USSR and China, and it was basically anti-communist.No since the USSR or China wasn't economically Socialist. Nor was their respective revolution trully proletarian. The Hungarian Revolution on the other hand, was the True workers' revolution which attempted to control the means of production and run society for themselves.


Well, if the state is smashed, how can you fight with the other imperialist states? That's how the Paris commune fall before the German attack.With fairy dust. With Lightsabers dude.

Come on for Christ sakes are you stupid. Its not like smashed the state = smashing guns or organization.


Why present China has been presented as a success of capitalism? That matter doesn't fit into the euro-centric history theory.I didn't learn rat shit in High School about China. We had American History and European History. China isn't praised as a success. It's praised as one of the worlds worst countries.


I want to know when this picture was taken?1958

[pranabjyoti]

No since the USSR or China wasn't economically Socialist. Nor was their respective revolution trully proletarian. The Hungarian Revolution on the other hand, was the True workers' revolution which attempted to control the means of production and run society for themselves.
Strangely again, then why don't then want to contact the other revolutionary organizations worldwide? And more strangely, a "workers revolution" fueled anti-communist propaganda. A very very exceptional case in history.

With fairy dust. With Lightsabers dude.

Come on for Christ sakes are you stupid. Its not like smashed the state = smashing guns or organization.
If there is no state, who will ultimately control those organizations centrally and make co-ordination among them?

I didn't learn rat shit in High School about China. We had American History and European History. China isn't praised as a success. It's praised as one of the worlds worst countries.
Well, at least US backed TV channels are thinking different about China now. School books aren't a good source of proper history.
Mao even have photo with Nixon. Does that negate his lifelong anti-imperialist struggle. This kind of pictures remind me of another thread in "opposing ideologies" section of revleft, where a moron posted a picture of Che drinking Coke with a caption "hypocrisy".

[Savage]

Strangely again, then why don't then want to contact the other revolutionary organizations worldwide? And more strangely, a "workers revolution" fueled anti-communist propaganda. A very very exceptional case in history.

The 1956 uprising in Hungary was portrayed as a nationalistic struggle against the USSR with the purpose of instituting democracy (in the Bourgeois sense), rather than the struggle to establish workers councils that it was. This is not an exceptional case in history, look at the IRA, they've been exploited by the left, right and center for their own political motives, and just last year (may even have been this year) Glenn Beck used the 2010 Chinese labor movement as an example of 'demonstration against big government'.

[pranabjyoti]

Then it's certainly the failure of Hungarian workers that their struggle can be portrayed as some kind of movement to establish bourgeoisie democracy. A very common factor of workers and their struggle are "self-criticism", I want to know how much self-criticism they have done in this regard.
Well, but that kind of use rarely goes much forward and soon dies out.

[Savage]

Then it's certainly the failure of Hungarian workers that their struggle can be portrayed as some kind of movement to establish bourgeoisie democracy. A very common factor of workers and their struggle are "self-criticism", I want to know how much self-criticism they have done in this regard.
Well, but that kind of use rarely goes much forward and soon dies out.
But there's no validity to this, that was my point. I can look at the Maoist struggle in India and say that it's a movement to establish bourgeois democracy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's any truth behind this notion. It's not the workers fault that their cause is exploited, we may aswell blame them because their labor is exploited.

[pranabjyoti]

But there's no validity to this, that was my point. I can look at the Maoist struggle in India and say that it's a movement to establish bourgeois democracy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's any truth behind this notion. It's not the workers fault that their cause is exploited, we may aswell blame them because their labor is exploited.
Certainly the fault of the leadership of t he workers of Hungary, as you want to portray it. Your line of thinking is "workers can not make faults", but does it realistic. If you can think and explain logically why a movement, whose goal is establishing "bourgeoisie democracy" has been fiercely opposed by imperialism while a movement, whose goal is to establish "workers democracy" is used as fuel of propaganda by imperialists. Doesn't that sound lunatic?

[Savage]

Certainly the fault of the leadership of t he workers of Hungary, as you want to portray it. Your line of thinking is "workers can not make faults", but does it realistic. If you can think and explain logically why a movement, whose goal is establishing "bourgeoisie democracy" has been fiercely opposed by imperialism while a movement, whose goal is to establish "workers democracy" is used as fuel of propaganda by imperialists. Doesn't that sound lunatic?
Once again you have failed to understand. My point is that the Bourgeois portrayal of something is not necessarily accurate (I don't know why I even have to argue this...), as they have in the past exploited movements for their own benefit, I gave examples. I never said the workers can not make faults, I said its not their fault that they were exploited, by your logic capitalism is the fault of the proletariat, just as feudalism was the fault of the peasants, and slave society the fault of the slaves.
Also, here's a theory, what if the American Imperialists wanted to portray the workers of Hungary as nationalists because it covered the truth that they were proponents politics much further left than Stalinism?

[pranabjyoti]

Once again you have failed to understand. My point is that the Bourgeois portrayal of something is not necessarily accurate (I don't know why I even have to argue this...), as they have in the past exploited movements for their own benefit, I gave examples. I never said the workers can not make faults, I said its not their fault that they were exploited, by your logic capitalism is the fault of the proletariat, just as feudalism was the fault of the peasants, and slave society the fault of the slaves.
Also, here's a theory, what if the American Imperialists wanted to portray the workers of Hungary as nationalists because it covered the truth that they were proponents politics much further left Stalinism?
Further left to Stalinism! Probably they have made a circle and come to right of the right wingers. It's certainly their fault that they let the imperialists to exploit them. If they were not capable of understanding of the consequences of their actions, then their effort is destined to be crushed.
Moreover, what is the result of the "workers revolution"? Renewal of capitalism and giving new life to capitalist-imperialism. In India and other parts of the world, the guerrilla revolutionary movements now are intensifying and a great headache to the rulers and imperialism together. Just logically clarify me how the result of the "workers revolution" was ended in such disaster for workers of the world.

[Devrim]

The main difference I can see between Leninists and left communists is the stance on the state and armed forces.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]

It is not what I would see as the main difference, or even a difference at all. I think the main difference is the understand-in of the nature of imperialism, which leads to very practically consequences with regards to the approach to wars and 'national liberation movements.

Following that of course you could talk about the question of parliamentarianism, or the trade unions.

To be honest I don't even know what you are talking about when you mention a difference on the 'armed forces'.

Devrim

[Paulappaul]

Then it's certainly the failure of Hungarian workers that their struggle can be portrayed as some kind of movement to establish bourgeoisie democracy. A very common factor of workers and their struggle are "self-criticism", I want to know how much self-criticism they have done in this regard.
Well, but that kind of use rarely goes much forward and soon dies out. You're a fucking idiot. Why you haven't done any research on the Hungarian Revolution yet I have no fucking idea. The Workers in the barricades didn't have time for "Self Criticism" They didn't have time when pushing back the tanks of the USSR to have "Self criticism" - no only the arm chair revolutionaries wanking off to pictures of Mao or Lenin did. These people were fighting, not philosophizing.

The Hungarian Workers for the brief time they had power, did not have power to control the way the Media Thousands of miles away would spin their story. They didn't have the power to turn back the textbooks written years later.

Let me lay down what we've accomplished in this topic:

1) The Hungarian Revolution was a Proletarian Revolution with the established aim (this is a fact) of Workers' Control by a system of Workers' Councils.

2) It was Anti - Imperialist

What more do you want? Sorry I can't give you a perfect scenario where the Workers did everything pranabjyoti wanted. It was a Proletarian Revolution with Socialistic aims.


If there is no state, who will ultimately control those organizations centrally and make co-ordination among them?Probably the Commune or the Workers' Councils or something.


Mao even have photo with Nixon. Does that negate his lifelong anti-imperialist struggle. I am not going to make this into a debate with Mao and Nixon. That's for another time.

[Savage]

Further left to Stalinism! Probably they have made a circle and come to right of the right wingers. It's certainly their fault that they let the imperialists to exploit them. If they were not capable of understanding of the consequences of their actions, then their effort is destined to be crushed.
Moreover, what is the result of the "workers revolution"? Renewal of capitalism and giving new life to capitalist-imperialism. In India and other parts of the world, the guerrilla revolutionary movements now are intensifying and a great headache to the rulers and imperialism together. Just logically clarify me how the result of the "workers revolution" was ended in such disaster for workers of the world.
Further left than Stalinism. It's certainly their fault that they let the Imperialists exploit them? Wow, I didn't know that there was a Maoist-Malthusian-Defeatist school of thought. You seem to be going on about logic a lot, so let me explain. The USSR was America's main enemy, hence any sort of revolt against them could be used to their benefit. India is not the enemy of America, there's no reason that they should exploit a movement against them. Logic has never been on your side in this argument, its been your darkest enemy.

[pranabjyoti]

You're a fucking idiot. Why you haven't done any research on the Hungarian Revolution yet I have no fucking idea. The Workers in the barricades didn't have time for "Self Criticism" They didn't have time when pushing back the tanks of the USSR to have "Self criticism" - no only the arm chair revolutionaries wanking off to pictures of Mao or Lenin did. These people were fighting, not philosophizing.

The Hungarian Workers for the brief time they had power, did not have power to control the way the Media Thousands of miles away would spin their story. They didn't have the power to turn back the textbooks written years later.

Let me lay down what we've accomplished in this topic:

1) The Hungarian Revolution was a Proletarian Revolution with the established aim (this is a fact) of Workers' Control by a system of Workers' Councils.

2) It was Anti - Imperialist

What more do you want? Sorry I can't give you a perfect scenario where the Workers did everything pranabjyoti wanted. It was a Proletarian Revolution with Socialistic aims.
If what you have said is true, then it's a fact that the workers are totally unprepared. After 1905, Russian party not only put all blame on the bloody Tsarist regime, but also had done self-criticism regarding that matter. No fucking idiot is talking about self-criticism when the war is going on. But, it's a must factor after that, if the movement is defeated.

Probably the Commune or the Workers' Councils or something.
How much different that would be from a state. A state is also run by an assembly of representatives.

I am not going to make this into a debate with Mao and Nixon. That's for another time.
Well, then kindly stop posting such pictures.

[Paulappaul]

But, it's a must factor after that, if the movement is defeated.

The Soviet government killed everybody after the Uprising. Wait unless they could do Self Criticism from Mass Graves...


How much different that would be from a state. A state is also run by an assembly of representatives.

Yeah exactly you tard. Took you THAT LONG. That point is its just a word, in practice Anarchists will do exactly the same thing and call it something else. If by State you mean the Class rule of the workers, then yeah that is what Anarchists want.