The need to START OVER

[csquared]

The leftists today need to forget about stalin and the Soviet Union of the past and start a NEO-marxist movement. We will never gain enough support if we still have all these stalinists running around here. Too many people think communism is evil because of American propaganda and Stalin. It is very "bourgeois" to compare Trotsky and Stalin, to see who should of taken power. ITS TIME TO STOP LOOKING TO THE PAST, and look to the future like REAL communists and start over from the beginning!

[Terminator X]

You lost me about the Trotsky vs. Stalin debate being "bourgeois," but other than that, I agree somewhat. I don't see why certain communists waste their time laying prostrate before pictures of Stalin and Hoxha or other dead dictators. I think part of it is youthful exuberance and trying to pick the most unpopular communist figures of all time in order to seem "cool" or "shocking" to their friends and family. Luckily, most true leftists outgrow this behavior.

How do you propose starting over, though? Just hit the reset button and ignore leftist contributions throughout history?

[Koba1917]

People think the USSR is this perfect idea of Communism. Which isn't true. Personally I think it had good aspects and bad ones.

[Rooster]

And how are you going to convince people to do that beyond just telling them to drop it?

[Tim Finnegan]

And how are you going to convince people to do that beyond just telling them to drop it?
Who says we have to involve these people at all? Just isolate them from the movement until they all die of old age. ;)

[Die Rote Fahne]

This thread should be deleted.

[Nolan]

Non-Marxist-Leninists have this strange idea that ML revolves around Stalin or something like that, as if we go around people interested in socialism like "hey man, you know Stalin was a great guy??" or walk around constantly thinking "What would Stalin do?"

Our take on Stalin is that he was a Marxist-Leninist and generally did the best he could as leader of the proletarian state.

There is no need to start over. Marx and the Bolsheviks gave us a science and complete methodology for building revolution. To pretend this doesn't exist and reinvent the wheel would be the definition of stupid.

Also, very few adolescents get into ML just to seem shocking. They get into soviet fetishism by things like red alert, but that's unrelated. Kids get into anarchism because they can play freedom-lover and rebel at the same time while drawing As on abandoned buildings and in general posing as a rebellious badass. Anarchism is a subculture. ML is not. Tell me which naturally attracts angsty kids.

[Tim Finnegan]

There is no need to start over. Marx and the Bolsheviks gave us a science and complete methodology for building revolution. To pretend this doesn't exist and reinvent the wheel would be the definition of stupid.
See, this is why I have a problem with Marxist-Leninists: they so enthusiastically tout their tendency as supremely scientific while simultaneously avoiding the willingness to review and revise theory which is the very cornerstone of all science. You can certainly argue that Marxism-Leninism is correct, but to suggest that is untouchable, as you appear to be doing, is religiosity, not scientific socialism.

[Gorilla]

Congratulations to all of you for adopting Gorillaism. Clearly the only way out of the situation.

Immediate program:
1. Free L. Lohan
2. All libraries to stock complete works of Chmn. Gorilla
3. Unconditional independence for Wallonia
4. Nationalize animation. Recommence production of Popeye cartoons.

That will keep you all busy for a while. Take up the work with great joy at the end of sectarianism under my brilliant helmanship.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Serious revolutionaries are not nostalgists. We must know our history though. What would happen if everyone just forgot the Paris Commune?

Also, "neo-marxism" is a silly term. its not like there is an old marxism or a new one. Its an ideology, not an event or material thing. Marxism is marxism.

[Nolan]

See, this is why I have a problem with Marxist-Leninists: they so enthusiastically tout their tendency as supremely scientific while simultaneously avoiding the willingness to review and revise theory which is the very cornerstone of all science. You can certainly argue that Marxism-Leninism is correct, but to suggest that is untouchable, as you appear to be doing, is religiosity, not scientific socialism.

That's not what I'm talking about. The OP is like EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT THE SOVIET UNION LETS ALL FOLLOW MODERN LEFTIST.

In this case Zizek I assume.

But to humor the spirit of your post, I'll say this. The states of Lenin/Stalin and Hoxha had limited proletarian democracy.

That's what's on the to do list next time around.

[28350]

The leftists today need to forget about stalin and the Soviet Union of the past and start a NEO-marxist movement. We will never gain enough support if we still have all these stalinists running around here. Too many people think communism is evil because of American propaganda and Stalin. It is very "bourgeois" to compare Trotsky and Stalin, to see who should of taken power. ITS TIME TO STOP LOOKING TO THE PAST, and look to the future like REAL communists and start over from the beginning!

The issue isn't so much a cease in bickering over history, but rather the acknowledgment that material conditions have vastly changed from 20th century Russia. If anything, another revolution will be much simpler, due to the maturation of the proletariat and the increasing decay of capitalism.

[Gorilla]

Non-Marxist-Leninists have this strange idea that ML revolves around Stalin or something like that, as if we go around people interested in socialism like "hey man, you know Stalin was a great guy??" or walk around constantly thinking "What would Stalin do?"

This is why Marxist-Leninists will never get anywhere.

Those are exactly the things you should go around saying.

The first is an infallible way to weed out libruls who will only hold the left back, and as for the second:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QfG_shnDzlk/SyjIQ0B1I6I/AAAAAAAAD5w/2MbaTXbHhtk/s400/STALIN+von+Stalin+lernen.JPG
Learning from Stalin means learning from victory.

If you think what Stalin would do, you think as a ruthless opportunist. I.e. you think in political terms and not the scholastic quasi-metaphysical bullshit that passes for left ideology these days.

If we had more cold-blooded paranoiacs among us we might actually be accomplishing something.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's not what I'm talking about.
Fair point, fair point. A bit of an inappropriate outburst on my part, and for that I apologise.


The OP is like EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT THE SOVIET UNION LETS ALL FOLLOW MODERN LEFTIST.
It could be read as that, and I will concede that the OP didn't communicate himself very well, but I do think he had a fair point: that we should let go of our faded glories and second-hand pride, and start dealing the concrete realities of the present-day situation. That is not something that I think it is hard to agree with.


In this case Zizek I assume.
I doubt Zizek would much appreciate the notion that he has followers! Far to much of a misanthrope for that. :laugh:

[WeAreReborn]

Also, very few adolescents get into ML just to seem shocking. They get into soviet fetishism by things like red alert, but that's unrelated. Kids get into anarchism because they can play freedom-lover and rebel at the same time while drawing As on abandoned buildings and in general posing as a rebellious badass. Anarchism is a subculture. ML is not. Tell me which naturally attracts angsty kids.
How is that unrelated? The teenagers who get into "anarchy" are just the same as the kids who own soviet merchandise but have no idea about the ideology. Both are seen as trendy and the actually ideology is lost. Your post was pretty good up until this unnecessary sectarian attack.

[Rusty Shackleford]

In all realms of radicalism be it left wing or right wing, attracts some youths for the shock factor.

thats just how it happens sometimes.

[southernmissfan]

I understand the feeling behind the OP, even if it's not exactly a coherent message. I fully support learning from the gains and mistakes of the 20th century, Leninist experience. But those of us in the "first world" have very little to learn from the experiences of places like 1917 Russia. Marx's writings in the 19th century have more relevance and applicability than that of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. Certainly there is a tendency on the left to align with this or that historical figure and tendency and rehash arguments that have lasted for decades (if not centuries!). But keep in mind that these arguments usually boil down to irreconcilable theoretical differences.

As Nolan said, no need to reinvent the wheel. We should use the tools of Marxism to construct a movement and theory applicable to our modern situation.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I understand the feeling behind the OP, even if it's not exactly a coherent message. I fully support learning from the gains and mistakes of the 20th century, Leninist experience. But those of us in the "first world" have very little to learn from the experiences of places like 1917 Russia. Marx's writings in the 19th century have more relevance and applicability than that of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. Certainly there is a tendency on the left to align with this or that historical figure and tendency and rehash arguments that have lasted for decades (if not centuries!). But keep in mind that these arguments usually boil down to irreconcilable theoretical differences.

As Nolan said, no need to reinvent the wheel. We should use the tools of Marxism to construct a movement and theory applicable to our modern situation.


the "leninist experience" is not some virus to stay away from.

Leninism was a huge step forward for scientific socialism. It has proven itself, as an ideology, to be capable to actually make and secure a revolution.

yes there were mistakes made in the past by ML parties but that can be related more closely to material circumstance rather than the ideology itself. for example, there was a bit of soviet-chauvanism between the USSR and China which led to the sino-soviet split. had the split not happened, the whole "peaceful coexistence" may not have come about in the 60s.
it was a grave mistake, but both parties in the affair were ML.

this is what we can learn from.

but, Marxism-Leninism is in my view, correct, and should be used to make revolution elsewhere. not disregarded and then spending umptillion decades theorizing on a new model.

[southernmissfan]

the "leninist experience" is not some virus to stay away from.

Leninism was a huge step forward for scientific socialism. It has proven itself, as an ideology, to be capable to actually make and secure a revolution.

yes there were mistakes made in the past by ML parties but that can be related more closely to material circumstance rather than the ideology itself. for example, there was a bit of soviet-chauvanism between the USSR and China which led to the sino-soviet split. had the split not happened, the whole "peaceful coexistence" may not have come about in the 60s.
it was a grave mistake, but both parties in the affair were ML.

this is what we can learn from.

but, Marxism-Leninism is in my view, correct, and should be used to make revolution elsewhere. not disregarded and then spending umptillion decades theorizing on a new model.

The material circumstance you talk about is exactly why the Leninist experience has limited relevance to us. In the United States, or England, or Germany, etc., how many monarchists are there? How much of feudalism remains? Is the majority of the population illiterate peasantry? These are problems that the Bolsheviks, Maoists, etc., faced but we don't. The countries they were operating in did not even have fully developed capitalism. Now we can debate whether or not it would have been possible for them to develop socialism, but that's another thread for another time. The idea that they were able to develop and secure successful revolution is also arguable. What isn't arguable is the fact that communism never resulted from any of these experiments.

My question is what did they have to say that actually means something to the modern worker in New York, Paris or London?

[Le Socialiste]

I couldn't agree more. :thumbup:

While history is and always will be of vital importance, one cannot dwell on it while the world - ravished by capitalistic exploits - marches on. As leftists, it is our duty to recognize our failures (as well as successes) while keeping an eye on the present day. While I hope for an ideological reconciliation amongst the factions, I know a pan-leftist movement will be some time in coming. Starting over is tricky, however. The question arises, how can we start anew without sacrificing the ideals that remain as relevant today as they were when our comrades first began theorizing over them? It's definitely worth looking at, but we should be careful.

Of course, I'm saying this as an outsider looking in (I'm not a ML).

[Rusty Shackleford]

The material circumstance you talk about is exactly why the Leninist experience has limited relevance to us. In the United States, or England, or Germany, etc., how many monarchists are there? How much of feudalism remains? Is the majority of the population illiterate peasantry? These are problems that the Bolsheviks, Maoists, etc., faced but we don't. The countries they were operating in did not even have fully developed capitalism. Now we can debate whether or not it would have been possible for them to develop socialism, but that's another thread for another time. The idea that they were able to develop and secure successful revolution is also arguable. What isn't arguable is the fact that communism never resulted from any of these experiments.

My question is what did they have to say that actually means something to the modern worker in New York, Paris or London?

The western bourgeoisie is highly organized. They will use every means against us workers.

We must do the same in return. This is what leninism offers. An organized, disciplined, and dedicated core of the working class to lead the rest of the working class when the rest are willing to follow.

It is about organizing, recruiting, and training in all periods. revolutionary or not. to be ready to handle a revolutionary surge and actually guide it to victory instead of a spontaneous movement that fizzles out because no one knows what to do besides rebel. This isnt patronizing either. When people are angry, they want to know what to do.

Just because all of the revolutions of the last century were in the "third world" doesnt mean that leninism is solely fit for that circumstance. What it has proven is that it is actually possible to destroy even the most repressive and openly brutal regimes.


But you are correct. the revolutions did not take place in advanced capitalist nations. it took place in old imperialist nations and colonies.

[RGacky3]

An organized, disciplined, and dedicated core of the working class to lead the rest of the working class when the rest are willing to follow.


Absolutely why every worker should be against them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Absolutely why every worker should be against them.


so then what. just hope for a spontaneous class-wide awakening to automatically overthrow capital and bring about instant communism? (yes that was loaded)

there is nothing wrong with leading fellow workers. Its an educational process. I am a wage worker and im a leninist. i dont offend myself by being a leninist.

Also, what about organized unions. there is a defacto leadership in any egalitarian setting. there is always someone who will speak more or louder than others who has a better grasp on the situation than others. yes it can be put to a vote, but someone is leading it indirectly.

[lines]

How does the OP feel about Fidel Castro? Or anyone else.

[Delenda Carthago]

arent you people fuckin BORED to always talk about the past? And specificly about Stalin and fuckin Trotsky? What the fuck is wrong with this forum? In times of crisis, 50% of the threads we are talking is not about war, not about economy, not about organising, no. Is about some shit that happened a century ago in a place far far far away. Dollar is collapsing, WWIII is on the rise, people are dying starving in the streets of Western World and all we talk about is whether Stalin was a...nice dude or not! This is how you let the past be the past. You do shit on the present.

[RGacky3]

so then what. just hope for a spontaneous class-wide awakening to automatically overthrow capital and bring about instant communism? (yes that was loaded)


No, an organized, horizontal, democratic working class movement, building and fighting against capitalism.

Not just replacing the bosses with new bosses.


Also, what about organized unions. there is a defacto leadership in any egalitarian setting. there is always someone who will speak more or louder than others who has a better grasp on the situation than others. yes it can be put to a vote, but someone is leading it indirectly.

Every union leader is retractible, and his power (in unions that socialists and syndicalists support) is very limited.

no one is complaining against charisma, its demanding obedience and a authoritarian structure.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Every union leader is retractible, and his power (in unions that socialists and syndicalists support) is very limited.

Well gack that sounds a bit idealist. Dirty tactics are well known in the union world. They are much easier to remove than pretty much any ML who's been around though.

I agree with you otherwise, but I do think the PSL is doing an outstanding job here in the states.

[RGacky3]

Absolutely, unions are never perfect and dirty tricks are used, but thats why we should have the most democratic and decentralized structures possible.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Absolutely, unions are never perfect and dirty tricks are used, but thats why we should have the most democratic and decentralized structures possible.
respected. and yes, that is how a union should be, democratic i mean, not full of dirty tricks lol.

the party is a different matter though. it is a democratic institution, but there is also a centralization of leadership to help streamline party processes.

the whole purpose of the party is simply to make revolution, secure it, and advance it. Unions are there to make the workplace democratic. to make it collective.

[ComradeMan]

The leftists today need to forget about stalin and the Soviet Union of the past and start a NEO-marxist movement. We will never gain enough support if we still have all these stalinists running around here. Too many people think communism is evil because of American propaganda and Stalin. It is very "bourgeois" to compare Trotsky and Stalin, to see who should of taken power. ITS TIME TO STOP LOOKING TO THE PAST, and look to the future like REAL communists and start over from the beginning!

I've been saying this for a long time- to look at some leftist movements you could think they were historical re-enactment societies. :cool:

[RGacky3]

it is a democratic institution, but there is also a centralization of leadership to help streamline party processes.

the whole purpose of the party is simply to make revolution, secure it, and advance it.

The problem is the party has to actually BE democratic, democratic centrism is a poor excuse for democracy.

We should'nt be fighting for the party to gain state power, thats not revolution.

[hatzel]

This thread is bare japes...

I think leftists today need to forget about the phrase 'scientific socialism', one that I never liked, but one which has been used a few times throughout this thread in situations where just 'socialism', or, so as to specify, 'Marxism', would have more than sufficed. That's the first step! Or, it would be, if the whole Marxist movement weren't based on demagogy. Join us, dear workers of endless vanity, and you too can be scientists! :bored: (See, I can do sectarian shit, too :tt2:)

[Sadena Meti]

Isn't this the second time the OP has started this thread? Like a week ago?

[Tommy4ever]

Of course we shouldn't become obssessed with the past, but neither should we forget it. We must learn from the mistakes and from the successes of the Commune, of the Soviet Union, of China, of Vietnam, of the Spanish revolutionaries.

In the past leftists were able to objectively analysis events and move on. But I guess the big problem is the simple fact that we no longer have a major say on the grand scale of things. :(

It really does seem to be a big case of looking back at a glorius past when communism mattered in the world. :/

Let us hope that we can rebuild the movement.

[Nolan]

How is that unrelated? The teenagers who get into "anarchy" are just the same as the kids who own soviet merchandise but have no idea about the ideology. Both are seen as trendy and the actually ideology is lost. Your post was pretty good up until this unnecessary sectarian attack.

This was in response to an earlier post.

[El Chuncho]

Non-Marxist-Leninists have this strange idea that ML revolves around Stalin or something like that, as if we go around people interested in socialism like "hey man, you know Stalin was a great guy??" or walk around constantly thinking "What would Stalin do?"

...which is ironic as many of them think Stalin is omnipotent, obviously, as it is always ''Stalin did this...Stalin did that...'' even when they are talking about party actions etc. (aka ''Stalin moved the red king crabs to the Barents Sea''). It just seems a little amusing. :rolleyes:

[Rusty Shackleford]

...which is ironic as many of them think Stalin is omnipotent, obviously, as it is always ''Stalin did this...Stalin did that...'' even when they are talking about party actions etc. (aka ''Stalin moved the red king crabs to the Barents Sea''). It just seems a little amusing. :rolleyes:
i know probably 100 MLs and if there is any soviet leader that is talked about the most, its either Lenin or Sverdlov.

although, a comrade called me his trotsky(movie reference):lol:

[PhoenixAsh]

Congratulations to all of you for adopting Gorillaism. Clearly the only way out of the situation.

Immediate program:
1. Free L. Lohan
2. All libraries to stock complete works of Chmn. Gorilla
3. Unconditional independence for Wallonia
4. Nationalize animation. Recommence production of Popeye cartoons.

That will keep you all busy for a while. Take up the work with great joy at the end of sectarianism under my brilliant helmanship.

Wait what? O_o Fuck this.

Everybody knows Barbapappa was very much supreme to Popeye...
Popeye is just a revisionist attempt to capture the attention away from what is truely a cartoon. I denounce your wrong revisionalist and anti-cartonist ideology! Its a sham I tell you...a sham!

And unconditional independence for Wallonia? What about Flanders? See this is exactly what you get if you let Popeye-ites run amok on these forums.

And L Lohan? Seriously? Poster girl for attention drawing! Very counter cartonist in my opinion....and its shows exactly what you Popeye-ites are all about! Now W Snipes. Thats an actor...not only can he out act L Lohan...but he is also better in Kung Fu.

So instead of doing your worng, and inferior thing....we should adopt my superior and right ideology of Barbappa-ism. Now that was a cartoon which understood what it was all about and truely catored to all the cartoon viewers without resorting to implicately advocating drug use.

So I suggest instead of freeing L Lohan we free W Snipes. Stock up on the collected works of Hindsight complete and move immediately for unconditional independence for Flanders and recommence production of Barbapappa.

:tt2::tt2::tt2:

[thesadmafioso]

And what exactly do you propose we argue about over the internet then? Revleft would become terribly dull without all of the historical bickering, and Stalin makes for a perfect topic to foster such.

[PhoenixAsh]

Anarchism is a subculture. ML is not. Tell me which naturally attracts angsty kids.

Wait...what?? O_o

IF...and I say IF....I was inclined to start a sectarian shif-fest to which this thread will undoubtedly devolve...I would say something like this:

Lets jab this back: at least we recruit young people naturally instead of having to force and coerce them through statist governmental politics.

But I am not...

So Instead I am going to say:

Anarchism is not a subculture....but has roost back to before Christ.,...its development as a political stream both was influenced and was influenced by Marxism...both positively and negatively (meaning on or the other both contributed or had the other react against it) but neither is a subculture of the other.

[PhoenixAsh]

And what exactly do you propose we argue about over the internet then? Revleft would become terribly dull without all of the historical bickering, and Stalin makes for a perfect topic to foster such.


we always have OI...

[Nolan]

Wait...what?? O_o

IF...and I say IF....I was inclined to start a sectarian shif-fest to which this thread will undoubtedly devolve...I would say something like this:

Lets jab this back: at least we recruit young people naturally instead of having to force and coerce them through statist governmental politics.

But I am not...

So Instead I am going to say:

Anarchism is not a subculture....but has roost back to before Christ.,...its development as a political stream both was influenced and was influenced by Marxism...both positively and negatively (meaning on or the other both contributed or had the other react against it) but neither is a subculture of the other.

We "force and coerce" people to join Marxist-Leninist movements?

You know what, I'm not continuing this to its logical conclusion. Someone else started it.

[csquared]

i dont know why so many people here are still stuck on the past! If we really want to change things we need to Start from the beginning! Lenin even said if a leftist movement fails you do not start where it failed. YOU START OVER!

[hatzel]

What exactly do you think people on here want to achieve, csquared? And what is 'the beginning' that we should start from?

[Rusty Shackleford]

i dont know why so many people here are still stuck on the past! If we really want to change things we need to Start from the beginning! Lenin even said if a leftist movement fails you do not start where it failed. YOU START OVER!
the leftist movement HASNT FAILED.

it still exists and it is evolving on its own. to say "hey lets just start over" would be a massive waste of time. also, who would give a fuck about people who say "hey were here to make a totally new socialism!"

[southernmissfan]

Yeah these type of threads pop up all the time. "Let's stop fighting with each other!" "Stop worrying about the past!" I agree, at least to an extent, with the sentiment but there is never any serious proposals. Before we can even begin constructing new thoughts, ideas and theories for our 21st century reality, we at least need to come up with some issues that need to be addressed!

[Tim Finnegan]

the leftist movement HASNT FAILED.
The what now? :confused:



I'm going to say again, as much as the OP has not expressed his position very well at all, I do find myself agreeing with him. The obligation felt by so many Marxists to bind themselves to archaic traditions can only be an impairment. Take lessons from history, certainly, and from historical thinkers, but that so many of us still insist on ordering ourselves on the basis of which long-dead revolutionary we most strongly identify with is quite frankly embarrassing.

The Leninist tradition is effectively dead, in all of its incarnations; the best you will get out of it now is a zombie, unnatural and unpopular, and not the basis for a mass movement. It is time for something new.

[hatzel]

The what now? :confused:The left-wing of capital, of course! Still going strong! :lol:

But also I don't get it...

[Rusty Shackleford]

fine, the struggle has not failed. it hasnt succeeded either.

there, ya happy now? :lol:

[hatzel]

The Leninist tradition is effectively dead, in all of its incarnations; the best you will get out of it now is a zombie, unnatural and unpopular, and not the basis for a mass movement. It is time for something new.Well I've been hanging out in theory, so...can I suggest Juche? :rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

fine, the struggle has not failed. it hasnt succeeded either.
Of course the struggled continues; it's the necessary contradiction of capitalist society, it couldn't not continue. The question is the state of the struggle, not its mere existence.



Well I've been hanging out in theory, so...can I suggest Juche? :rolleyes:
Well, it has replaced Marxism. http://craftycarping.co.uk/images/smilies/SmileyHmm.gif

[PhoenixAsh]

We "force and coerce" people to join Marxist-Leninist movements?

I was both mockingly refering to post revolution USSR and the sectarianism on this board.


You know what, I'm not continuing this to its logical conclusion. Someone else started it.Well...I am not really seeing that specific claim. Since nobody said ML in general backed everything Stalin did...much less the interjection of Anarchism in the debate.

Which by the way you did that was a little bit sectarian.

But your conclusion here in this quote was the general idea :-P

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah these type of threads pop up all the time. "Let's stop fighting with each other!" "Stop worrying about the past!" I agree, at least to an extent, with the sentiment but there is never any serious proposals. Before we can even begin constructing new thoughts, ideas and theories for our 21st century reality, we at least need to come up with some issues that need to be addressed!


My two cents on these issues:

1). Vanguardism
2). Party role
3). Authoritarianism
4). Statism
5). Mutual cooexistence in post revolution society
6). DOTP
7). Mutual cooexistence during the DOTP
8). Protection from prosecution by other revolutionaries
9). Standing armies

[hatzel]

...something tells me what when you say we should address those issues, you really mean that we should all just totally abandon them...I like it! :lol:

[csquared]

the leftist movement HASNT FAILED.

it still exists and it is evolving on its own. to say "hey lets just start over" would be a massive waste of time. also, who would give a fuck about people who say "hey were here to make a totally new socialism!"

I think people will care! There was a lot of American support in 1917 in Russia! But after Stalin most of that support was lost. If we say we admit the leninist revolution was an ethical catastrophe, and we are starting over without the evils of stalinism, I believe we will get a mass following.

[Futility Personified]

Sectarianism is a kibe. It'd be great if we could have one big party of ALL leftists and work our magic against capitalism, but you could argue that that's what kibed over Soviet Russia with the whole Stalin, Zinoiev and Kaminev(?) vs Trotsky business. Mildly depressing it is, but you could again argue that knowing that happened last time, party workings could be changed to prevent such occurences and the mass party could party on providing all energies towards socialism

[hatzel]

If we say we admit the leninist revolution was an ethical catastrophe, and we are starting over without the evils of stalinism, I believe we will get a mass following.You speak as if we all support Leninism, the Soviet Union or Stalin's policies...we don't have to start over to oppose something we opposed at the time :confused:

[csquared]

there are a lot of stalinists and leninists here

[#FF0000]

there are a lot of stalinists and leninists here

You have a Zizek avatar.

[Robespierre Richard]

there are a lot of stalinists and leninists here

Hey you've addressed the arguments made in this thread really well. Congratulations. :thumbup1:

[csquared]

Zizek is a neo-marxist. And nice sarcasm dick

[Omsk]

If we say we admit the leninist revolution was an ethical catastrophe, and we are starting over without the evils of stalinism, I believe we will get a mass following.

So,in order for us,communists to gain mass support,(i would not call you one though) we need to,apologize for the 'mistakes' of the communist leaders of the past,but the capitalists have no apologizing to do whatsoever?

[Robespierre Richard]

I liked that one video where Zizek talks about toilets...

[#FF0000]

Zizek is a neo-marxist. And nice sarcasm dick

Man I am no expert on Zizek's work but you are bonkers if you don't think that Zizek doesn't draw heavily from Marxism-Leninism.

http://marxistleninist.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/zizek-stalin.jpg

[El Chuncho]

http://marxistleninist.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/zizek-stalin.jpg

Looks like my bedroom! :thumbup:

[Chris]

If we just ignore history, we are bound to repeat what went wrong. Marxists needs to learn from the mistakes made during the building of Socialism in the USSR, and anarchists needs to learn from mistakes made in Catalonia and the Free Territory in Ukraine. Maoists need to look at China to see what went wrong (because looking at China today, no one can deny that somewhere along the way, something went horribly wrong).

If you don't learn your history, you are bound to learn it by living it again.


As for sectarianism, I think it is ridicilous. We all have the same goal, but different means to achieve them. Personally, I believe Marxism-Leninism is the tendency that has the best means to achieve our goal. I do also think that Anarcho-Syndicalism could do it, although (again, just in my opinion) less likely than a Leninist model.

[gorillafuck]

But to humor the spirit of your post, I'll say this. The states of Lenin/Stalin and Hoxha had limited proletarian democracy.I can't tak people seriously when they say that Albania had "limited proletarian democracy" but claim that Cuba never had anything of the sort.

[csquared]

Man I am no expert on Zizek's work but you are bonkers if you don't think that Zizek doesn't draw heavily from Marxism-Leninism.

http://marxistleninist.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/zizek-stalin.jpg

i have that picture on my desktop... but hes a neo-marxist i promise...he always says the new movement cannot go back to the Leninist ways and we must create a classless society without a totalitarian government

[csquared]

If we just ignore history, we are bound to repeat what went wrong. Marxists needs to learn from the mistakes made during the building of Socialism in the USSR, and anarchists needs to learn from mistakes made in Catalonia and the Free Territory in Ukraine. Maoists need to look at China to see what went wrong (because looking at China today, no one can deny that somewhere along the way, something went horribly wrong).

If you don't learn your history, you are bound to learn it by living it again.


As for sectarianism, I think it is ridicilous. We all have the same goal, but different means to achieve them. Personally, I believe Marxism-Leninism is the tendency that has the best means to achieve our goal. I do also think that Anarcho-Syndicalism could do it, although (again, just in my opinion) less likely than a Leninist model.

I didn't say forget history

[csquared]

So,in order for us,communists to gain mass support,(i would not call you one though) we need to,apologize for the 'mistakes' of the communist leaders of the past,but the capitalists have no apologizing to do whatsoever?
I would consider myself a communist..

[#FF0000]

i have that picture on my desktop... but hes a neo-marxist i promise...he always says the new movement cannot go back to the Leninist ways and we must create a classless society without a totalitarian government

Well yeah I hear him talk a lot about "old-style leninism" but he doesn't advocate throwing away all of Leninism or Marxism-Leninism. I mean if you could cite some source or something, that'd be great. I mean, you don't seem to realize this is a guy that defends the idea of a "revolutionary terror".

EDIT: And I'm not trying to say "OH ZIZEK THAT AWFUL STALINIST". I'm just seeing a disconnect between Zizek's work and your talk of the "ethical disaster" of leninism or whatever (which sounds familiar but sounds more like Chomsky to me, unless I'm wrong)

[Os Cangaceiros]

your talk of the "ethical disaster" of leninism or whatever (which sounds familiar but sounds more like Chomsky to me, unless I'm wrong)

Zizek briefly mentions the disaster that he thinks Leninism was in the speech he gave called "First As Tragedy".

Anyway, I don't see a huge problem with soviet and/or Stalin nostalgia on the left*. Sure, there's a lot of it around these parts, but this is an internet forum of people who already position themselves on the far-left side of the political spectrum. A lot of debate and "clarification" about the history of the far-left is to be expected. I hardly think that the level of discussion is the same when we talk about M-L recruitment and agitation on the ground level, amoung people who do not consider themselves to be leftists.

"Excuse me brother, have you heard the good news, passed down to us from our eternal leader and comrade Joseph Stalin?"

*with the exception of the Stalin flag clowns in the CPGB-ML, lol.

[hatzel]

i have that picture on my desktop...

You do appear to have crossed the line into rabid political messianism. I've read far too much Nietzsche and Stirner and...and...and to think that's a sensible idea, sorry...

[Tim Finnegan]

Man I am no expert on Zizek's work but you are bonkers if you don't think that Zizek doesn't draw heavily from Marxism-Leninism.

http://marxistleninist.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/zizek-stalin.jpg
Actually, he said in the film Zizek! that he just put that up to see how people react, a sort of strategic trolling. Basically, if they recoil in horror, he knows he's dealing with an idiot- although he didn't quite specify what he thought of those who reacted with enthusiasm. ;) (Although it was in his hallway, at the time- I guess he now invites guests into his bedroom? http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif :laugh:http://media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/miscellaneous/smile_280.gif)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Serious revolutionaries are not nostalgists. We must know our history though. What would happen if everyone just forgot the Paris Commune?

Also, "neo-marxism" is a silly term. its not like there is an old marxism or a new one. Its an ideology, not an event or material thing. Marxism is marxism.

This.

The ironic thing about activists or groups that call for "new Marxism" is that generally they end up taking a position held by socialists at some other point in the past.

Clearly anyone wanting to just relish the past and fetishize some old revolution is more of a radical Trekkie than a radical activist. But it is equally useless to try and sweep away (good as well as bad) past lessons or experiences because then like the "new Marxists" that pop up every generation or so end up having to re-invent the wheel or just end up repeating the mistakes of the past.

Radical activists are like scientific researches of working class revolutions. But unlike scientists we can not control all the variables in our theories to see what's working and not - and we can't just test a theory by willing it to happen - for the most part we have to wait for uprisings and revolutions to see if our ideas held up or not. This causes a lot of bickering because it's not so easy to figure out the exact reasons a revolution failed or pushed ahead. So this bickering is frustrating for a lot of people, but it's inevitable on some level (though bickering does not automatically mean sectarianism, which is not inevitable IMO) and can be healthy.

When scientists have incomplete fossil records they sometimes develop contradictory or competing theories to explain something - they try and base it on all available evidence, but the inability to find definitive proof leads to sometimes intense disagreements. And these disagreements only risk professional reputations and institutions getting grants and shit like that, not stakes like in a revolution.

(But I agree that anyone touting Stalin or the USSR is probably not going to get very far in convincing enthusiastic non-radical
people who want to help build a better world to become revolutionaries.)