1984: Anti-Marxist-Leninist? [Archive]

graymouser

31st May 2011, 04:34

It's a rank liberal work from an upper class, Trotskyist sympathizing git. It is an attack on Marxism and the USSR, and it creates a completely distorted, silly view of it. It's probably one of the things that launched the whole modern mentality that of everything in the world, what matters most is the cosmic satisfaction that people are "free." The bourgeoisie have found it extremely useful. Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres.

btw, Isaac Asimov owns (http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm).
Trotskyist sympathizing? If you ever bothered to read Homage to Catalonia, you'd know that in fact Orwell had nothing to do with Trotsky or his ideas. At his most radical, Orwell was with the POUM who broke publicly with Trotsky and had nothing to do with his ideas, and the ILP who were in the same international. And Orwell, like the Stalinists of the CPGB, supported "his own" country in the second World War. I have no support for his various political acts.

Most of the political atmosphere of 1984 is drawn directly from Orwell's observations of Barcelona around the May Days: there was a constant, somewhat distant conflict, party lines replaced truth entirely, there was a general privation. Likewise his view of the proles is thoroughly drawn from Down and Out in Paris and London, where Orwell took a rather dim view of workers as perpetually immersed in irrelevant details of life and unable to rise above it. Orwell drew an equals sign between where all societies were headed and saw it going toward the worst of his experiences.

It's quite funny that you're distorting reality to fit your own dim version of Orwell; your assertion that what matters is cosmic freedom is quite wrong. The definition of freedom is quite plainly stated in 1984: freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. This is not some cosmic sense in which man is free but the very concrete reality that Orwell came to feel in the face of Stalinists outright falsifying what he had seen before his face. The book's political trajectory was skewed by Orwell as a middle class writer who never really came to grips with the politics of the working class, much as he may have liked Barcelona when he first came to it. But it's a complex and well-written work, and one that deserves much better than this kind of trash talk.

NoOneIsIllegal

31st May 2011, 10:34

I'd be more concerned over how dreadfully boring it is to read.

Marxach-LÃ©inÃnach

31st May 2011, 10:48

And Orwell, like the Stalinists of the CPGB, supported "his own" country in the second World War.

Well I ain't a fan of Orwell but are you saying he should've supported Germany and Japan or something? It was OK to do that in WW1 but WW2 was quite a special case

NoOneIsIllegal

31st May 2011, 10:50

Well I ain't a fan of Orwell but are you saying he should've supported Germany and Japan or something? It was OK to do that in WW1 but WW2 was quite a special case
How was it even "OK" to support Germany or Japan in WW1? It was a massive slaughter fest for the capitalists, no matter what side.

PS: No, he wasn't saying Orwell should of supported Germany or Japan. He said in pretty simple language that Orwell did what the Stalinists did, which is support their country in WWII.

Blake's Baby

31st May 2011, 11:59

No, that's not what Marxach-Leininach was saying. He was saying it was OK in WWI to oppose the victory of your own country - turn the imperialist war into a civil war and all that - but then claiming that WWII was different, and presumably we all have to cheerlead for the good old Eurasia, I mean Soviet Union.

Of course, there's no perspective here that it may have been possible to call for the working class of both the Allied and Axis blocs to overthrow their governments.

Bronco

31st May 2011, 12:32

It's an iconic piece of anti-authoritarian fiction which is being horribly misrepresented here, as is Orwell himself

graymouser

31st May 2011, 12:56

Well I ain't a fan of Orwell but are you saying he should've supported Germany and Japan or something? It was OK to do that in WW1 but WW2 was quite a special case
No; the Trotskyists in World War II were defensists with regard to the USSR but did not support "their own" bourgeoisies in the war. This meant that they were opposed to the official war effort, which in the United States got the leadership of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party thrown in prison. Unlike the Stalinists they did not go along with no-strike pledges or the internment of the Japanese-Americans, etc.

As far as defeating the Nazis, the Trotskyists said that they did not trust the bourgeoisie to the task but instead called for the trade unions to be allowed to form and train an anti-fascist army. If there was to be a fight against the Nazis they didn't leave it to Washington. And the anti-fascist struggle had nothing whatsoever to do with the inter-imperialist rivalry between the US and Japan.

Zanthorus

31st May 2011, 15:33

the ideology of "Ingsoc", short for English Socialism.

Ingsoc is only the official ideology of the state in 1984. If you'd actually read the book more carefully you would remember that the regime had betrayed all the principles of Ingsoc in the name of Ingsoc.

caramelpence

31st May 2011, 17:02

You forgot to mention former colonial police man and later drew up lists of suspected communist and soviet sympathizers for the British state. Oh yeah and racism.

I've seen this kind of attitude towards Orwell and other authors before on this site, and the only thing I have to say is: who cares? I honestly don't care if an author is a colonialist with blood on their hands or if they killed innocent children or whatever so long as they write good books, and by good I mean books that inspire and interest me rather than books that conform to a narrow set of boring political stereotypes and which appear grossly contrived. Balzac was an arch-reactionary in the French 19th century sense of the term, in the style of de Maistre, and yet he was a great author of social realism - that's not only my opinion, it was shared by Marx and Engels as well. Mishima was a neo-traditionalist romantic who may have had some dodgy ideas about Japanese militarism, but his books are also great. These are just two examples but they are striking ones of authors who were certainly not progressive or left-wing by any standard but whose works are fantastic from a literary and aesthetic standpoint and who introduce themes (e.g. Mishima's reflections on the decline of traditional Japanese society, Balzac's satirization of the vicious ambition of the bourgeoisie and professions) that are likely to be of interest to people on the left, whatever the political views and intentions of the authors - but most importantly, they are books that should be read by anyone because they're great reads.

The only way you can say that an author is terrible and shouldn't be read solely on the basis of their own political beliefs is if you assume firstly that their political beliefs are necessarily going to manifest themselves in their writings and that those writings will be designed to win readers over to their politics or otherwise justify reactionary institutions and modes of behavior, and secondly that readers are generally so lacking in reflective and analytical capacities that they are liable to be straightforwardly won over or corrupted if they read books by non-left authors. Both of these are implausible and patronizing assumptions because they neglect the importance of reflection and imagination both for authors and readers.

Tim Finnegan

31st May 2011, 17:12

Am I the only one who would like to see a criticism of Orwell that doesn't consist of either pointing out his misguided colonial youth or whinging about how mean he was about Stalin?

what the hell

There are some very obvious mentionds e.g the ideology of "Ingsoc", short for English Socialism. The description of how the big brother regime comes to power, although i cant remember the exact phrasing, talks of the party overthrowing greedy capitalists in a revolution.

Obviously most sane-socialists arent going accept the society in 1984 as actually socialist, but in the book it is labeled so.
So, tell me, have you ever heard of the term "National Socialism"?

Rakhmetov

31st May 2011, 17:43

;)1984 is meant for all political societies, not just communist ones.

ZeroNowhere

31st May 2011, 19:03

So, tell me, have you ever heard of the term "National Socialism"?I once heard a speech against National Socialism delivered in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by a tit-mouse.

Franz Fanonipants

7th June 2011, 17:32

authoritarianism is a fake idea first really articulated by orwell and carried real far by american historians and social scientists to equivocate the ussr and nazis.

basically G. Orwell was a fink.

Tim Finnegan

7th June 2011, 18:52

authoritarianism is a fake idea first really articulated by orwell and carried real far by american historians and social scientists to equivocate the ussr and nazis.

basically G. Orwell was a fink.
I'm guessing here that you've read some critique of the concept of "totalitarianism", didn't quite understand it- hence your muddling of "authoritarianism" and "totalitarianism"- but picked up that Orwell's 1984 is regarded as a forerunner of the concept, apparently unaware that the only people who think this are also people who overlook- sometimes deliberately- the weight of class within the depicted universe. You should probably read some of Orwell's actual work, and pay a bit more attention to these critiques of "totalitarianism", before spouting this kind of nonsense.

☭The Revolution☭

7th June 2011, 19:20

I read all the way to when I was reading a book inside of the book. Thats when I said "dude... this is a piece of shit book" and tossed it aside.

Tim Finnegan

7th June 2011, 19:26

I read all the way to when I was reading a book inside of the book. Thats when I said "dude... this is a piece of shit book" and tossed it aside.
Christ almighty, what are you, twelve? That's a very well-established literary technique, so if we're to believe that you have any worthwhile criticisms of how it was employed by Orwell, you're going to have to offer something a bit more substantial "it was shit".

☭The Revolution☭

7th June 2011, 19:44

The book itself was fine. What I absolutely hated was how absolutely slow it was. I'm not a fan of slow books, hell I've even forgotten what I was reading once. I was talking to a friend once about it, one who had just recently read it and he had said that he'd skipped a few pages when it got slow. I was like "Heh, I can understand that."

Lacrimi de Chiciură

7th June 2011, 20:57

What strikes me is when our resident Stalinists argue that because Animal Farm and 1984 are often part of the curriculum of public schools in the Western world, that that makes them some kind of anti-Marxist propaganda tool.

My American public high school made me read Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and Elie Weisel's Night as well. Are those also imperialist propaganda?

Turinbaar

7th June 2011, 22:34

It is important to note that the societies of 1984 are emerging out of a global atomic war, a set of material conditions that I doubt any of the socialist thinkers or revolutionary leaders in history ever could have contended with. The leaders of the new society were a party claiming to be socialist (the collective mentality being the only logical response to an existential crisis of the species), made up of the former commanders of the heights of industry, politics, science, and labor organization. Orwell describes the establishment of their new world order as "rejecting as vilifying every principle the socialist movement once stood for, and choosing to do so in the name of socialism."

In Marx's "Private Property and Communism" he describes the initial and immature stages of communism in which:

the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things."

As outlined in his "Estranged Labor" the worker is not regarded by capital as a human being, but as an object, and as Marx continues from the above quote, he goes on to describe the relationship between the community and its workers as a state of "universal capitalism," in other words a state in which humanity is treated as a collection of objects. In "Estranged Labor," Marx makes the direct analogy of the relationship of labor and capital to the that of the worshiper and God. The laborer gives himself to capital, sacrificing his physical body, just as the worshiper sacrifices his mind and spirit to God.

In 1984, this relationship of universal capital to labor is outlined in "Goldstein's Book" (for those of you who weren't too lazy to continue reading by then), where the whole of humanity is treated by the Party as mere objects in the productive engines in military industrial capital (the driving economic system of the three empires), either as objects of labor, objects of public shame or hatred, and objects of war. The analogy first made by Marx of capitalism and religion is directly applied to 1984 in the figure of Big Brother, the object of universal worship by the workers and the party. The Party being the possessor of literally everything (state, economy, history and objective truth itself), except the human spirit for liberation (embodied in Winston Smith), which cannot be owned or possessed, sets its entire existence to the destruction of humanity. This is the conclusion drawn by Smith's torturer, O'brian, who shows Winston his own mangled body in the mirror and says to him "this is the last man." The purpose of this is the realization of absolute power, and as Winton later writes "God is Power."

Julia's role in the story can be understood partly as equivalent to Winston's, but also in context of what Marx described in "Private Property and Communism" as the state of "universal prostitution" that follows the abolition of marriage, whereby:

Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism

And indeed this secret is manifest in Julia being used as both an object of labor as a prominent figure in the "Anti-Sex League," and as an object of lust for various of ranking party members.

Marx goes on in "Private Property and Communism" to describe the final stage of communism as a universal humanism and naturalism, in other words the overthrow of the inhuman party that is hoped for by Winston Smith, by those who it is claiming to liberate. Smith is to the oppressed of 1984 what Joe Hill is to the oppressed of this world, in other words the universal man, oppressed and slain, but destined always to rise again. However the march of history has produced material realities not predicted by Marx, such as the nuclear warhead. Orwell's decision to finally break Winston coincides with his positing the idea in his "You and the Atom Bomb," that a nuclear ruling class may be immune to revolution, a position that has yet to be successfully disproved in places like North Korea, where the potential of socialist consciousness exists, but the main impediment to that realization is a nuclear armed socialist party, and as long as the left insists that it is Orwell who is the traitor, and not the endless "marxist-leninist" clones that have come to dominate the workers of the world, then such a conclusion will remain unanswered.

Franz Fanonipants

8th June 2011, 01:06

words

Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession Cambridge University Press 1988

see esp. chapter titled "The Defense of the West."

Os Cangaceiros

8th June 2011, 02:31

I read the book before I became politically aware and enjoyed it. I did not find it "boring" at all, actually.

I thought it was kind of depressing at the time, though. Later on I realized that the dystopia he portrayed in 1984 is just as unrealistic as the most fantastic of utopias...even in the most totalitarian of societies, control & power is never as monolithic and eternal as it seems in 1984.

NewLeft

8th June 2011, 02:34

Am I the only one who thinks 1984 made the perfect case for socialism?

Pretty Flaco

8th June 2011, 02:35

Am I the only one who thinks 1984 made the perfect case for socialism?

How?

Rooster

8th June 2011, 02:38

I read all the way to when I was reading a book inside of the book. Thats when I said "dude... this is a piece of shit book" and tossed it aside.

Why? Why did you throw it away at that point?

RED DAVE

8th June 2011, 03:27

Am I the only one who thinks 1984 made the perfect case for socialism?
How?By showing the futility of collectivism without democracy.

In the US, most leftists have always enjoyed the book. Yes, it was used as Cold War propaganda, etc., but that's long past. The movie version, the second movie, with John Hurt and Richard Burton, is excellent.

ETA: Also, Orwell's concept of Newspeak and the political uses of the corruption of language and distortion of the past as extremely interesting.

RED DAVE

Born in the USSR

8th June 2011, 15:52

Animal Farm was the critique of the Soviet Union....It isn't 'reactionary' at all. Yes,the criticism of the words of the Soviet Union is not reactionary at all.It turnes out that the criticism of the weapon of the Soviet Union was not reactionary,too.Hitler's criticism of the weapon wasn't reactionary.The criticism of the Cold War wasn't reactionary.

It's quate clear on whose side are you,dear antistalinists.

Tim Finnegan

8th June 2011, 16:47

Yes,the criticism of the words of the Soviet Union is not reactionary at all.It turnes out that the criticism of the weapon of the Soviet Union was not reactionary,too.Hitler's criticism of the weapon wasn't reactionary.The criticism of the Cold War wasn't reactionary.

It's quate clear on whose side are you,dear antistalinists.
That's emotive bluster, not an argument. Criticising X on grounds Y does not become reactionary just because another, self-evidently reactionary entity criticised it on grounds Z. That simply does not follow; it's a fallacy of association, not a logical progression.

Or would you say that rape is progressive, on the grounds that it is condemned by reactionary clergymen? :rolleyes:

pranabjyoti

8th June 2011, 17:07

Am I the only one who thinks 1984 made the perfect case for socialism?
Do you mean "capitalism"? Actually, the imperialist countries are now much close of INGSOK than USSR under Stalin. I am curious what Orwell would say about the "Patriot Act" and their mirror acts in different "democratic" countries around the world.
At least, I don't know any book of Orwell where he criticized "imperialism" and I am also curious that The Animal Farm animals were never attacked by any outsider force i.e. imperialism, that want to militarily and by every kind of nasty means want the return of the "humans" as the owner of the farm. Then how can the animal farm be compared with USSR under Stalin.
I will consider 1984 and The Animal Farm as some kind of close to reality "criticism" of "Stalinism" if UK and the animal farm were depicted to be under sever attack from outside humans.
Actually, Orwell (I think unwillingly and unknowingly) portrayed the worst case scenario of imperialism. INGSOK is much more closer to present "democracies" than "Stalinist" USSR.

Tim Finnegan

8th June 2011, 17:34

Do you mean "capitalism"? Actually, the imperialist countries are now much close of INGSOK than USSR under Stalin. I am curious what Orwell would say about the "Patriot Act" and their mirror acts in different "democratic" countries around the world.
At least, I don't know any book of Orwell where he criticized "imperialism" and I am also curious that The Animal Farm animals were never attacked by any outsider force i.e. imperialism, that want to militarily and by every kind of nasty means want the return of the "humans" as the owner of the farm. Then how can the animal farm be compared with USSR under Stalin.
I will consider 1984 and The Animal Farm as some kind of close to reality "criticism" of "Stalinism" if UK and the animal farm were depicted to be under sever attack from outside humans.
They were, twice. First, Mr. Jones, the original owners symbolising the Tsarist state, attempts to retake the farm as an analogy for the White Army and Western intervention, and then later Mr. Frederick, a neighbouring farmer symbolising the Third Reich, attempts to take over the farm and restore human leadership as an analogy for the German invasion.

Have you actually read the book? :confused:

Actually, Orwell (I think unwillingly and unknowingly) portrayed the worst case scenario of imperialism. INGSOK is much more closer to present "democracies" than "Stalinist" USSR.
Actually, given the weight of class in Oceanic society, and Orwell's explicit-to-the-point-of-blatant description of IngSoc as a ruling class ideology, not a proletarian one, I'd say that he knew exactly what he was doing. His whole attitude to the USSR, as Animal Farm demonstrates, was "out with the old boss, in with the new boss", so it didn't surprise him at all that certain elements of Soviet society closely paralleled those outside of it in his own day. I've no reason to see why he would have, in the last sixty years, become somehow positive in his view of capitalism.

Leo

8th June 2011, 23:53

Blake's Baby

9th June 2011, 00:02

Responding to Leo, not Tim (possibly this is the only thread on RevLeft where I more or less agree with Tim):

I don't think that's true. Winston still has faith in the proles; just because he cracks under O'Brian's torture, I don't think message of hope for the future is lost. Winston may have failed to stand up to the Party but I don't think the perspective for future revolution is diminished. Winston is essentially 'right' until he is physically and mentally destroyed by the Party, but I really don't read that as jeopardising the future.

Rafiq

9th June 2011, 00:06

It's a fine piece of bourgeois trash that I won't be reading again. I suggest trolling your teacher with leftist essays when she assigns you a book response. When she asks "How did you feel about the book"

Answer:

"This book was a fascist, trot liberal propaganda tool, and a direct attack on the people's revolutionary socialist motherland! Orwell to the gulags!"

Tim Finnegan

9th June 2011, 00:16

It's a fine piece of bourgeois trash that I won't be reading again.
Ironically, though, you seem to have entirely internalised the Oceanic habit of sucking all but the most superficial rhetorical meaning out of political terminology.

Das war einmal

9th June 2011, 00:37

It's a very bleak outlook on a possible future. Orwell wrote this when he was very ill, so that helped make things a bit more depressing. It's not advocating left-anarchism or something, as far as I have noticed. In the book it's stated that the proles will never rise up because they're being distracted by pulp media entertainment. In short it kind of concludes that there's no hope and even love won't stand a chance against the mighty jaws of the ones in power.

The book has some aspects which remind me of the life we have today
-The 2 minutes of hate: displayed in real life on the most vulgar forum sites, where people spew hatred against the muslims/immigrants/left whenever there's news about for example some robbery
- Newspeak: 'workers' have been replaced with 'employee's', 'bosses' with 'employers'
- Movies which extreme violent scenery blended with a form of extreme slapstick as a form of entertainment (Tarantino movies)
- Altering of history to portray oneself in a better way

Geiseric

9th June 2011, 00:51

Incidentally, I've heard that the book was actually written as a parody of England at the time, and Orwell intended to publish it under the name "1948" instead of "1984" but his publisher didn't let him. The message is however anti-revolutionary even if that is the case - at the end it turns out that the proles can't make a revolution and actually opposing the regime is impossible. I disagree with your assessment because Orwell to me is saying that the proles already had a revolution, but now the ruling class that rose out of it and betrayed EVERYTHING the revolution stood for makes sure that the proles aren't indoctrinated into party belief, they're instead kept as docile little more than numbers to the party. He isnt saying they're naturally incapible, hes just saying that with all of the propaganda (Choco rations are up!) as well as no education whatsoever given by the party, the proles in the current world of 1984 have no idea what they're capible of

graymouser

9th June 2011, 01:41

I disagree with your assessment because Orwell to me is saying that the proles already had a revolution, but now the ruling class that rose out of it and betrayed EVERYTHING the revolution stood for makes sure that the proles aren't indoctrinated into party belief, they're instead kept as docile little more than numbers to the party. He isnt saying they're naturally incapible, hes just saying that with all of the propaganda (Choco rations are up!) as well as no education whatsoever given by the party, the proles in the current world of 1984 have no idea what they're capible of
It states plainly in the text of Goldstein's book that the most gifted proles are marked down by the Thought Police and eliminated, due to the lack of mobility between the proles and the Party.

What's remarkable, going back to that passage from the book, is that the Party was explicitly entirely non-racist toward the people of Oceania. I found that simply remarkable, although that may be intended to parallel the anti-racism of the Communist Parties in his period.

pranabjyoti

9th June 2011, 01:52

They were, twice. First, Mr. Jones, the original owners symbolising the Tsarist state, attempts to retake the farm as an analogy for the White Army and Western intervention, and then later Mr. Frederick, a neighbouring farmer symbolising the Third Reich, attempts to take over the farm and restore human leadership as an analogy for the German invasion.
Well, the problem is that above two incidents you mentioned, placed like just footnotes and there is no mention that how those attempts affected the internal relations of the farm animals.
At least, I can not remember any kind of external attack on England in 1984. Do you?

Tim Finnegan

9th June 2011, 02:26

Well, the problem is that above two incidents you mentioned, placed like just footnotes and there is no mention that how those attempts affected the internal relations of the farm animals.
But to what extent do you see this as compromising the analogy? Otherwise you're just being pedantic.

At least, I can not remember any kind of external attack on England in 1984. Do you?Why would there be? 1984 wasn't intended to be an analogy.

RED DAVE

9th June 2011, 11:15

If you haven't read it, and you should, here's the entire text online:

1984 (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984)

RED DAVE

Born in the USSR

9th June 2011, 11:34

That's emotive bluster, not an argument. Criticising X on grounds Y does not become reactionary just because another, self-evidently reactionary entity criticised it on grounds Z. That simply does not follow; it's a fallacy of association, not a logical progression.

Or would you say that rape is progressive, on the grounds that it is condemned by reactionary clergymen?

Tell me clear - is anti-Sovetism reactionary or progressive?If it is progressive in your opinion,be consistent and support all anti-Soviet actions,including Hitler's invasion.

manic expression

9th June 2011, 11:49

"1984" is definitely one to avoid. It has very little applicable political substance, it isn´t all that entertaining, Orwell tries to say everything and ends up saying nothing at all. "Gee, this imaginary world kinda sucks" is all you can get out of it...everything else ("it´s about Stalin! No, authoritarianism! No, Britain! No, George W Bush!") is conjecture, at best. In all, the book basically reflects the haziness and confusion of Orwell´s own politics far more than anything else.

Blake's Baby

9th June 2011, 11:52

Tell me clear - is anti-Sovetism reactionary or progressive?If it is progressive in your opinion,be consistent and support all anti-Soviet actions,including Hitler's invasion.

Be clear, is breathing a good thing or a bad thing? If it's a good thing, you must support everyone breathing, including rapists, child-killers and people with really bad haircuts.

So, you support rape and the murder of children then?

Rooster

9th June 2011, 12:32

At least, I can not remember any kind of external attack on England in 1984. Do you?

Yeah, the one that destroyed society when Winston was a child. There's also bombs that land on Airstrip One, I believe.

Anyway, I don't get why Marxist-Leninists get their panties in a twist about this book but completely ignore We (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28novel%29) which was written by a Russian who lived through 1905 and 1917 and is a direct response to Lenin's Russia. The book that inspired Nineteen Eighty-Four in more ways than one.

Full text online (PDF): http://mises.org/books/we_zamiatin.pdf

W1N5T0N

9th June 2011, 12:42

Orwell is simply warning of how the state can take control over people, and how totalitarianism results in complete sub-ordination of the individual mind. Also, George Orwell was a Communist himself, and he saw the horrors of stalinist and alas, certain leninist practices. And yes, let's not pretend that the red terror is an imperialist lie, it was very real. Orwell is not going in against one system, even though he mentions "ingsoc", he is warning against unchecked authority of any form ultimately turning into an oppressive state machinery using terror. I think he also shows how the bureaucracy form new classes, see inner/outer party members and proles. I think he is arguing against any form of highly authoriarian regimes, and the propaganda that accompanies it (see USA!).

:star:

RED DAVE

9th June 2011, 13:19

Tell me clear - is anti-Sovetism reactionary or progressive?If it is progressive in your opinion,be consistent and support all anti-Soviet actions,including Hitler's invasion.A prime example of the rigidity and primitivism of stalinist thinking.

Listen, Comrade, strangely enough, one can be anti-stalinist and still not be fascist.

RED DAVE

Born in the USSR

9th June 2011, 15:17

A prime example of the rigidity and primitivism of stalinist thinking.

Listen, Comrade, strangely enough, one can be anti-stalinist and still not be fascist.

RED DAVE

Three-sided barricades do not exist.Either you are on the side of the USSR in the cold war,or you are on the side of the bourgeoisie.Or you'll assert that there was no such confrontation?

Blake's Baby

9th June 2011, 16:01

The USSR was the bourgeoisie you muppet.

And if three sided barricades don't exist, you must believe that the Stalinists were on the side of the Fascists in Spain, because they sure as hell weren't on the side of the Barcelona workers.

Kiev Communard

9th June 2011, 16:17

Three-sided barricades do not exist.Either you are on the side of the USSR in the cold war,or you are on the side of the bourgeoisie.Or you'll assert that there was no such confrontation?

Well, it is then a question whether the Cold War-era USSR ever seriously intended overthrowing bourgeoisie worldwide. Judging from their support to various 'progressive' Third World bourgeois dictators, I doubt it, as the struggle against capitalism is something more than a geopolitical confrontation with a singular capitalist state, even the most powerful one (i.e. the USA). In addition, even some Marxists-Leninists (Stalinists) following the pro-Chinese or pro-Albanian line doubted the USSR's anti-capitalist commitment. To give one an example from a somewhat different historical period, the French bourgeois revolutionaries did not enter into agreements with German and Italian princes who were 'oppressed' by Hapsburgs and Prussians as a matter of 'anti-imperialism', they overthrew them.

Born in the USSR

9th June 2011, 16:51

The USSR was the bourgeoisie you muppet.

And you,of course,a cool revolutionary.And were is your revolutrion,Mr.Luxemburgist?

And if three sided barricades don't exist, you must believe that the Stalinists were on the side of the Fascists in Spain, because they sure as hell weren't on the side of the Barcelona workers.Stalinists in Spain fought ahainst fascists and Barselona "workers",that is POUM trots,stabed in their backs.Future great admirers of Orwell.

But I don't see the answer:is anti-Sovetism reactionary or progressive?

Geiseric

9th June 2011, 16:53

I wouldnt have sided with the state of the USSR nor the bourgeois, i would have sided with the workers. ALSO following anything without critisizing it at any point is reactionary in my views. I ask more qquestions about how trotskyist parties failed than when they suceeded to my comrades so when the time comes i won't make the same mistake. Ironically in most of the degenerated workers states, such as china, vietnam, and the eastern bloc, the same thing happened that made the trot movements fail, the stalinists came along... I think that more genuine communists have been killed by the states of china, U.S.S.R. and other D.W.S. than even by capitalist countries.

Rooster

9th June 2011, 17:15

And you,of course,a cool revolutionary.And were is your revolutrion,Mr.Luxemburgist?

Heh, and where is your revolution?

Blake's Baby

9th June 2011, 17:18

And you,of course,a cool revolutionary.And were is your revolutrion,Mr.Luxemburgist?...

'My' revolution, that is the world revolution of the working class, was murdered by the Freikorps in Berlin, the Red Army at Kronstadt, and the 'progressive' KMT in Shanghai, not to mention the guns of the Stalinists in Spain, the Russian tanks in Budapest, etc. It's also the revolution that's building now and will, I hope, sweep capitalism from the face of the Earth, along with the Stalinist shit that you're spouting.

'Anti-sovietism' reactionary or progressive... you haven't answered my question about whether breathing is good or bad. Because if you support breathing then you support Hitler.

In general though, as I'm not 'pro-Soviet' (not after 1921 anyway) then I must say that I think 'anti-Sovietism' (whatever that means) must be progressive. As you no doubt think fascists in America are progressive because they hate Barak Obama. But faction fights in the world ruling class, East or West, are not my concern. I'm for the self-organisation of the working class, because I'm a communist, not support for a brutal state-capitalist regime that perverted the words 'communism' and 'socialism' for the best part of a century.

manic expression

9th June 2011, 17:59

'My' revolution, that is the world revolution of the working class, was murdered by the Freikorps in Berlin, the Red Army at Kronstadt, and the 'progressive' KMT in Shanghai, not to mention the guns of the Stalinists in Spain, the Russian tanks in Budapest, etc. It's also the revolution that's building now and will, I hope, sweep capitalism from the face of the Earth, along with the Stalinist shit that you're spouting.
M-Ls support the German Revolution and the Chinese Communists at Shanghai.

'Anti-sovietism' reactionary or progressive... you haven't answered my question about whether breathing is good or bad. Because if you support breathing then you support Hitler.
Sorry about jumping in, but the point about no three-sided barricades is a very good one and isn't disqualified by your allegory. Nuanced analyses are extremely important and basically unavoidable, I give you that much...but at the end of the day, do you support socialist states? If a socialist country is being attacked....do you stand with it even though you have reservations, or do you simply stand aside?

For all our theoretical disagreements that we could talk about dawn till dusk, this is one of the questions with real practical consequences. The fall of European socialism was a bitter blow to the workers of the world, not only politically but materially, a blow that we are still recovering from. IMO, that kind of arithmetic leaves no doubt as to why all socialists should support socialist states, even if they hold objections.

Heh, and where is your revolution?
Communists are leading vitally important working-class struggles all around the world.

Blake's Baby

9th June 2011, 18:12

M-Ls support the German Revolution and the Chinese Communists at Shanghai...

Except the KPD was purged in 1920, the CPC was told to ally with the KMT. Mao even left the CPC and joined the KMT just before Shanghai, didn't he?

...at the end of the day, do you support socialist states?...

No, of course not, there's no such thing as a 'socialist state', there are only capitalist states that pretend they're socialist.

...If a socialist country is being attacked....do you stand with it even though you have reservations, or do you simply stand aside?...

Neither. If a house is on fire, do you throw yourself on the flames or do you walk off laughing?

manic expression

9th June 2011, 18:23

Except the KPD was purged in 1920, the CPC was told to ally with the KMT. Mao even left the CPC and joined the KMT just before Shanghai, didn't he?
I'll look into the KPD being "purged" (do you have a quick reference?), I've never once seen a statement by Lenin that indicated any general disapproval of the efforts of German revolutionaries, I've only seen Bolsheviks hoping that Revolution would succeed and being extremely disappointed when it eventually didn't. The CPC was told to ally with the KMT, I don't think Mao ever left the CPC...but regardless, it was a betrayal by the KMT, it's not like Stalin was rubbing his hands together trying to figure out how to destroy the Shanghai Commune or anything.

No, of course not, there's no such thing as a 'socialist state', there are only capitalist states that pretend they're socialist.
I suppose that's a disagreement we won't bridge anytime soon. But why then the support for the Shanghai Commune?

Neither. If a house is on fire, do you throw yourself on the flames or do you walk off laughing?
I'd get as much water as I could. And a ladder to get anyone out of higher windows...even a few bed mattresses could help someone to jump out of a window. What's your point?

Turinbaar

9th June 2011, 18:34

But I don't see the answer:is anti-Sovetism reactionary or progressive?

Before you get your answer (and then immediately reference the evil Hitler), what is your opinion of the molotov-ribbintrop pact? If you reject it, then on what basis do say that you are pro-soviet? If you support the Nazi-Soviet pact, then on what basis do you pretend to lecture everyone else on socialist principle and anti-fascism?

Rakhmetov

9th June 2011, 19:21

Have you guys seen the movie? Excellent!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5464625623984168940#

Blake's Baby

9th June 2011, 19:23

I'll look into the KPD being "purged" (do you have a quick reference?), I've never once seen a statement by Lenin that indicated any general disapproval of the efforts of German revolutionaries, I've only seen Bolsheviks hoping that Revolution would succeed and being extremely disappointed when it eventually didn't...

Wow. You've really never heard of the KAPD then, the party that regrouped more than 60% of the German communists and was expelled from the KPD? Google/wiki the KAPD (Kommunistiche Arbeiter Partei Deutschlands). Then find about Herman Gorter, Jan Appel, Paul Mattick, Karl Korsch, and Otto Ruhle.

After that you could maybe luck up 'Luxemburgist deviationism' from 1924.

...The CPC was told to ally with the KMT, I don't think Mao ever left the CPC...but regardless, it was a betrayal by the KMT, it's not like Stalin was rubbing his hands together trying to figure out how to destroy the Shanghai Commune or anything.

... why then the support for the Shanghai Commune?

You're connecting things that have no connection. I don't support 'socialist' states 'so why support the Shanghai Commune?'. I could say, if you don't like omlettes, why do you have a cat?

The Shanghai Commune was a revolutionary attempt by the Chinese working class to overthrow capitalism. That's why I support it. 'Socialist states' are the imposition of brutal and reactionary state capitalist regimes on the working class. That's why I don't support them. The clue is that one is revolutionary (good) and the other is reactionary (bad).

And the Comintern was telling the CPC to ally with the KMT because a 'progressive' republic in China was in Russia's interest. The Shanghai Commune was sacrificed for Russia's foreign policy interests, just as the devloping revolution in Spain was sacrificed for Russia's foreign policy interests. So, yes, there was a certain 'rubbing of hands' I would have thought.

... What's your point?

You gave me only two alternatives (support invasion of socialist state! Or support defence of socialist state!) and there aren't only two alternatives. So I gave you two alternatives. You didn't pick either of them, good man, you're learning.

RED DAVE

9th June 2011, 19:52

Three-sided barricades do not exist.Either you are on the side of the USSR in the cold war,or you are on the side of the bourgeoisie.Or you'll assert that there was no such confrontation?i was on neither side as neither side represented the interests of the working class.

The USA, etc., were the capitalists. No problem there. But some people, for some odd reason, seem to think that the USSR was the homeland of the world working class. I've never been able to understand this, especially since the USSR, theoretically a workers state, morphed into a vicious capitalism without mass protests by the working class.

But as Orwell said in 1984, "If there is hope, it lies in the proles."

RED DAVE

Red Future

9th June 2011, 19:53

manic expression

9th June 2011, 23:03

Wow. You've really never heard of the KAPD then, the party that regrouped more than 60% of the German communists and was expelled from the KPD? Google/wiki the KAPD (Kommunistiche Arbeiter Partei Deutschlands). Then find about Herman Gorter, Jan Appel, Paul Mattick, Karl Korsch, and Otto Ruhle.

After that you could maybe luck up 'Luxemburgist deviationism' from 1924.
Sure I've heard of the KAPD...but you'd have to be a world-class melodramatic to call every leftist slit a "purge", especially since the KAPD itself underwent a split some years later. By the way, what exactly did that group accomplish? Nevertheless, that was long after the fact of what we're discussing. The German Revolution and the KAPD are not the same thing, not by a long shot.

You're connecting things that have no connection. I don't support 'socialist' states 'so why support the Shanghai Commune?'. I could say, if you don't like omlettes, why do you have a cat?
You're fast becoming RevLeft's premier bad analogy machine. What you're saying is "I have this animal that looks like a cat, smells like a cat, acts like a cat...but I don't call it a cat so it's not a cat".

The Shanghai Commune was a revolutionary attempt by the Chinese working class to overthrow capitalism. That's why I support it. 'Socialist states' are the imposition of brutal and reactionary state capitalist regimes on the working class. That's why I don't support them. The clue is that one is revolutionary (good) and the other is reactionary (bad).
:lol: OK, so let me get this one straight. An apparatus is "a revolutionary attempt by the working class to overthrow capitalism" if you like it...but if you don't like it, it's "the imposition of brutal and reactionary state capitalist regimes on the working class". Brilliant. The definition of a thing rests fully on whatever opinion you feel like pulling out of your hat.

Back in the real world, revolutionaries look at the material reality of things and make their analyses accordingly. The Shanghai Commune established the authority of one group over another...just like any other state. At the very least, it was developing state power when it was crushed. Just because you don't want to call it a state doesn't mean anything, except to underline how you're approaching history from a hopelessly slanted and anti-materialist perspective.

So I'll ask you again: why do you support one example of working-class state power and not others?

And the Comintern was telling the CPC to ally with the KMT because a 'progressive' republic in China was in Russia's interest. The Shanghai Commune was sacrificed for Russia's foreign policy interests, just as the devloping revolution in Spain was sacrificed for Russia's foreign policy interests. So, yes, there was a certain 'rubbing of hands' I would have thought.
Uh, no. The USSR had absolutely no idea that the KMT was going to try to destroy the CPC in one fell swoop. That's an absolutely absurd suggestion you're making, one with not a shred of evidence behind it.

But yeah...Stalin was stroking his mustache, trying to figure out how to destroy the CPC. :rolleyes: Nice one. Next you'll be telling us that Mao himself was planning it out with his old pal Chiang all along, and that his later victory as leader of the Chinese Revolution was in spite of his best efforts. :lol:

You gave me only two alternatives (support invasion of socialist state! Or support defence of socialist state!) and there aren't only two alternatives. So I gave you two alternatives. You didn't pick either of them, good man, you're learning.
Wow, you're so clever. Except you're continuing your pattern of misunderstanding your own random analogies. Why? If a house is burning, you can try to help or you can not help. Those are the two main courses of action. Everything after that decision is a matter of approach and tactics.

So I'll ask you again: if a socialist state is invaded by a reactionary power...do you support it or not?

Blake's Baby

9th June 2011, 23:22

OK, I'll admit that as you can't even read (I already answered that question, several posts ago), let alone think, you might find my argumentation (and indeed words) difficult.

Read this:

There are no socialist states

Got that?

So, following on from that:

A 'Socialist State' can not be invaded, because it does not exist

So I would not support a 'socialist state'. All states are bougeois. All states need to be destroyed.

Now, as you can't tell the difference between a workers' revolution and a gang of bandits, I suggest you look at some factory workers; these people are proletarians, members of the working class. These are incidently the people the MLs are so keen on massacring.

Now look at Mao's guerillas, or Castro's guerillas: these are bandits relying on the peasantry, not members of the working class, not the bold proletarian vanguard, but the paid assassins of state capitalist bureaucracies. Try to learn the difference.

manic expression

10th June 2011, 00:02

There are no socialist states

Got that?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are.

So I would not support a 'socialist state'. All states are bougeois. All states need to be destroyed.So you oppose socialist states. Got it.

Now, as you can't tell the difference between a workers' revolution and a gang of bandits, I suggest you look at some factory workers; these people are proletarians, members of the working class. These are incidently the people the MLs are so keen on massacring.:lol: What? You're making less and less sense. The proletariat was never "massacred". You're making things up because make-believe is the only way you can prop up your teetering worldview.

But then again, you're the one who thinks the KAPD is the same thing as the German Revolution.

Now look at Mao's guerillas, or Castro's guerillas: these are bandits relying on the peasantry, not members of the working class, not the bold proletarian vanguard, but the paid assassins of state capitalist bureaucracies. Try to learn the difference.:lol: Nope, there was no support for the Cuban Revolution in the cities. None. :lol:

Go read a book. Maybe then you'll be able to say something worth hearing.

Blake's Baby

10th June 2011, 01:32

Pal, the day I say anything you think is worth hearing is a day I'll wash my mouth with carbolic soap and check my face for the signs of growing horns. I can live with that. You're either deluded, or a liar; and either way a traitor to the revolution. I expect you to send round the Cheka for me on day 2 of the revolution, meanwhile I'll be out with the Red Guard shooting you down in the street.

Man, I love MLs. They make it so easy to see who the enemies of the revolution are.

Blake's Baby

10th June 2011, 01:51

'Socialist states' are the imposition of brutal and reactionary state capitalist regimes on the working class.

Im sorry but what the hell , how does this apply to the Chinese Revolution in 1949..was that imposed?:confused:

Yes. I wouldn't even call it a revolution. It was a civil war between the CPC and the KMT. The independant action of the Chinese working class was already over (murdered by the USSR's allies in the KMT at Shanghai in 1927).

Nanatsu Yoru

10th June 2011, 02:27

So you oppose socialist states. Got it.
Strawman.

Honestly, what is with these Stalinists dragging everyone else down with their "Soviet Union or you're a cappie!" arguments? I'm not gonna start flaming, rather I'm going to say that I reject the Soviet Union on basic ideological grounds - by the time of Stalin, power was no longer in the hands of the workers. They did not have the ability to strike, for example. Even far before the time the Soviet Union fell, it was a far cry from the socialism that Marx had envisioned when he wrote the Manifesto... and that's what the Marxists-Leninists forget. Was there any way the Soviet Union could have become stateless? Personally, I am inclined to think not.

RedTrackWorker

10th June 2011, 04:29

The USSR had absolutely no idea that the KMT was going to try to destroy the CPC in one fell swoop.

The Stalinist leadership of the Comintern did know--or had the information to know--but said the opposite.

To this end all the Press of the Comintern joined in denying and thrusting aside the rumours and reports, growing in number and in plausibility, that Chiang Kai-shek was heading in Shanghai toward a decisive break. It was a veritable conspiracy of silence around an impending catastrophe.

It is impossible to say that the Comintern was unaware of what was happening. In a few weeks its whole Press would furiously belch forth denunciations of Chiang Kai-shek, with all the information suppressed for a year pouring out in a hot stream. The letter of the three Comintern functionaries, from which we have quoted, showed that Chiang’s orientation was no secret to the men on the spot. But there is evidence still more striking.

The quote is just an example--not the evidence itself--from Harold Isaacs' fantastic work The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/1938/tcr/) Chapter 9 (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/1938/tcr/ch09.htm).

Trotsky and the Oppositionists were warning of the very thing that you say the "USSR" had "absolutely no idea" was going to happen (an event that the bourgeois press was also predicting). If to some extent people did not know, perhaps it's because they were applying, shall we say, Orwellian techniques to the Opposition and to workers' movement in general.

The Man

10th June 2011, 05:25

You didn't, you said it was against Marxist-Leninism. Do you see them as seperate? If you like it's a critique of Marxist-Leninism, from a Marxist perspective. It's quite pro-Trotsky. It's a little Anarchist. It's very bleak. It isn't 'reactionary' at all.

In a simple word: No. I believe that Marxism-Leninism is the true foundation of what Marx was describing to us. There are multiple Marxist-Leninists who actually denounce Stalin.

manic expression

10th June 2011, 08:25

Pal, the day I say anything you think is worth hearing is a day I'll wash my mouth with carbolic soap and check my face for the signs of growing horns.
Spoken like a true puritan. I suppose you'll be wanting to save your energy for the revival meeting with your fellow ultra-left anti-socialist "pals".

I can live with that. You're either deluded, or a liar; and either way a traitor to the revolution. I expect you to send round the Cheka for me on day 2 of the revolution, meanwhile I'll be out with the Red Guard shooting you down in the street.
:lol: Like I said, your politics are all make-believe, based on a make-believe understanding of history. Blah, blah you hate the Cheka because they defended the Revolution from your preferred anti-Soviet faction. Look, we get it, you don't like socialism in practice. Admit it and move on

Man, I love MLs. They make it so easy to see who the enemies of the revolution are.
Yeah, it is pretty easy when you admit that you don't support socialist states.

The Stalinist leadership of the Comintern did know--or had the information to know--but said the opposite.
A bit of proof would be useful. Your blurb doesn't prove anything. Sure there were denunciations but Chiang's next moves were not fully known. Further, Trotsky might have predicted it from a crystal ball and a set of tarot cards...no one in the Comintern was listening to him, so bringing him up is meaningless outside of ideological vanity.

Strawman.

Honestly, what is with these Stalinists dragging everyone else down with their "Soviet Union or you're a cappie!" arguments? I'm not gonna start flaming, rather I'm going to say that I reject the Soviet Union on basic ideological grounds - by the time of Stalin, power was no longer in the hands of the workers. They did not have the ability to strike, for example. Even far before the time the Soviet Union fell, it was a far cry from the socialism that Marx had envisioned when he wrote the Manifesto... and that's what the Marxists-Leninists forget. Was there any way the Soviet Union could have become stateless? Personally, I am inclined to think not.
It's not at all a strawman. By failing to recognize socialist states as socialist, the poster is refusing to support socialism. This has been stated by the poster themselves, it is not my formulation but their own.

The power of the Soviet Union was in the hands of the workers through the position of the vanguard party.

And the only way the Soviet Union could have become stateless is through the decisive fall of imperialism and the smashing of capital in all parts of the globe. It was, though, far closer to statelessness than any other model.

RedTrackWorker

10th June 2011, 09:57

A bit of proof would be useful. Your blurb doesn't prove anything. Sure there were denunciations but Chiang's next moves were not fully known.

Yes, my blurb doesn't prove anything. But there was a link. To a book. Full of references and sources. You don't have to read it, but don't act like it doesn't exist because I didn't quote the whole thing on revleft.

Further, Trotsky might have predicted it from a crystal ball and a set of tarot cards...no one in the Comintern was listening to him, so bringing him up is meaningless outside of ideological vanity.

This is so confused. The tarot card reference is just idiocy but the irony is that you're undermining your own side by saying no one was listening to him because
1) Stalin wrote documents replying to what Trotsky was saying (the one most directly in question with this coup was unpublished since it was so clearly wrong, see here (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/1938/tcr/ch09.htm#fw23)), and
2) To the extent that it was true that people weren't listening to someone who was explaining that an important event in the class struggle was about to happen, then that doesn't exactly make them look good or concerned for the working class if they were ignoring him because of factional considerations.

Blake's Baby

10th June 2011, 10:06

Spoken like a true puritan. I suppose you'll be wanting to save your energy for the revival meeting with your fellow ultra-left anti-socialist "pals"...

If by puritan, you mean communist, then yes, I hope so.

You however are a grubby apologist for a murderer, and want to do it all again. You're a falsifier of history and a dogmatic bureaucrat-in-waiting.

:lol: Like I said, your politics are all make-believe, based on a make-believe understanding of history. Blah, blah you hate the Cheka because they defended the Revolution from your preferred anti-Soviet faction. Look, we get it, you don't like socialism in practice. Admit it and move on

... you admit that you don't support socialist states...

Admit? You didn't trick it out of me, I proclaim it, I shout it from the rooftops.

I don't 'hate' the Cheka but I don't love it either; however I'm well aware that your power-grabbing faction of bureaucratic murderers will pretty quickly establish control over it. My hope is that, unlike last time, the working class will get you all before you get us.

...
... By failing to recognize socialist states as socialist, the poster is refusing to support socialism...

Rubbish, I refuse to support statism. By refusing to admit there can be no 'socialist states' you are refusing to support reality.

Socialism is a classless communal society without states or borders. What you envision as 'socialism' is a state capoitalist dictatorship that oppresses the class in whose name it rules. Again, you're either deluded or lying (and I know which I think more likely) and an enemy of socialism.

For the international power of the workers' councils!

manic expression

10th June 2011, 11:15

If by puritan, you mean communist, then yes, I hope so.
No, I mean an ultra-left hack who doesn't understand what socialism in practice means or looks like or is. Enjoy your moral purity, but actual communists have more important issues to address.

You however are a grubby apologist for a murderer, and want to do it all again. You're a falsifier of history and a dogmatic bureaucrat-in-waiting.
Another in a large pile of unsubstantiated slander. It seems the only thing you can do is lie and rely on bourgeois myths about socialism.

Admit? You didn't trick it out of me, I proclaim it, I shout it from the rooftops.Oh, I take little credit, you're the one proudly proclaiming yourself to be an anti-socialist. I simply put the question to you and you answered somewhat honestly.

I don't 'hate' the Cheka but I don't love it either; however I'm well aware that your power-grabbing faction of bureaucratic murderers will pretty quickly establish control over it. My hope is that, unlike last time, the working class will get you all before you get us.:lol: More internet tough guy ranting.

The working class succeeds when it takes state power. Then the working class has to defend itself from its enemies...hence suppression. That's why communists are able push forth the struggle of the workers while ultra-lefts pontificate on how pure they are (while doing nothing).

Rubbish, I refuse to support statism. By refusing to admit there can be no 'socialist states' you are refusing to support reality.More anti-materialist ultra-left garbage. "Statism" is an idiotic concept because states are defined by the class that controls them. The old feudalist states of Europe are quite different from bourgeois states, and both are not at all like proletarian states. When you say that you refuse to support "statism", what you're saying is that you refuse to support the progress of the working class.

But just so we're clear...you refuse to support socialism. You're not alone, there are many anti-socialist ideologues like you...just admit it and move on.

Socialism is a classless communal society without states or borders. What you envision as 'socialism' is a state capoitalist dictatorship that oppresses the class in whose name it rules. Again, you're either deluded or lying (and I know which I think more likely) and an enemy of socialism.Again, go read a book. Socialism is the first stage of communism, which isn't classless because class struggle continues. Every single socialist movement that's been halfway-successful has recognized this basic, obvious fact. That's why socialists build socialism while ultra-lefts complain on the sidelines.

But thanks for again showing us that you have no idea what you're talking about. It really does help to explain why no one with your ideas has ever done anything useful.

For the international power of the workers' councils!Have fun with those slogans. It's all your tendency has ever accomplished. :lol:

RedTrackWorker

10th June 2011, 11:51

Again, go read a book. Socialism is the first stage of communism, which isn't classless because class struggle continues. Every single socialist movement that's been halfway-successful has recognized this basic, obvious fact.

Which book? In Stalinist books, yes that's said. But not Marx, Engels or Lenin.

Take State and Revolution, the section on the "first stage" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3):

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible

Is there a word of "class struggle" under socialism? No. There's plenty of words about that "the antithesis between mental and physical labor" has not completely been overcome....but strangely Lenin seems to neglect the "class struggle" that every "halfway-successful" socialist has recognized under socialism.

If it's communism--even if only the first stage "marked" by coming just from capitalism, how could there be classes? What's the difference between capitalism and communism if it's not the abolition of class society?

As Lenin writes in another section (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2): "Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production)". And if you read the context it's clear he's talking about "communism" in the general sense, not just in the "highest stage" sense--see also the table of contents quote in the next paragraph.

Some confuse the period of transition from capitalism to communism with the lower stage of socialism. The table of contents from State of Revolution--specifically the last three sections of chapter five--help clarify that:
"The Transition from Captialism to Communism
The First Phase of Communist Society
The Higher Phase of Communist Society"

The "transition" is that of the workers' state: "Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state." There is still exploitation and classes--and it's not communism yet (not even the first phase)--but is transitional to it.

So again, what book--from someone other than a Stalinist--explains how class struggle continues under socialism? What analysis from Marx? From Engels? From Lenin?

For those interested in reading more, chapter three (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/chapter3_transitiontosocialism.pdf) of the LRP's book the Life and Death of Stalinism takes up the question of the transition to socialism.

Born in the USSR

10th June 2011, 12:08

'My' revolution, that is the world revolution of the working class, was murdered by the Freikorps in Berlin, the Red Army at Kronstadt, and the 'progressive' KMT in Shanghai, not to mention the guns of the Stalinists in Spain, the Russian tanks in Budapest, etc...

This "etc" must be workers of Izhevsk and Votkinsk,who raised a rebellion in 1918,the reason for the rebellion was a ban on a free trade.They formed two divisions and joined the White Army.Really,the barricade has only two sides:serving whites they shot reds.

Shooting reds in Barcelona POUM's bastards was at the side of the fascists.

And what about the workers who were on strike against Allende and who paved the way for facsists?

No,they are not the working class,they are the dregs of the working class.

If anti-Sovetism is progressive,then long live all anti-Soviet actions,long live the cold war against the USSR,long live the blockade of Cuba and N Korea,long live the war in Vietnam.No wonder that this sort of leftists support the intervention in Libya now.

Really,the left anticommunism is the left heel of imperialism.

"We have three secret transmitter in Russia. Trends: the first one is Trotskyist,the second is separatist, the third is Russian nationalist." ( "The Diary of Joseph Goebbels,30.06 1941).

The bourgeois lackeys.

Rooster

10th June 2011, 12:24

If anti-Sovetism is progressive,then long live all anti-Soviet actions

What exactly do you mean by soviet? Do you mean the grass roots movement of direct democracy (ie, worker's councils) as a means to prevent counter revolution, or do you mean the hierarchical governmental system of the USSR? You do realise that you can't really have both, right? Anti-soviet actions? You mean like when Kerensky and Kornilov tried to remove the Petrograd soviet (if by the first definition)? Or are you conflating the whole thing to mean the state of the USSR, the governmental structure and anti-soviet action to mean ... the removal of said state structure? How can communism exist with a state? :confused: Is communism anti-soviet then?

manic expression

10th June 2011, 12:32

Which book? In Stalinist books, yes that's said. But not Marx, Engels or Lenin.

Take State and Revolution, the section on the "first stage" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3):

Is there a word of "class struggle" under socialism? No. There's plenty of words about that "the antithesis between mental and physical labor" has not completely been overcome....but strangely Lenin seems to neglect the "class struggle" that every "halfway-successful" socialist has recognized under socialism.
Not having exploitation of man by man doesn't mean there isn't class struggle. It simply means the capitalist class has been expropriated and that the workers hold control of the means of production. It means, as was the case in the USSR, that there is an absence of generalized commodity production.

If it's communism--even if only the first stage "marked" by coming just from capitalism, how could there be classes? What's the difference between capitalism and communism if it's not the abolition of class society?
The difference between capitalism and socialism is that one is controlled by the capitalist class and the other by the workers.

As Lenin writes in another section (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2): "Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production)". And if you read the context it's clear he's talking about "communism" in the general sense, not just in the "highest stage" sense--see also the table of contents quote in the next paragraph.
Yeah, in the general sense, as in the objective of the revolution. That's not under discussion. What is under discussion is how to get there.

Some confuse the period of transition from capitalism to communism with the lower stage of socialism. The table of contents from State of Revolution--specifically the last three sections of chapter five--help clarify that:
"The Transition from Captialism to Communism
The First Phase of Communist Society
The Higher Phase of Communist Society"

The "transition" is that of the workers' state: "Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state." There is still exploitation and classes--and it's not communism yet (not even the first phase)--but is transitional to it.But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

This is written under the convenient heading of "The First Phase of Communist Society". So yes, the state still exists to defend the society already constructed in the first phase of communist society.

Blake's Baby

10th June 2011, 13:52

I don't know what socialism is, but I think the state should kill workers

Fixed that for you.

manic expression

10th June 2011, 17:40

Fixed that for you.
Of course you haven't noticed this yet, but your ultra-left fantasies don't count as actual arguments. Perhaps you'd notice that if you stopped clinging to the apron of imperialist propaganda for two seconds.

RedTrackWorker

10th June 2011, 21:32

Not having exploitation of man by man doesn't mean there isn't class struggle. It simply means the capitalist class has been expropriated and that the workers hold control of the means of production. It means, as was the case in the USSR, that there is an absence of generalized commodity production.

Three problems here:
1. There is a quote, helpfully provided in the very post which you're replying to, which notes that there is still exploitation in the transition from capitalism to communism: "Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority." If exploitation were impossible, what would be the need to suppress the exploiters?
2. Why does Lenin makes a distinction between the transition from capitalism under a workers' state and the two phases of communism--because what you're saying amounts to equating the transition and the first phase?
3. Where in the section on the transition does Lenin say anything about the "absence of generalized commodity production" or when does Lenin ever proclaim its absence after taking power?

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that one is controlled by the capitalist class and the other by the workers.

Except the problem is that not what Lenin says. He says the transition is when workers rule and in the first phase of communism, there are no classes which brings us to your next error of interpretation:

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

This is written under the convenient heading of "The First Phase of Communist Society". So yes, the state still exists to defend the society already constructed in the first phase of communist society.

I figured you'd be unable to understand that part when you read it. Note what it doesn't say: class.

Let's look at the fuller quote:

To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

So the state withers away when no need to suppress classes. But under the first phase, it still exists. Why? Because of "defects" just emerging from capitalism--so a state yet remains in some way to safeguard....the workers? That's not what Lenin writes, he writes: "bourgeois law." That is a "defect" from coming from class society. He does not write: suppression of the bourgeoisie--which is what he writes about the transition.

Compare again:

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law" (talking about first phase)
and

the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state. (talking about the transition)

Wherein in the first phase of communism does he talk about exploitation (except to say it's impossible), class (except to say it leaves its "defects"/"marks" on the emerging communist society, or a state (except to say this reflects those defects of class society and is not actually for class struggle but "bourgeois law")?

manic expression

10th June 2011, 22:19

Three problems here:
1. There is a quote, helpfully provided in the very post which you're replying to, which notes that there is still exploitation in the transition from capitalism to communism: "Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority." If exploitation were impossible, what would be the need to suppress the exploiters?
2. Why does Lenin makes a distinction between the transition from capitalism under a workers' state and the two phases of communism--because what you're saying amounts to equating the transition and the first phase?
3. Where in the section on the transition does Lenin say anything about the "absence of generalized commodity production" or when does Lenin ever proclaim its absence after taking power?
1.) Suppression is not exploitation. The possibility of exploitation, suppressed by suppression, is not exploitation.

2.) Because I'm trying to get the idea through some people's skulls that socialism does involve "statism".

3.) He doesn't, I was talking about the experience of the Soviet Union and the aspects of its social relations that distinguished it fully from a capitalist mode of production.

Except the problem is that not what Lenin says. He says the transition is when workers rule and in the first phase of communism, there are no classes which brings us to your next error of interpretation:

I figured you'd be unable to understand that part when you read it. Note what it doesn't say: class.The state still exists in the first phase of communism. Thus there is a need for the state.

So the state withers away when no need to suppress classes. But under the first phase, it still exists. Why? Because of "defects" just emerging from capitalism--so a state yet remains in some way to safeguard....the workers? That's not what Lenin writes, he writes: "bourgeois law." That is a "defect" from coming from class society. He does not write: suppression of the bourgeoisie--which is what he writes about the transition.
Of course, he also wrote this:

Lastly, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed--“nobody” in the sense of a class, of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population. We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.

Which means that the decline of class conflict is not some fixed formula, but a process that depends entirely on surrounding conditions.

Wherein in the first phase of communism does he talk about exploitation (except to say it's impossible), class (except to say it leaves its "defects"/"marks" on the emerging communist society, or a state (except to say this reflects those defects of class society and is not actually for class struggle but "bourgeois law")?
That's just the thing. Exploitation, as you are using the term, did not exist on any substantial scale in the Soviet Union.

And he talks about a state...he specifically said that it would not wither away until the higher phase of communism.

Tim Finnegan

10th June 2011, 22:21

Spoken like a true puritan. I suppose you'll be wanting to save your energy for the revival meeting with your fellow ultra-left anti-socialist "pals".
You are astonishingly inept at insulting people.

In a simple word: No. I believe that Marxism-Leninism is the true foundation of what Marx was describing to us.
To be quite frank, that sounds far more like a religious approach to Marxism than it does a scientific one. Perhaps you'd be better off leaving this whole "communism" business to others, and settle down in a nice evangelical church somewhere?

Fopeos

10th June 2011, 23:53

Orwell was a socialist. He even served in the International Brigades in Spain's civil war. He was anti-Stalin. Animal Farm is a metaphor for Russia's revolution and Stalin's counter-revolution. 1984 is anti police-state. of course, a police-state can be built on any economic foundation.

RedTrackWorker

11th June 2011, 00:43

In reply to the Lenin quote that "Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority", manic says "Suppression is not exploitation. The possibility of exploitation, suppressed by suppression, is not exploitation".
If there is not exploitation, how is there an exploiting minority and exploited majority?

Again, about the transition, Lenin says the exploited majority suppresses the exploited minority. About communism (both phases), Lenin says exploitation is "impossible." If exploitation is "impossible," there is not exploited or exploiter.

Manic claims that class struggle exists under socialism. In response to a Lenin quote that I explicated as saying that the state exists as a remnant under socialism but not because of class struggle, manic replies: "The state still exists in the first phase of communism. Thus there is a need for the state." But his claim is that class struggle exists under socialism--i.e. his response is a bait-and-switch.

He then quotes Lenin on the first phase on "inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves" and then jumps to "Which means that the decline of class conflict is not some fixed formula".

Lenin says "excesses on part of individual persons"...not class exploitation or excess. He specifically notes that this is not a "special apparatus of suppression" (in the first phase) whereas under the transition he notes the need for "A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression". Why the difference? Because in the transition we're dealing with "the suppression of the minority of exploiters", i.e. a class issue and in the first phase we're dealing with "excesses on the part of individual persons", i.e. the "defects" from having just emerged from class society.

So in sum, manic says "read a book" but he had just acted like a book didn't exist disproving his assertion that no one knew or could have know about the KMT coup against the communists and he then claimed that "half-way successful" socialists recognize the existence of class struggle under socialism, but he can only prove his point with, shall we say, Orwellian twisted interpretations of Lenin and Marx. He cannot provide a quote in which Marx or Lenin talk about "class" or "class struggle" under communism (in any phase)--which was exactly his claim.

Die Rote Fahne

11th June 2011, 00:54

1984 was a critique of totalitarianism and authoritarianism.

Born in the USSR

11th June 2011, 02:21

1984 was a critique of totalitarianism and authoritarianism.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon -- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough? Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve a reaction." (Engels)

Die Rote Fahne

11th June 2011, 03:05

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon -- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough? Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve a reaction." (Engels)

I mean authoritarian rule. Such as banning freedom of speech, using the police to place emphasis on obedience, and such...

pranabjyoti

11th June 2011, 04:00

I mean authoritarian rule. Such as banning freedom of speech, using the police to place emphasis on obedience, and such...
Can you give the name of any country in the world now, where the above mentioned freedoms of yours existed ever IN REALITY?

Die Rote Fahne

11th June 2011, 04:26

Can you give the name of any country in the world now, where the above mentioned freedoms of yours existed ever IN REALITY?

Those were examples, and I am aware of the vagueness...how do you not get what I'm saying...I'm not doing this from a phone.

Born in the USSR

11th June 2011, 05:05

I mean authoritarian rule. Such as banning freedom of speech, using the police to place emphasis on obedience, and such...

Engels meant the same thing.

Die Rote Fahne

11th June 2011, 05:51

Engels meant the same thing.

I'm going to go OD on atasol

Geiseric

11th June 2011, 07:15

I don't think he meant authoritarianism in the implied context, i.e. police basking protests, propaganda posters everywhere, one party 1984 esque state.

He means proletarian authoritarianism which is used to get done what they want to get done. The classic conontation of Authoritarianism is opposite of what the proletariat want done. I believe he means the authority to have protesters take up weapons and occupying factories, not the authority for a party which was elected in the similar way as most revolutionary parties such as the bolsheviks, the cult of revival, (the country and the world will be better! They know the answers to what needs to be done!) Basically saying what people want to hear to get power, he doesn't mean Authoriarianism on the behalf of the proletariat, he means authoritarianism used by the proletariat directly.

My belief is that a certain amount of authoritarianism is needed to do anything, it just matters who has the authority and who's being oppressed. People marching through cities demanding rights, jobs, food, freedom, are excersising what little authority they have left. When those people go to more authoritarian measures in the context Engels used it he meant instead of protesting they're doing what they want done, with no stops along the way. The spaniards burning down the corrupt churches was an act of what i call proletarian authoritarianism, the russian, german, british, american workers taking over of factories or workplaces is the same thing. He doesn't mean state authoritarianism, he wants proletarian authoritarianism.

Geiseric

11th June 2011, 07:16

Die Rote Fahne

11th June 2011, 11:48

HEAD ICE

11th June 2011, 17:28

god damn manic expression got ran out of this thread, hilarious. dude repeatedly talks shit and acts like a total prick when he doesn't know the first fuck what he is talking about. All of his pathetic attempts at trying to dodge and dive and wrangling his way out of conundrums like trying to say socialism is a class society when everything written by Marx and Lenin says otherwise fails miserably, he cannot even out argue his own strawmans.

This what they are teaching you in law school manic???? Nobody worth their weight will take you as a lawyer.

Born in the USSR

12th June 2011, 15:05

I don't think he meant authoritarianism in the implied context, i.e. police breaking protests, propaganda posters everywhere, one party 1984 esque state.

He means proletarian authoritarianism which is used to get done what they want to get done. The classic conontation of Authoritarianism is opposite of what the proletariat want done. I believe he means the authority to have protesters take up weapons and occupying factories, not the authority for a party which was elected in the similar way as most revolutionary parties such as the bolsheviks, the cult of revival, (the country and the world will be better! They know the answers to what needs to be done!) Basically saying what people want to hear to get power, he doesn't mean Authoriarianism on the behalf of the proletariat, he means authoritarianism used by the proletariat directly.

My belief is that a certain amount of authoritarianism is needed to do anything, it just matters who has the authority and who's being oppressed. People marching through cities demanding rights, jobs, food, freedom, are excersising what little authority they have left. When those people go to more authoritarian measures in the context Engels used it he meant instead of protesting they're doing what they want done, with no stops along the way. The spaniards burning down the corrupt churches was an act of what i call proletarian authoritarianism, the russian, german, british, american workers taking over of factories or workplaces is the same thing. He doesn't mean state authoritarianism, he wants proletarian authoritarianism.

"But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this "pure socialism" view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

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

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

The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism--not created from one's imagination but developed through actual historical experience--could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture? The historical evidence would suggest it was not. As the political philosopher Carl Shames argued:

How do [the left critics] know that the fundamental problem was the "nature" of the ruling [revolutionary] parties rather than, say, the global concentration of capital that is destroying all independent economies and putting an end to national sovereignty everywhere? And to the extent that it was, where did this "nature" come from? Was this "nature" disembodied, disconnected from the fabric of the society itself, from the social relations impacting on it? . . . Thousands of examples could be found in which the centralization of power was a necessary choice in securing and protecting socialist relations. In my observation [of existing communist societies], the positive of "socialism" and the negative of "bureaucracy, authoritarianism and tyranny" interpenetrated in virtually every sphere of life. (Carl Shames, correspondence to me, 1/15/92.)

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

Tony Febbo questioned this blame-the-leadership syndrome of the pure socialists:

It occurs to me that when people as smart, different, dedicated and heroic as Lenin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Ho Chi Minh and Robert Mugabe--and the millions of heroic people who followed and fought with them--all end up more or less in the same place, then something bigger is at work than who made what decision at what meeting. Or even what size houses they went home to after the meeting. . . .

These leaders weren't in a vacuum. They were in a whirlwind. And the suction, the force, the power that was twirling them around has spun and left this globe mangled for more than 900 years. And to blame this or that theory or this or that leader is a simple-minded substitute for the kind of analysis that Marxists [should make]. (Guardian, 11/13/91)

To be sure, the pure socialists are not entirely without specific agendas for building the revolution. After the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, an ultra-left group in that country called for direct worker ownership of the factories. The armed workers would take control of production without benefit of managers, state planners, bureaucrats, or a formal military. While undeniably appealing, this worker syndicalism denies the necessities of state power. Under such an arrangement, the Nicaraguan revolution would not have lasted two months against the U.S.-sponsored counterrevolution that savaged the country. It would have been unable to mobilize enough resources to field an army, take security measures, or build and coordinate economic programs and human services on a national scale."

Michael Parenti - "Left Anticommunism"

pranabjyoti

12th June 2011, 15:29

Those were examples, and I am aware of the vagueness...how do you not get what I'm saying...I'm not doing this from a phone.
Actually you (and others like you) are just unable to understand that such freedoms can only exist in a classless society. Giving the bourgeoisie the freedom to poison our daily live in totally undesirable and dangerous, whatever liberal scums may think of that matter.

Die Rote Fahne

12th June 2011, 15:35

Actually you (and others like you) are just unable to understand that such freedoms can only exist in a classless society. Giving the bourgeoisie the freedom to poison our daily live in totally undesirable and dangerous, whatever liberal scums may think of that matter.

Lol...the only reason such freedoms for the capitalists should be feared after revolution is if the revolution wasn't popular, or was supported blindly.

"Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party - though they are quite numerous - is no freedom at all." - Rosa Luxemburg

manic expression

12th June 2011, 21:13

Know what this thread really needs, what it really deserves? A cowardly, lying troll. Looks like we're in luck.

god damn manic expression got ran out of this thread, hilarious. dude repeatedly talks shit and acts like a total prick when he doesn't know the first fuck what he is talking about. All of his pathetic attempts at trying to dodge and dive and wrangling his way out of conundrums like trying to say socialism is a class society when everything written by Marx and Lenin says otherwise fails miserably, he cannot even out argue his own strawmans.
Of course you didn't notice that I haven't been active on the forum over the last few days. But now I'm back, so you can bust more veins in your inactive head over how much you hate Marxism. It's funny how much communist politics pisses you off...maybe if you put 1/5 of that effort into being a revolutionary you wouldn't sound like a petty anti-socialist mouthpiece.

This what they are teaching you in law school manic???? Nobody worth their weight will take you as a lawyer.But no, you're still a lying coward. Nice to know you haven't changed...it reminds me of how sore you are after getting your ass kicked by myself and other actual Marxists on this forum countless times (which is why you only showed yourself here when you thought the coast was clear). :lol: It also reminds me what ultra-lefts like yourself really are: anti-socialist windbags who can do nothing but lie. Well done, Stagger Lee, you are a credit to your non-movement. :laugh:

In reply to the Lenin quote that "Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority", manic says "Suppression is not exploitation. The possibility of exploitation, suppressed by suppression, is not exploitation".
If there is not exploitation, how is there an exploiting minority and exploited majority?
You're taking Lenin's words completely out of context. He's not saying that the minority still exploits the majority, he's saying that those are the class identities and social realities imposed by capitalism, and that they aren't erased by the expropriation of the capitalist class. You're asking us to believe that Lenin's program includes the exploitation of the majority by the minority...which is the worst sort of nonsense.

Again, about the transition, Lenin says the exploited majority suppresses the exploited minority. About communism (both phases), Lenin says exploitation is "impossible." If exploitation is "impossible," there is not exploited or exploiter.There is not exploited or exploiter as reflected in production. The classes still exist (hence my position that class struggle continues in this phase), but the exploitation does not. It goes back to my first response, which you patently ignored.

It is interesting that you claim that there is no class struggle, and yet you are now saying that the enemy of the proletariat persists in composition and interest during this period. Your propositions, of course, are utterly at odds with one another. I'll give you time to sort them out.

Manic claims that class struggle exists under socialism. In response to a Lenin quote that I explicated as saying that the state exists as a remnant under socialism but not because of class struggle, manic replies: "The state still exists in the first phase of communism. Thus there is a need for the state." But his claim is that class struggle exists under socialism--i.e. his response is a bait-and-switch.Lenin specifically said that the state cannot wither away until the higher phase of communism. If you say, without basis, that it has absolutely no purpose, then that is truly the bait-and-switch.

He then quotes Lenin on the first phase on "inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves" and then jumps to "Which means that the decline of class conflict is not some fixed formula".

Lenin says "excesses on part of individual persons"...not class exploitation or excess. He specifically notes that this is not a "special apparatus of suppression" (in the first phase) whereas under the transition he notes the need for "A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression". Why the difference? Because in the transition we're dealing with "the suppression of the minority of exploiters", i.e. a class issue and in the first phase we're dealing with "excesses on the part of individual persons", i.e. the "defects" from having just emerged from class society.Again, you're confusing terms just because you feel like it. Class exploitation isn't synonymous with the existence of class struggle. The Soviet Union did away with exploitation, and yet capitalists didn't disappear into thin air, as you suggest.

So in sum, manic says "read a book" but he had just acted like a book didn't exist disproving his assertion that no one knew or could have know about the KMT coup against the communists and he then claimed that "half-way successful" socialists recognize the existence of class struggle under socialism, but he can only prove his point with, shall we say, Orwellian twisted interpretations of Lenin and Marx. He cannot provide a quote in which Marx or Lenin talk about "class" or "class struggle" under communism (in any phase)--which was exactly his claim.You admitted you proved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING regarding the KMT. Post something that remotely shows us what you're arguing and maybe you'll be able to brag about having a valid position. That you're too lazy to put forth a point worth reading isn't my problem.

RedTrackWorker

12th June 2011, 23:00

You admitted you proved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING regarding the KMT. Post something that remotely shows us what you're arguing and maybe you'll be able to brag about having a valid position. That you're too lazy to put forth a point worth reading isn't my problem.

I admitted that my original post by itself proved nothing. I also linked to a book full of references and sources. You told Stagger Lee: "read a book." As I already said: "You don't have to read it, but don't act like it doesn't exist because I didn't quote the whole thing on revleft."

And I did post an example to counter your point that "no one knew": "Stalin wrote documents replying to what Trotsky was saying (the one most directly in question with this coup was unpublished since it was so clearly wrong, see here (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/1938/tcr/ch09.htm#fw23))".

As to the rest of your post, let's try to simplify:
* Your original claim is "Socialism is the first stage of communism, which isn't classless because class struggle continues."

* You have yet to provide a single quote in which "class," "workers," or "class struggle" is mentioned by Marx or Lenin as existing under socialism. If I missed it, then perhaps you'll be so kind as to provide it again as I did for you above re: the KMT.

* You have yet to explain why Lenin (and Stalin) distinguished between the transition to communism from capitalism under a workers' state (dictatorship of the proletariat) and socialism as the first phase of communism.

It is interesting that you claim that there is no class struggle, and yet you are now saying that the enemy of the proletariat persists in composition and interest during this period. Your propositions, of course, are utterly at odds with one another. I'll give you time to sort them out..

I assume what you're responding to is: "Again, about the transition, Lenin says the exploited majority suppresses the exploited minority." I'm talking about the transition from capitalism to communism, the workers' state, in which I have consistently claimed there is class struggle. When did I say the "enemy of the proletariat persists in compositions and interest" under socialism? When did Marx or Lenin?

Lenin specifically said that the state cannot wither away until the higher phase of communism. If you say, without basis, that it has absolutely no purpose, then that is truly the bait-and-switch.

Where did I say it has no purpose? It has a purpose but it is not as a "special apparatus of suppression"--its purpose exists because society "cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible" (Lenin) and "there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products" (Lenin).

Again, if you read Chapter five (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm) of State and Revolution, you can see that in section 2 on the transition from capitalism, he talks of "exploiters," "suppression," "dictatorship of proletariat," "minority" and "majority", etc.

Then in section 3, on "The First Phase of Communist Society", there is no talk of those words but instead "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society" (Lenin quoting Marx).

manic expression

12th June 2011, 23:44

I admitted that my original post by itself proved nothing. I also linked to a book full of references and sources. You told Stagger Lee: "read a book." As I already said: "You don't have to read it, but don't act like it doesn't exist because I didn't quote the whole thing on revleft."
You don't have to quote the whole thing...just some relevant parts.

And I did post an example to counter your point that "no one knew": "Stalin wrote documents replying to what Trotsky was saying (the one most directly in question with this coup was unpublished since it was so clearly wrong, see here (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/1938/tcr/ch09.htm#fw23))".No, you went to a tangential point and didn't address what I was actually talking about. You can go back and read it if you don't believe me.

* Your original claim is "Socialism is the first stage of communism, which isn't classless because class struggle continues."

* You have yet to provide a single quote in which "class," "workers," or "class struggle" is mentioned by Marx or Lenin as existing under socialism. If I missed it, then perhaps you'll be so kind as to provide it again as I did for you above re: the KMT.I've also said that the state's existence in that first stage implies a necessity for that state. By extension, you've seemed to argued that the state serves absolutely no purpose at that stage...is that indeed your point?

* You have yet to explain why Lenin (and Stalin) distinguished between the transition to communism from capitalism under a workers' state (dictatorship of the proletariat) and socialism as the first phase of communism.Lastly, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed--“nobody” in the sense of a class, of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population.

I assume what you're responding to is: "Again, about the transition, Lenin says the exploited majority suppresses the exploited minority." I'm talking about the transition from capitalism to communism, the workers' state, in which I have consistently claimed there is class struggle. When did I say the "enemy of the proletariat persists in compositions and interest" under socialism? When did Marx or Lenin?Lenin did so through the quotes that I've provided.

Where did I say it has no purpose? It has a purpose but it is not as a "special apparatus of suppression"--its purpose exists because society "cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible" (Lenin) and "there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products" (Lenin).Safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production from whom? You're expecting us to believe that Lenin is arguing for the safeguarding of socialism while also arguing that there is no one to safeguard it from. You haven't demonstrated that this expectation holds no water, and so you're putting up quotes that do not necessarily agree with your position.

Again, if you read Chapter five (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm) of State and Revolution, you can see that in section 2 on the transition from capitalism, he talks of "exploiters," "suppression," "dictatorship of proletariat," "minority" and "majority", etc.

Then in section 3, on "The First Phase of Communist Society", there is no talk of those words but instead "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society" (Lenin quoting Marx).Here's a relevant part, I think:

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

This, of course, must be read with this in mind:

With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.

In other words, it is an ongoing process, this stage of socialism. To claim, as I believe you are, that this is a stage frozen in one status or another is incorrect. This stage must be approached as a development of communism, and not a plateau of some sort.

RedTrackWorker

13th June 2011, 02:26

No, you went to a tangential point and didn't address what I was actually talking about. You can go back and read it if you don't believe me.

Your original quote was "The USSR had absolutely no idea that the KMT was going to try to destroy the CPC". The footnoted passage I linked to says:

“Chiang Kai-shek is submitting to discipline,” he [Stalin] declared in this memorable speech. “The Kuomintang is a bloc, a sort of revolutionary parliament, with the Right, the Left, and the Communists. Why make a coup d’état? (emphasis added, link (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/1938/tcr/ch09.htm#bk23))

He was replying to the warnings of Trotsky and the opposition that a coup was coming. So clearly they did not have "no idea"--they just argued against all the evidence until it actually happened. How is that a "tangential point"?

On the state, I write:
"You have yet to provide a single quote in which "class," "workers," or "class struggle" is mentioned by Marx or Lenin as existing under socialism."

You reply:
"I've also said that the state's existence in that first stage implies a necessity for that state. By extension, you've seemed to argued that the state serves absolutely no purpose at that stage...is that indeed your point?"

I'll just quote the post you're replying to since it was addressing this exact same claim yet you repeat:

Where did I say it has no purpose? It has a purpose but it is not as a "special apparatus of suppression"--its purpose exists because society "cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible" (Lenin) and "there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products" (Lenin).

Lenin mentions the word "class" in the section on the first phase of communism and you quote it: "The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed."

The next sentence is key:
"But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary."

Notice the "but". Let me reword it for you: "The state withers away as classes wither away, yet even after classes and class struggle are gone, the state does not yet wither completely away immediately, since still remains the safeguarding of 'bourgeois law' (to each as s/he works) until society can further develop due to the 'defects' it has coming from class society."

manic expression

13th June 2011, 08:25

Your original quote was "The USSR had absolutely no idea that the KMT was going to try to destroy the CPC". The footnoted passage I linked to says:
(emphasis added, link (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/1938/tcr/ch09.htm#bk23))

He was replying to the warnings of Trotsky and the opposition that a coup was coming. So clearly they did not have "no idea"--they just argued against all the evidence until it actually happened. How is that a "tangential point"?
Because warnings of a possible coup isn't the same as knowing a coup is going to happen. If someone tells me that it might rain and I don't believe them, am I conspiring with the rainclouds if it eventually does? The Comintern didn't anticipate everything and didn't get everything right...we all know that, but it doesn't condemn it whatsoever. Trotsky predicted it well, the Comintern didn't...that's really all there is to it.

Lenin mentions the word "class" in the section on the first phase of communism and you quote it: "The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed."

The next sentence is key:
"But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary."

Notice the "but". Let me reword it for you: "The state withers away as classes wither away, yet even after classes and class struggle are gone, the state does not yet wither completely away immediately, since still remains the safeguarding of 'bourgeois law' (to each as s/he works) until society can further develop due to the 'defects' it has coming from class society."
But Lenin is also saying that the state whithers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists. He has also already written very clearly that this is a process that, at the point of him writing, is not completely known. So now we see that Lenin recognized that this phase of socialism was not a frozen circumstance but a process that would end up being dependent upon the individual circumstances involved. Capitalists and class struggle don't vanish into thin air, it's a matter of developing communism in relation to a decline in class struggle.

caramelpence

13th June 2011, 10:26

Because warnings of a possible coup isn't the same as knowing a coup is going to happen. If someone tells me that it might rain and I don't believe them, am I conspiring with the rainclouds if it eventually does? The Comintern didn't anticipate everything and didn't get everything right...we all know that, but it doesn't condemn it whatsoever. Trotsky predicted it well, the Comintern didn't...that's really all there is to it.

Along with the deaths of several thousand party members and trade unionists and a major defeat for one of the most dynamic class movements in the world, which was only reinforced when, at the instructions of the Comintern, the CPC were made to ally with the left-KMT, only to be repressed again.

But who cares about that. I am genuinely confused about why you keep insisting that Stalin and the Comintern couldn't have known for sure that there was going to be a coup. No, they couldn't know for sure, but that's got nothing to do with the specific issues of Comintern strategy and the Chinese Revolution, it just expresses the basic ontological truth that humans cannot see into the future or ever know for certain that something is going to happen, and that we can only make predictions on the basis of what we know in the here and now, and then verify or reject those predictions as we observe how events develop. In the case of China during 1925-27, there were good reasons to believe that a coup or break between the CPC and the KMT was imminent. Most obviously, it was not as if the events of April 1927 were the first time there had been serious strife between the two parties - there was a previous coup (often described as Chiang's first coup) in the aftermath of the May 30th Movement and the Canton-Hong Kong strike in March of 1926 when Chiang forced the CPC to hand over its membership lists and also placed the Comintern advisers under house arrest, this being at a time when the party was experiencing rapid increases in membership and China's trade union movement was on the rise, with it also being at this point that not only Trotsky but also the Chinese leaders themselves, including Chen Duxiu, were calling for a break, only to be forced to continue the alliance by the Comintern. So it wasn't just that Trotsky made completely correct predictions in 1926, it was also that leaders like Chen were doing the same, and that their predictions and demands were based largely on what had transpired in March of that year.

manic expression

13th June 2011, 11:36

Along with the deaths of several thousand party members and trade unionists and a major defeat for one of the most dynamic class movements in the world, which was only reinforced when, at the instructions of the Comintern, the CPC were made to ally with the left-KMT, only to be repressed again.
...which means it was all Stalin's fault...or something.

But who cares about that. I am genuinely confused about why you keep insisting that Stalin and the Comintern couldn't have known for sure that there was going to be a coup. No, they couldn't know for sure, but that's got nothing to do with the specific issues of Comintern strategy and the Chinese Revolution, it just expresses the basic ontological truth that humans cannot see into the future or ever know for certain that something is going to happen, and that we can only make predictions on the basis of what we know in the here and now, and then verify or reject those predictions as we observe how events develop. In the case of China during 1925-27, there were good reasons to believe that a coup or break between the CPC and the KMT was imminent. Most obviously, it was not as if the events of April 1927 were the first time there had been serious strife between the two parties - there was a previous coup (often described as Chiang's first coup) in the aftermath of the May 30th Movement and the Canton-Hong Kong strike in March of 1926 when Chiang forced the CPC to hand over its membership lists and also placed the Comintern advisers under house arrest, this being at a time when the party was experiencing rapid increases in membership and China's trade union movement was on the rise, with it also being at this point that not only Trotsky but also the Chinese leaders themselves, including Chen Duxiu, were calling for a break, only to be forced to continue the alliance by the Comintern. So it wasn't just that Trotsky made completely correct predictions in 1926, it was also that leaders like Chen were doing the same, and that their predictions and demands were based largely on what had transpired in March of that year.
See previous answer.

caramelpence

13th June 2011, 11:50

...which means it was all Stalin's fault...or something.

At the most vigorous proponent of the Comintern policy, Stalin has to take much of the responsibility, yes.

manic expression

13th June 2011, 12:00

At the most vigorous proponent of the Comintern policy, Stalin has to take much of the responsibility, yes.
Bearing responsibility for a mistake is different from what's being insinuated. Stalin was pursuing a line he felt best for the progress of the working class...that he erred doesn't change this. After all, few revolutionaries (if any) in such prominent positions are without fault, and to lose sight of that for ideological (if not sectarian) purposes is unhelpful to say the least.

SHORAS

14th June 2011, 01:28

I read it a couple or so years ago, luckily I missed out on doing it at school. My class read another dystopian novel called 'Daz 4 Zoe' which gave me much more to think about it.

Perhaps somewhat cynically I read 1984 as anti-revolutionary not 'just' anti-Communist. I found it to quite boring but ploughed through because of its reputation. I think this is its effect on a lot of school children? The jailers of the mind have a lot to answer for if you ask me. I think the double whammy of 1984 and Animal Farm (which I haven't read) has/continues? to have a big impact on radical thought as far as young people go. Or perhaps I just went to a very conservative school (I did) and it was full of 'middle class' tossers.

ClassWarMutualist

3rd February 2012, 11:06

did anybody else notice the sterling class analysis in the book? I don't think that should be overlooked. it really kicked ass. makes alot more since than Marx's two class analysis.

GallowsBird

3rd February 2012, 22:08

I used to like it as a story even when I disagreed with it but now I have noticed many flaws in it. It is far too cheesy and unrealistic. I generally don't like things in which the villains know they are evil and "get off" over it (the "boot crushing a face" speech for instance).

Politically Animal Farm is worse though and I hate that the character Snowball was supposed to represent both Lenin and Trotsky. I know it is biasd but that is too much. The old animated film was fun though. Even if I am a Napoleonist. An "Angry Napoleonsky" I should say. :laugh:

eyeheartlenin

4th February 2012, 02:04

Thanks so much to Rakhmetov for the bookmark for the latest film version of 1984! I had been looking for it in stores for years, without success! I thought I would have to settle for watching it on youtube, which, if I remember correctly, has a bowdlerized copy of it.

I always admired Orwell, because he took a bullet in the neck for the Spanish working class and also because I think he correctly understood the twentieth century, as a time of sustained attacks on common humanity.

GallowsBird

4th February 2012, 17:37

The film with John Hurt and Richard Burton is quite good. They filmed it as if it were actually a 1940s view of the future.

Philosopher Jay

6th February 2012, 20:02

So we all agree, the book "1984" was a direct attack on socialism in the Soviet Union and was not a direct attack on socialism in the Soviet Union.

gorillafuck

6th February 2012, 20:15

So we all agree, the book "1984" was a direct attack on socialism in the Soviet Union and was not a direct attack on socialism in the Soviet Union.it took me a minute to get this.

ColonelCossack

6th February 2012, 20:20

Orwell may not have intended the book to have been used as ammunition for anti-communists, but that is certainly what has happened to it and animal farm. He hasn't really done much to help us, has he?

Even if you're not an M-L, Orwell's works haven't been very good "publicity" for the revolutionary left, whatever his poltics were.

Grenzer

6th February 2012, 20:33

Well Orwell was sympathetic to anarchists and Marxists to a lesser degree. I don't think he equated Marxism with Stalinism, but clearly his books are a critique of the USSR under Stalin, at least it seems that way from his comments on the USSR.

I think a pretty big qualifier is that politically, he was a complete idiot. I remember reading something he wrote where he criticized Anarchism for espousing a chaotic, crime rampant society. There are many valid criticisms of anarchism, but that isn't one. He seemed to lack the ability to analyze politics beyond an extremely superficial level. In addition, Animal Farm and 1984 are just boring.

Lev Bronsteinovich

6th February 2012, 22:35

Uh, no. The USSR had absolutely no idea that the KMT was going to try to destroy the CPC in one fell swoop. That's an absolutely absurd suggestion you're making, one with not a shred of evidence behind it.

But yeah...Stalin was stroking his mustache, trying to figure out how to destroy the CPC. :rolleyes: Nice one. Next you'll be telling us that Mao himself was planning it out with his old pal Chiang all along, and that his later victory as leader of the Chinese Revolution was in spite of his best efforts. :lol:

Uh, one of the key aspects of the fight of the Left Opposition in the twenties was criticism of the majority's approach to China. Initially Trotsky went along with entry into the KMT, but after seeing the results, he strongly reversed his course. Stalin certainly wasn't out to destroy the CPC -- the policies he championed, however, were thoroughly excellent at wiping most of the CPC off the face of the Earth.

Ostrinski

6th February 2012, 22:58

GoddessCleoLover

6th February 2012, 23:20

In other words the reason that Orwell's propaganda was so effective was that the iniquities of Stalinist policies were all too reminiscent of the critique set forth in Animal Farm and 1984.

Rooster

6th February 2012, 23:40

Orwell may not have intended the book to have been used as ammunition for anti-communists, but that is certainly what has happened to it and animal farm.

Except that isn't the entire picture. It's been used more to denounce aspects of bourgeois society than it has the USSR.

He hasn't really done much to help us, has he?

So, articulating a view of socialism that is easily digestible and also criticises the USSR/Stalin isn't much help?

Even if you're not an M-L, Orwell's works haven't been very good "publicity" for the revolutionary left, whatever his poltics were.

How are you quantifying all of these claims?

Tim Finnegan

9th February 2012, 14:29

Comrade Auldnik

9th February 2012, 16:09

I think we're all being a little too hard on Orwell's work. I find the pages of his books quite well-cushioned and easy to flush.

YugoslavSocialist

19th January 2013, 07:30

Why is there so much hate to George Orwell's books 1984 and Animal Farm. I've read them both and there is absolutely no Anti Communism or Anti Socialism in his writings.

Blake's Baby

19th January 2013, 11:40

blake 3:17

20th January 2013, 22:45

If one regards the Soviet Union under Stalin as 'socialism' then of course Animal Farm and 1984 are 'anti-socialist'.

1984 is as much a critique of social democracy as it is of Stalinism. It's just been very convenient to put it all on the USSR.

I think it unfortunate that Cold Warriors appropriated Orwell to turn him into a completely banal liberal.

My favourite book of his is Road to Wigan Pier, which I think is the only one that could be called avant garde.

Kalecki

27th January 2013, 04:41

I've never understood the fuss made about Orwells novels. Animal Farm is decent, 1984 is too long, blocky and becomes a chore after the first 100 pages. Burmese Days is absolutely appalling.

However, Orwell IS the greatest essayist of the 20th century, hands down. The Lion and the Unicorn, Notes on Nationalism and Inside the Whale are some of the best pieces of non fiction ever written. The Road to Wigan Pier and Down and Out in Paris and London are also excellent.

The fiction is another matter entirely.

Firebrand

27th January 2013, 15:14

I think the main point in 1984 is that middle class conspiracies against the existing regime are doomed to failure. It is only through mass uprising that things can really change.

I do find it slightly worrying that most western govts seem to have taken it as an instruction manual rather than a warning though.

On the whole I reckon 1984 is unfairly hyped. Personally I don't think it's his best book, but I also don't think it's anti-marxist. More a warning of how things can go wrong than a critecism of the fundamental concepts.

Geiseric

27th January 2013, 16:38

Errm, four main reasons:

1 - because he's he's anti-Stalinist, and if you hadn't realied it yet, many readers of these forums are Stalinists;
2 - because he's a middle-class 'tourist' with a shady past in British colonialism, who romantices the working class;
3 - because he shopped a load of his former 'comrades' to British Intelligence during the war;
4 - (specifically for Left Comms) because he supported bourgeois democracy against fascism instead of condeming all forms of capitalism and their wars.

If one regards the Soviet Union under Stalin as 'socialism' then of course Animal Farm and 1984 are 'anti-socialist'.

It isn't about political ideology, Orwell was above talking about that in 1984, that's what Homage to Catalonia was for. 1984 was about Doublespeak and everybody who would use it, for example Nazis, Stalinist bureaucrats, or the U.S. and English governments on a daily basis, who are constantly in war, and both incredibly racist, like Oceana, but are told "war means that we'll be at peace soon," which is basically the same thing the government does today. Along with the racist and pro capitalist propaganda we see all the time, through advertising, and the news itself.

Honestly joining the international brigades meant something, he wasn't making the political decisions during his stay as a soldier in spain, he was being shot at by soldiers, so the least you could do would be to respect him for joining a socialist militia, which i'd bet not many people here would be up for.