Is anarchism as a whole this opposed to Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin/Mao?

[Aspiring Humanist]

The existence of Leninism as a force - albeit a discredited one - in today's political movement will no longer be tolerated, neither by our action network nor by the overwhelming
force of the revolutionary mass, which by its very nature will destroy the ridiculous notion
that the total suppression of bourgeois society can be achieved, much less led, by those who
continue to worship the fascist doctrines of past state-capitalists.
We are a union of anarchists, autonomists, situationists, and Marxists who believe that Lenin,
Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and all those who affiliate themselves with the statist movements and
ideologies they represent are not our allies, never have been, and never will be. To them we
say:
We will hunt you at your conferences, burn your newspapers, and beat you in the streets. We
will never submit to the authoritarian schemes that you put together in all of your attempts
to organize us into a silent "mass movement" of Bolshevik-saluters. The coming revolution
has nothing to do with the supposed correctness of your party's line or its PC slogans - it is
the organic supersession of all the injustice and contradiction embedded within this world,
and the existence of Leninism is at this time the single greatest obstacle to the evolution of
the REAL revolutionary communist tendency

(http://www.redanarchist.org/propaganda/flyers/fucklenin.pdf)

I realize vanguardism and anarchism have severe ideological differences, but anarchists seem to get along with the marxist-leninists/maoists/trotskyists here on revleft.
Is this just the work of a pissed off anarchist or do all anarchists harbor such resentment

[Magón]

No, not all, that's just a funny generalization, and if you're serious for falling for it, then you might want to look at other Anarchist groups besides RAAN, for where they stand with Leninists, etc. Sure we oppose the Leninist mode of Socialism, and achieving Communism, but no, not all Anarchists are going to hunt down Leninists at their gatherings, an beat them in the streets or whatever. We might burn their newspapers, but so will they to us.

[The Man]

Oh, that's just RAAN. Pay no attention to those fucking idiots, they sit on the computer all day saying "L0ng l1ve the revolution!!11"

They have the fetish for Anti-Leninism, so they make blogs about it all day. It's entertaining.

[Imposter Marxist]

First rule of Revleft, don't talk about RAAN.

[Aspiring Humanist]

I've looked at a multitude of other anarchist groups before and none of them had this sort of a problem with leninism, which is why I asked

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

No, not all, that's just a funny generalization, and if you're serious for falling for it, then you might want to look at other Anarchist groups besides RAAN, for where they stand with Leninists, etc. Sure we oppose the Leninist mode of Socialism, and achieving Communism, but no, not all Anarchists are going to hunt down Leninists at their gatherings, an beat them in the streets or whatever. We might burn their newspapers, but so will they to us.

'Sure we oppose the Leninist mode of Socialism, and achieving Communism.'
Would it not be the duty of a successful Leninist Vanguard Movement to allocate land towards Anarchists to found People's Collectives in which the Communist Economic and Social transformation is pushed forward and successfully completed?
In this case, the Leninist Vanguard Movement and Worker's State simply serves as protection for the Autonomous Communities that are both Stateless and Classless.

As I've said many times before: The People's Athens must be erected from the ground and built while a Democratic People's Sparta seeks to protect the People's Athens and the Revolution itself. :lol:

(Obviously previous incidents aside.)

[Jose Gracchus]

Of course not, why would we support Social Democratic politicians using grassroots workers' organizations as a platform to declare a "workers' government" that becomes a one-party state dictating production (and everything else) to an alienated working class?

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Of course not, why would we support Social Democratic politicians using grassroots workers' organizations as a platform to declare a "workers' government" that becomes a one-party state dictating production (and everything else) to an alienated working class?

1.) 'Social Democratic politicians using grassroots workers' organizations'
As they wouldn't be Social Democratic due to the mode of production being seized by the Working Class and controlled by the Working Class, simply led forth by a Vanguard Movement.
2.) 'As a platform to declare a "workers' government" that becomes a one-party state dictating production (and everything else) to an alienated working class'
In this case, the Leninist State would only be existent while the need for International Revolution exists and this would be mandated by a strict sense of Constitutional Authoritarianism, in which it would be declared that any Party that seeks to lead forth and build Socialism and the foundations of Communism would be allowed to exist and take part in the Workers State. Especially in this situation, the only 'dictating' that would occur in the Worker's State would be from the Working Class itself. When the mode of production however has been seized on a International scale, the Leninist State would simply be liquidated as according to the Socialist Constitution.

[Octavian]

It seems like the writer is trying to bolster the credibility of anarchism over what ever he deems as authoritarian tendencies. It honestly sounds like Sectarian bullshit that will only cause infighting among the Far left.

[Magón]

'Sure we oppose the Leninist mode of Socialism, and achieving Communism.'
Would it not be the duty of a successful Leninist Vanguard Movement to allocate land towards Anarchists to found People's Collectives in which the Communist Economic and Social transformation is pushed forward and successfully completed?

Because the Anarchist Communes or whatever they'll be, won't need the protection of a Leninist Vanguard Movement, and wouldn't need the approval of Leninists to have their own land to prosper in, just so they can have their communes or whatever. It's called being in debt/under someone's thumb, so when that person/group comes a calling, you're sort of obligated in a way to grant them whatever it is they want, regardless. Anarchists don't like that, they don't like being told what to do by someone they "owe" nothing to, and it just makes them a puppet to whoever, regardless of what you call "autonomy".


In this case, the Leninist Vanguard Movement and Worker's State simply serves as protection for the Autonomous Communities that are both Stateless and Classless.

Anarchists can/will defend themselves, just as well as an Leninist Vanguard Movement will defend their own. Like I said, it just puts Anarchists under the thumb of people who they don't want to be controlled under, regardless of if they're considered "autonomous" or not, being under the control or debt of someone, isn't autonomy.

If Anarchists in the future revolution, are achieving a much better result than say Leninists of whatever group, in a particular area, then their achievements and progress in that area shouldn't be hampered, and vise verse by anyone from the outside.

[Jose Gracchus]

1.) 'Social Democratic politicians using grassroots workers' organizations'
As they wouldn't be Social Democratic due to the mode of production being seized by the Working Class and controlled by the Working Class, simply led forth by a Vanguard Movement.
2.) 'As a platform to declare a "workers' government" that becomes a one-party state dictating production (and everything else) to an alienated working class'
In this case, the Leninist State would only be existent while the need for International Revolution exists and this would be mandated by a strict sense of Constitutional Authoritarianism, in which it would be declared that any Party that seeks to lead forth and build Socialism and the foundations of Communism would be allowed to exist and take part in the Workers State. Especially in this situation, the only 'dictating' that would occur in the Worker's State would be from the Working Class itself. When the mode of production however has been seized on a International scale, the Leninist State would simply be liquidated as according to the Socialist Constitution.

This is meaningless fantasy and has no real basis in historical or current class politics or struggle. My recommendation is you consult the actual political theory and programs of the various groups and currents of the historical left.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

This is meaningless fantasy and has no real basis in historical or current class politics or struggle. My recommendation is you consult the actual political theory and programs of the various groups and currents of the historical left.
'This is meaningless fantasy and has no real basis in historical or current class politics or struggle.'
:lol: During the October Revolution, Leninists and Anarchists had allied together in order to get rid of both the Monarchy and the Transitional Government that had followed the Monarchy.

While I agree with Nin's critique of my thinking to an extent, there would be no 'debt' towards a potential Anarchist Commune, as the Socialist State wouldn't be viewing it as 'under its thumb' it would simply be viewing the Anarchist Commune as a higher stage of development and inevitably reaching Communism.

The reason that I have implied that a Leninist State is to exist, is simply for organizational purposes in order to ensure that a Global Socialist Revolution can be simply led forth without facing capitalist reaction; A necessary temporary evil of sorts.

[Summerspeaker]

That's the kind of macho bravado that turns me off to anarchism. I'm not interested in hunting or beating anyone. Leninists merit suspicion and sometimes hostility, but I'll work with them toward common goals.

[Jose Gracchus]

'This is meaningless fantasy and has no real basis in historical or current class politics or struggle.'
:lol: During the October Revolution, Leninists and Anarchists had allied together in order to get rid of both the Monarchy and the Transitional Government that had followed the Monarchy.

While I agree with Nin's critique of my thinking to an extent, there would be no 'debt' towards a potential Anarchist Commune, as the Socialist State wouldn't be viewing it as 'under its thumb' it would simply be viewing the Anarchist Commune as a higher stage of development and inevitably reaching Communism.

The reason that I have implied that a Leninist State is to exist, is simply for organizational purposes in order to ensure that a Global Socialist Revolution can be simply led forth without facing capitalist reaction; A necessary temporary evil of sorts.

"Stateless" communes protected by a state aren't stateless, but protectorates. Sorry.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

"Stateless" communes protected by a state aren't stateless, but protectorates. Sorry.

As said, Autonomous simply while the International Revolution is still in motion. Yet, there would be no obligations from the Leninist State towards the Autonomous Regions however and in actual nature-- They would be acting Stateless and Independent.

[Jose Gracchus]

You have a still liberal conception of politics - political realities are not created by abstractly theorizing them or writing them down on pieces of enchanted parchment, but rather but structural and class realities. Communes which owe their independence and survival to a paternalistic superior will not be autonomous by definition. Either there is free association or there is not. It cannot be abstractly decreed, only built by struggle.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

You have a still liberal conception of politics - political realities are not created by abstractly theorizing them or writing them down on pieces of enchanted parchment, but rather but structural and class realities. Communes which owe their independence and survival to a paternalistic superior will not be autonomous by definition. Either there is free association or there is not. It cannot be abstractly decreed, only built by struggle.

'have a still liberal conception of politics - political realities are not created by abstractly theorizing them or writing them down on pieces of enchanted parchment, but rather but structural and class realities.'
Political realties are created by putting forth theorizations and the writings on enchanted parchments into motion that are to be recognized as 'realities'. The structural and class realties from a strictly Proletarian perspective are to be morphed in order to fit Proletarian necessity.
'Communes which owe their independence and survival to a paternalistic superior will not be autonomous by definition'
The Autonomous Region would not 'owe' its independence or survival to the Leninist State, as after the International Revolution in order to establish a Working Class mode of production has been achieved, the Leninist State would simply be liquidated and the Autonomous Regions would swallow the former Leninist State. (The reason that it would be capable of being liquidated in this manner would be due to the Constitutional Authoritarianism which would be required to be upheld by the masses within the Leninist State.)

[Magón]

While I agree with Nin's critique of my thinking to an extent, there would be no 'debt' towards a potential Anarchist Commune, as the Socialist State wouldn't be viewing it as 'under its thumb' it would simply be viewing the Anarchist Commune as a higher stage of development and inevitably reaching Communism.

Most Leninists, regardless of them calling it Sectarianism, or just laying out how they see things, don't see Anarchism or their communes in the past, as a higher stage of development. I hardly think that will change in the future, because it hasn't changed even after all these years.


The reason that I have implied that a Leninist State is to exist, is simply for organizational purposes in order to ensure that a Global Socialist Revolution can be simply led forth without facing capitalist reaction; A necessary temporary evil of sorts.

The reason we're Anarchists in the first place, is because we're against the way Leninists organize. In the future, Anarchists will probably be just as able to organize their people, as the Leninists will, and go about the Global Revolution in their own way. They won't need to be guided or have their hand held by the Leninists Vanguard.

[the Left™]

It seems like the writer is trying to bolster the credibility of anarchism over what ever he deems as authoritarian tendencies. It honestly sounds like Sectarian bullshit that will only cause infighting among the Far left.

in b4 the wildly (not really) famous revleft sectarian war conversation

[Rusty Shackleford]

RAAN bricks windows and doesnt afraid of lenin. Also, they are a hella sick communist street gang


but yeah, i cant speak for RAAN all i remember is that i just posted.

[Blake's Baby]

Anarchism is a whole is opposed to Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and Maoism. All are variants of 'authoritarian socialism', which Anarchists generally believe want to:
1 - take power over the working class;
2 - establish a state-capitalist dictatorship;
3 - suppress the genuine expressions of the social revolution.

They point to the suppression of the Anarchists in Moscow in 1918, the attacks by the Red Army on the Makhnovists, Kronstadt, and the civil war inside the anti-fascist forces in Spain 1936-1939 which they generally see as being directed by the Stalinist PSUC on behalf of Moscow. All these are seen as examples of the dictatorial nature of Bolshevism (Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism).

As for Maoism... just another flavour of Stalinism, another brutal state capitalist dictatoship.

Most Anarchists in my experience (I was one for 25 years) don't think punching Leninists is a useful tactic however. Some of us would try to persuade them, others would mock them, but that's about as far it ususally goes.

[nuisance]

yeah we hate them.

[hatzel]

During the October Revolution, Leninists and Anarchists had allied together in order to get rid of both the Monarchy and the Transitional Government that had followed the Monarchy.

...and you remember what happened to the anarchists come November, right?

[Thirsty Crow]

That's the kind of macho bravado that turns me off to anarchism. I'm not interested in hunting or beating anyone. Leninists merit suspicion and sometimes hostility, but I'll work with them toward common goals.
Not only this.
The author of the article has no clue whatsoever what Fascism is. If she/he does, then boy is that political dishonesty, to denounce the Leninist doctrine as "fascist". Moreover, such a perspective has nothing to do with the working class, but rather it represents what it aims to demolish: vanguardism, fetishism of the doctrine, at the expense of working class organizing and informed debate on the possibilities arising from a social, economic and political period of transition from class society to a classless one.

Rubbish.

[human strike]

RAAN gets a lot of bad press, especially here on revleft. But I actually think it's a pretty sound model and there are some great RAANistas. And anyway, it doesn't really make sense to criticise RAAN for what RAANistas say.

[The Douche]

Will this thread get locked now that I've posted in it?

[PhoenixAsh]

I tink there is plenty to argue against ML and authoritarian socialism in general. I think however that the RAAN pamflet is beating the purpose....and forgets the common grounds. Its also negates the option of dialogue.

I do however think that as long as authoritarian socialists keep being authoritarian...anarchists will not be getting along too well with them politically....and I think eventual conflict will be inevitable if no allowances are made.

[hatzel]

I'll also just say that I find it interesting that the OP actually says "[w]e are a union of anarchists, autonomists, situationists, and Marxists" and we're still all just "what's with the anarchists doing this shit?!" :confused: