Why has there never been a successful revolution led by anarchists/trotskyists

[The_Outernationalist]

In this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-such-t156113/index19.html

the question was asked:



Wait so where is a revolution that was led by ML's which didn't fall to counter-revolution that shows that the ML way of doing stuff works?

Which is a fair enough question...but the poster of that stated in a post or two back that he is a Trotskyist, which leads to my question:

Where is the successful revolution led by Trotskyists and Anarchists?

In fact, where is the successful anarchist revolution? How come Trotskyists and anarchists have failed to capture the heart of the common people where Maoists and Marxist-Leninist have?

I'm asking this as a serious question, I'm really not trying to troll, this is a very serious question, I'm just wondering what gives trotskyists and anarchists the right to lobby criticism against Marxist Leninist-led revolutions when the paris commune was a complete failure and Anarchist Catalonia collapsed into a heap of failure as well.

Anyone can answer my question?

[Chris]

Too be fair, considering the October Revolution happened before the split between MLs and Trotskyists had taken place, I think that counts half-way. Otherwise, it seems Trotskyists are too split-liable (even compared to other Marxist groupings) to have participated effectively in a successful revolution.

The Free Territory in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War was also a relatively effective anarchist group/territory/army/country(?)/whatever. Contrary to Catalonia, it fell far more due to external than internal factors. Although it was very reliant on the personal charisma of Nestor Makhno to function (even being known as Makhnovia by some).

[Le Socialiste]

The Paris Commune was destroyed, it didn't just collapse on itself...

The same can be said of Anarchist Catalonia, which was broken up by the Republican Government and later by Franco.

That said, why are you lumping anarchists and trotskyists together like they're the same ideological group? Because - they're not.

[Geiseric]

In Vietnam and China there were strong Trotskyist groups, but usually they were purged, jailed, whatever you can name.
There is several members of the 4th international in the Algerian parliament, however they don't really participate in government activities, they are pretty independent. Bolivia has a Trotskyist prescence, however most revolutions there have been Trotskyists, and Anarchists, who have fought for their side only to have been betrayed, sold out whatever. EDIT: there has never been a marxist leninist revolution, trot rev, or anarchist. there have been workers revolutions with different popular political currents, which vary in degree of popularity.

[The_Outernationalist]

The Paris Commune was destroyed, it didn't just collapse on itself...

it was destroyed because it was weak. anything that can't last longer than 100 days is simply not built to last. I mean if it lasted a year, but come on...72 days?


The same can be said of Anarchist Catalonia, which was broken up by the Republican Government and later by Franco.

Not true. Anarchist Catalonia betrayed their principles almost immediately, with the anarchists forming a political party and entering the Catalonian parliament without a hint of irony...They met their demise at the hands of Franco, yes, but they defeated and destroyed themselves almost as soon as they took power...This to me is more proof of the inapplicability of anarchism more than anything else...there must be a vanguard party.


That said, why are you lumping anarchists and trotskyists together like they're the same ideological group? Because - they're not.

Trots and anarchists always form these stupid "enemy of my enemy" alliances against Marxist-Leninists, so they lump themselves together really. That, and both ideologies to me are forms of deviation away from a worker state.

[Rooster]

Trots and anarchists always form these stupid "enemy of my enemy" alliances and both to me are forms of degeneration.

As opposed to m-ls insistence on supporting dictatorial states against imperialism?

[Savage]

Proletarian Revolution is the result of the working class movement against capital, this movement is the product of no intellectual sect or self proclaimed party, but the proletariat itself as the negation of capital. There is no such thing as a 'Leninist', 'Trotskyist', or 'Anarchist' revolution, you are either communist or you are capitalist; communists participate in the proletarian revolution and do not adhere to sectarian principles which confuse proletarian interests with those of the bourgeoisie, if you do this then you are no more than a left capitalist.

[The_Outernationalist]

There is several members of the 4th international in the Algerian parliament, however they don't really participate in government activities, they are pretty independent.

So participation in Bourgeois democracy is acceptable to Trotskyists? I thought they were against bourgeois democracy...

The next thing you say, I don't understand; first you say:


Bolivia has a Trotskyist prescence, however most revolutions there have been Trotskyists, and Anarchists, who have fought for their side only to have been betrayed, sold out whatever.

But then you say:


EDIT: there has never been a marxist leninist revolution, trot rev, or anarchist.

Well? which one is it?

[Red_Struggle]

It's the stalinists' fault!

[praxis1966]

You can claim that "Anarchist Catalonia" (which is really a misstatement by the way given that the CNT-FAI was the strongest revolutionary force there as well as the genesis of anarcho-syndicalism) "met [its] demise at the hands of Franco" if you like, but the real problem as I see it was the involvement of the Red Army leading to rifts in the Republican forces. Indeed, I would argue that these rifts, rather than any particular military brilliance on the part of the fascist forces, were the prime contributing factor to the left's demise in that conflict. You can blame the anarchists if you like, but they weren't the ones sopping to Moscow.


But then you say:



Well? which one is it?

I think it's just a typo. I don't wanna speak for anybody else, but I think he meant "revolutionaries" not "revolutions" in the part you bolded in the first quote.

[Property Is Robbery]

I mean if it lasted a year, but come on...72 days?



there must be a vanguard party.



Trots and anarchists always form these stupid "enemy of my enemy" alliances against Marxist-Leninists
You've never heard of the Ukranian Free Territory?


Anarcho-Syndicalism recognizes the validity of a vanguard as well


I consider myself to be something of an anarchist (probably more of a libertarian socialist) but I'm in a Marxist-Leninist organization. Could you please name one of these Anarcho-Trot alliances please?

[Geiseric]

God damnit, I meant in most revolutions we see as "Communist," there have been Trotskyist and Anarchist people in the mix. And revolutions aren't Marxist Leninist, Trotskyist, Anarchist, Left Communist or whatever. They are Workers Revolutions that are influenced by the above's political popularity. The political situation that is the result of the workers revolution is often seen as the ONLY and most important political factor in the revolution. I'm saying that's not true, the russian revolution was one by the Russian proletariat that ended up with the Bolsheviks seizing control of the state. It wasn't a Bolshevik revolution. I mean that everybody in russia wasn't a bolshevik through and through, the workers as a whole agreed with the Bolsheviks plans, at least at first, or else they wouldn't of gotten any power. There were also significant left communists and anarchists in the mix of the political parties.

[Tim Finnegan]

The very fact that you're asking this question- asking for localised and historical examples of a social revolution which is by definition international and irreversible- illustrates far more effectively than any of us ever could that you are, in no meaningful sense, a Marxist.

[The_Outernationalist]

The very fact that you're asking this question- asking for localised and historical examples of a social revolution which is by definition international and irreversible- illustrates far more effectively than any of us ever could that you are, in no meaningful sense, a Marxist.

mhm sure. take what I say out of context if it means you can make a decent potshot. whatever.

[Tim Finnegan]

mhm sure. whatever. take what I say out of context if it means you can make a decent potshot.
And this illustrates, far more yadda yadda yadda, that you are an intellectual coward.

Not making a good show of it here, Outernationalist. Not good at all.

[The_Outernationalist]

And this illustrates, far more yadda yadda yadda, that you are an intellectual coward.

Not making a good show of it here, Outernationalist. Not good at all.

I'm an intellectual coward because I'm trying to ignore obvious attempts to flame me? if that makes me an intellectual coward, then I would hate to know what you are.

[Kléber]

Where is the successful Stalinist revolution that has not or is not restoring capitalism? Did Karl Marx have no right to criticize capitalism, given how many capitalist revolutions there were?

How stupid do these impotent little first-world stalimaos have to be, to wank about the number of "Marxist-Leninist states" they uphold, when so many of their beloved red fiefdoms called each other fascist and went to war (Vietnam vs China, Somalia vs Ethiopia, etc).

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1563/stalimaos2.jpg

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm an intellectual coward because I'm trying to ignore obvious attempts to flame me?
If I was trying to flame you, I would have tried a little harder than that, ferchrissake. :rolleyes: No, I was simply observing the absurdity of someone strutting around so very sure of the doctrinal perfection, yet getting the fundamental tenant of the Marxist theory of social revolution precisely wrong. No insult was intended, because, to be entirely frank, none was needed.


if that makes me an intellectual coward, then I would hate to know what you are.
Why do I have a feeling that you were one of those kids whose answer to everything was claiming to be made of rubber and waving your arms around to indicate insults pinging off you and back towards the offender?

[The_Outernationalist]

If I was trying to flame you, I would have tried a little harder than that, ferchrissake. :rolleyes:

cutesy comments don't change the fact you are attempting to start some e-drama.


No, I was simply observing the absurdity of someone strutting around so very sure of the doctrinal perfection, yet getting the fundamental tenant of the Marxist theory of social revolution precisely wrong. No insult was intended, because, to be entirely frank, none was needed.

And what did I get wrong? that socialist revolutions can be thwarted? that revolution to communism can be thwarted as well? explain (with a source this time, since you never post sources), wise one. It seems like you keep on passing off Trotskyist "permanent revolution" drivel as legitimate Marxism: yes, Marx did discuss permanent revolution, but never did he mention that revolutions couldn't be thwarted. the USSR was undergoing a transition from socialism to communism. Hell, Trotsky thought revolutions could be betrayed afterall.

The fact of the matter is, Marx and Engels never discussed revolutionary reversal, because they never thought it would happen...but even the greats get things wrong sometimes.



Why do I have a feeling that you were one of those kids whose answer to everything was claiming to be made of rubber and waving your arms around to indicate insults pinging off you and back towards the offender?

pointless flaming.

[Property Is Robbery]

@Outernationalist

Would you like to address post #11?

[Tim Finnegan]

cutesy comments don't change the fact you are attempting to start some e-drama.
If I was attempting to start "e-drama", which really is a very twee term, would I insist on talking to you in this condescendingly British manner of mine? :rolleyes:


And what did I get wrong? that socialist revolutions can be thwarted? that revolution to communism can be thwarted as well? explain (with a source this time, since you never post sources), wise one.You asked for examples of an localised, ultimately-reversed "successful revolution" carried out by heretic scum anarchists or Trotskyists, while the very definition of a "successful revolution", in Marxist thought, is one that has both successfully internationalised itself, and carried out the historically progressive transition to communism (setting aside the Leninist quibbling about "socialism/lower stage communism" for a minute), which is to say it would be by definition global and irreversible. You are asking for a square circle.

My source for this is: Marx. Just in general. This should not be a novelty to you.


pointless flaming.I wouldn't say that it was "pointless". I quite enjoyed it.

Edit: Oh, I see you edited that middle bit. Well, let's take a look at the new version, he said with a heavy heart.


And what did I get wrong? that socialist revolutions can be thwarted? that revolution to communism can be thwarted as well? explain (with a source this time, since you never post sources), wise one. It seems like you keep on passing off Trotskyist "permanent revolution" drivel as legitimate Marxism: yes, Marx did discuss permanent revolution, but never did he mention that revolutions couldn't be thwarted. the USSR was undergoing a transition from socialism to communism. Hell, Trotsky thought revolutions could be betrayed afterall.

The fact of the matter is, Marx and Engels never discussed revolutionary reversal, because they never thought it would happen...but even the greats get things wrong sometimes.Umm... Nope, not seeing anything in here worth addressing separately. Just aimless pot-shots at Trotsky.

[Geiseric]

Same with 12, if there's time. really if anybody would retort i'd appreciate it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

1) The Paris Commune really had nothing to do with anarchism.

2) Anarchists have no desire to lead revolutions; revolutions are led by the working class, and most likely the impetus for such a social revolution will not be any pre-packaged ideology or ideological grouping, whether it be anarchist or Leninist or whatever. All anarchists can hope to do is put forth their own libertarian position.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't know why Marxist-leninism is claimed as a paragon of a victorious revolutionary strategy. For all their insurrections, only one, the Nepalese, won a protracted civil war without any major or decisive external support (excluding the Bolsheviks, which Trotskyists lay claim to as their victory as well), and even that is debated by some. All of the other marxist-leninist regimes that lasted more than a few years were made possible in no small part to tremendous intervention by the Soviet state.

The jury is still out in terms of the ultimate outcome in Nepal, but I do not see much room for optimism there either.

As far as anarchists go explosive situation is on the right track. Even in Catalunya, it didn't make sense to speak of "anarchists" as discrete groups that built a political structure during a time of war - rather, the goal of anarchist organizers decades before the war was to involve and inspire as large a segment of the populace as possible in creating a new society. I don't think it makes sense to speak of a "storming of the winter palace" moment in most anarchisms.

Unfortunately this also means that for better or worse, international isolation kills such projects much quicker than it kills Bolshevism. A Bolshevik strategy that focuses on revolution in one or a handful of countries way in advance of change elsewhere can at least keep together a state that makes treaties and defends the borders the way a conventional state does to keep the capitalist powers at bay and can buy some more time.

[Liberi]

it was destroyed because it was weak. anything that can't last longer than 100 days is simply not built to last. I mean if it lasted a year, but come on...72 days?

So because a movement is violently supressed it's deemed week and therefore wrong? I hardly see a movement being violently supressed as indicator whether or not Anarchism is a proper model.



Not true. Anarchist Catalonia betrayed their principles almost immediately, with the anarchists forming a political party and entering the Catalonian parliament without a hint of irony...They met their demise at the hands of Franco, yes, but they defeated and destroyed themselves almost as soon as they took power...This to me is more proof of the inapplicability of anarchism more than anything else...there must be a vanguard party.

Excerpt from George Orwells 'Homage to Catalonia' - I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Tqens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do. The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags and with the red and black flag of the Anarchists.Almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Senor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos dias'. he revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist.




Trots and anarchists always form these stupid "enemy of my enemy" alliances against Marxist-Leninists, so they lump themselves together really. That, and both ideologies to me are forms of deviation away from a worker state.

The Communist Party of Spain, PCE have also been seen as one of major factors behind the 1937 Barcelona May Days, when anarchists and Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) were violently suppressed, with many imprisoned. Throughout the Civil War, the various Communist newspapers engaged in a massive propaganda campaign against the anarchists and the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). They were often called "Hitlerites" and "fascists" in the pay of Franco, as George Orwell notes in Homage to Catalonia: "Just imagine how odious it must be to see a young 15-year old Spaniard brought back from the front lines on a stretcher, to see, poking out from under the blanket an anemic, bewildered face and to think that in London and Paris there are gentlemen dressed to the nines, blithely engaged in writing pamphlets to show this little lad is a covert fascist." George Orwell in his book Homage to Catalonia sees the May days as a suppression of the revolution by parties backed by Stalin's USSR such as the PSUC. He argued that the USSR did not want genuine socialist revolution in Spain. He describes Barcelona in 1936 as a city under the control of the workers - police replaced by workers' patrols, workplaces collectivised - and the egalitarian nature of the militias in Barcelona (such as the POUM militia in which he served). He contrasts this with the oppressive police state that developed after May and the subsequent suppression of the POUM. Dolores Ibarruri ascribed the events to an "anarchotrotskyist" attempt at shutting down the Republican government on orders from General Francisco Franco, acting in tandem with Adolf Hitler. According to her, the violence was the culmination of an anarchist plot which included plans to stop the movement of trains and cut all telegraph and telephone lines

[Crux]

It's the stalinists' fault!
The blood is on their hands, yes. There is literally countless examples, the Soviet union, China and Spain being those that spring to mind first.
Just like the Second International acted as an objectively blocking force to revolutionary change, so has stalinism.

But as a Hoxhaist it's funny you would use that angle.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The blood is on their hands, yes. There is literally countless examples, the Soviet union, China and Spain being those that spring to mind first.
Just like the Second International acted as an objectively blocking force to revolutionary change, so has stalinism.

You guys obviously need to learn to fight better then

[Crux]

You guys obviously need to learn to fight better then
I am sorry, we are not violence-fetischist little fanboys, but actual political activists.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think whenever this subject comes up a lot of people get over excited and trip over their words in defence, giving excuses like anarchists don't lead revolutions, the working class do, which is fair and all, but I think I have a better question. I am asking, in a mature manner with no intention of gloating of generally being a ding dong, anarchists and/or Trots (or anyone else, for that matter), why do you believe there are never any socialist revolutions worth getting behind?

I asked it straight, so I'd appreciate some straight answers please. Thank you.

[praxis1966]

I am asking, in a mature manner with no intention of gloating of generally being a ding dong, anarchists and/or Trots (or anyone else, for that matter), why do you believe there are never any socialist revolutions worth getting behind?

I asked it straight, so I'd appreciate some straight answers please. Thank you.

You're right, you did ask it straight so I'll give you a straight answer. Read this carefully, because I don't want anyone saying that I'm criticizing this or that ongoing struggle. I'm taking this purely as a hypothetical question so I'm going to basically give you my opinion as if it existed in a vacuum.

The way I see it, I wouldn't begrudge a given people's revolutionary choices one way or the other. No matter how much I personally disagree with the fundamental tenets of this or that tendency, if a revolution has at it's core the force and will of the working class and is not simply engaging in an act of voluntarism, then who am I to dictate to a whole people that the way they've chosen to organize themselves is wrong?

Whether we're talking mass upheaval or guerrilla war, the support of the people is always of paramount importance. I see that bit as critical, not only for ideological reasons but strategic reasons as well.

The short of it is, you show me popular will and I'll shut the fuck up, even if I think you're totally screwing the pooch.

EDIT: As an aside, as an anarcho-syndicalist, I necessarily believe that the best way to reach workers is where they are most commonly exploited and the contradictions between their interests and those of the capitalists are most readily apparent, so I choose to do my organizing at the point of production with coworkers rather than for them. Besides, there's a certain amount of self-interest involved. In other words, I'm a worker, too, and I'll be good a god damned if I know of any political party that's gonna protect me when my jackenape boss tries to shit can my happy ass... But that's a sideshow to your question.:lol:

[RedHal]

why put that perfect theory into actual practice? It's easier to criticise every past and present revolutionary struggle when you have that untarnished perfect theory.

[Tim Finnegan]

I am asking, in a mature manner with no intention of gloating of generally being a ding dong, anarchists and/or Trots (or anyone else, for that matter), why do you believe there are never any socialist revolutions worth getting behind?
Isn't that a bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question? :confused:

[La Comédie Noire]

Come now, have we forgotten that history isn't moved by personal caprice or villainy, but people reacting within the constraints of material conditions? Maybe the Leninists were right for 1917, but who says 1917 or even 1938 for that matter will forever be the universal standard of revolution?

We can't let the dead weigh on the brain of the living.

[Chimurenga.]

Anarchists don't have a winning strategy for revolution nor are they able to arouse the masses.

Trotskyists have never been able to overcome opportunism and have never had a strong leadership to carry out revolution anywhere.

The winning strategy for the proletarian revolution to lead to Socialism (and eventually Communism) is Marxism and Leninism. It's only when that revolutionary science and those principles are carried out that the working class is able to win.

That is just the way the cookie crumbles.

[La Comédie Noire]

Anarchists don't have a winning strategy for revolution nor are they able to arouse the masses.

...Nevermind.



The winning strategy for the proletarian revolution to lead to Socialism (and eventually Communism) is Marxism and Leninism. It's only when that revolutionary science and those principles are carried out that the working class is able to win.

You are being vague here. What is the "revolutionary science"? I don't know too many sciences that stand still for one hundred years.

[Robocommie]

Come now, have we forgotten that history isn't moved by personal caprice or villainy, but people reacting within the constraints of material conditions? Maybe the Leninists were right for 1917, but who says 1917 or even 1938 for that matter will forever be the universal standard of revolution?

We can't let the dead weigh on the brain of the living.

There's got to be some kind of a line drawn, however, one way or the other. Quite frankly, pure dialectical materialism, pure economic determinism in which each stage of history is decided by people reacting to the contradictions within a society, and the material conditions available to it, somewhat implies that history is set. In other words, we are literally all wasting our time being here by even discussing it. We should just be out, living our lives - as capitalist drones - until eventually the internal contradictions will out and socialism happens.

I mean, I don't disagree, I think taking one programmatic answer to everything is stupid. But the above keeps occurring to me everytime I hear people discuss material conditions and the progression of society.

[danyboy27]

I think the real Question should be: why there never been a successful leftist revolution that gave to the people a durable and functionnal system of equality, freedom and abundance.

I am not a ML, but if i was, i would consider what happened to the soviet union and to the other ML regimes at best a modest failure.

Even tho the soviet union have been able to raise the living standard of its population, the lenin/stalin era lasted a mere 40 year, then krutchev came to power and ''messed everything stalin and lenin did''.

I mean come on, everything was finely tuned and out of nowhere a guy is able to fuck it all up in a matter of month? what kind of system is that!

But really, at the end, we all failed. the trots failed, the anarchist failed, even the ML, it took more time,but they eventually failed has well, eastern europe and russia are now infested with neoliberal politics.

i think we should learn from all that, we have to.

[La Comédie Noire]

There's got to be some kind of a line drawn, however, one way or the other. Quite frankly, pure dialectical materialism, pure economic determinism in which each stage of history is decided by people reacting to the contradictions within a society, and the material conditions available to it, somewhat implies that history is set. In other words, we are literally all wasting our time being here by even discussing it. We should just be out, living our lives - as capitalist drones - until eventually the internal contradictions will out and socialism happens.

I mean, I don't disagree, I think taking one programmatic answer to everything is stupid. But the above keeps occurring to me everytime I hear people discuss material conditions and the progression of society. I tend to agree with this. No social system simply succumbs to it's own contradictions, there needs to be a point where conscious action is taken and at least the skeleton of a program is needed. Capitalists are quite adept at destroying eachothers' and even their own productive capacity when it threatens to drown them in abundance.

I also think strict historical materialism can lead to passiveness. The German Communists thought communism was right around the corner as they cranked away at their little underground presses, probably right down to the last man executed by the Gestapo.

The question is, what will that program be? Is there anything we can learn from 1917? Don't get me wrong. 1917 was a genuine proletariat revolution, but how much is there that we can use today? Right now? No one, argues everything is still useful, but there are a few people who argue a lot can still be of use.

Things have no doubt changed, but history also repeats itself. I think it can be akin to the end of The Dark Tower Series. Roland, to his horror, has to repeat the adventure again, but this time he has the horn of Eld with him, which will change things in unforeseeable ways.

I'm being optimistic here, but I think 1917 set off a whole new era of history where the Russian revolution will be viewed as "a good start."

(I'm really drunk right now. Sorry if it doesn't make sense.)

[Robocommie]

The question is, what will that program be? Is there anything we can learn from 1917? Don't get me wrong. 1917 was a genuine proletariat revolution, but how much is there that we can use today? Right now? No one, argues everything is still useful, but there are a few people who argue a lot can still be of use.

I'm being optimistic here, but I think 1917 set off a whole new era of history where the Russian revolution will be viewed as "a good start."

This is why I hesitate to take any kind of a label. I have ideas I agree with or disagree with more or less, but I'd much rather base my own personal ideology on as wide a basis as possible. I like to read and learn from everything. I have favorite authors and theorists, but I don't want to exclude anything without consideration. And the same goes for tendencies, too.

[Geiseric]

You guys obviously need to learn to fight better then

>Implying you fight better than us since people long dead who shared your political beliefs stabbed other people long dead who share some same political beliefs as us

[danyboy27]

Anarchists don't have a winning strategy for revolution nor are they able to arouse the masses.

Trotskyists have never been able to overcome opportunism and have never had a strong leadership to carry out revolution anywhere.

The winning strategy for the proletarian revolution to lead to Socialism (and eventually Communism) is Marxism and Leninism. It's only when that revolutionary science and those principles are carried out that the working class is able to win.

That is just the way the cookie crumbles.

i would probably agree with you if there was any evidence that the ML strategy actually work to bring about long lasting, stable and egalitarian governement. Compared to the left communist, the anarchist and trots, you did great, sure, but on the historic level the avearge lifespan of ML regimes tend to be, lets be honest, relatively short.

[Kiev Communard]

Anarchists don't have a winning strategy for revolution nor are they able to arouse the masses.

The Commune of Paris? Industrial Workers of the World? Spain 1936? The Makhnovist Movement? The 1919 Korean Uprising? Also note that all these movements failed due to outside state and ruling class repression, not due to internal degeneration, in contrast with "Marxist-Leninist" regimes.


Trotskyists have never been able to overcome opportunism and have never had a strong leadership to carry out revolution anywhere.

Except that Trotskyist strategy for revolution is basically Leninist (i.e. the upholding of vanguard party and reliance on industrial working class), so that if you denounce Trotsky, you should denounce Lenin for the sake of consistency as well.


The winning strategy for the proletarian revolution to lead to Socialism (and eventually Communism) is Marxism and Leninism. It's only when that revolutionary science and those principles are carried out that the working class is able to win.

That is just the way the cookie crumbles.

Except that all Leninist attempts at revolution after 1917 were failures, while all significant revolutionary movements in the Third World were basically led by peasant populists who sometimes used "Marxist-Leninist" rhetorics (like your obvious favourite Mugabe), or by idealist agrarian socialists (like Mao), without significant involvement of masses of working class. When the quasi-revolutionary upheavals took place in West Europe, North America and the USSR in the 1960s, the workers who took part in them characteristically adopted a syndicalist/council communist attitude, while the only "Marxists-Leninists" who participated in the events were basically middle-class students. Therefore, if you are to be consistent, you should denounce not only anarchism and Trotskyism, but also your beloved "Marxism-Leninism" as (using your words) lacking "winning strategy for revolution".

[Rakhmetov]

There has never been a successful anarchist revolution for the simple reason that the anarchists refuse to use the state to oppress the enemy of the people! :rolleyes:

[Kiev Communard]

There has never been a successful anarchist revolution for the simple reason that the anarchists refuse to use the state to oppress the enemy of the people! :rolleyes:

Wrong. Contrary to the misconception popular among orthodox Marxists, anarchists are not against political violence against reactionaries. They are against the conduct of this violence by centralized bureaucratic bodies that are structured in a manner similar to punitive organs of capitalist State (like the USSR was). I hope this information will contribute to refuting such misconceptions - http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html#sech21:




For revolutionary anarchists, it is a truism that a revolution will need to defend itself against counter-revolutionary threats. Bakunin, for example, while strenuously objecting to the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" also thought a revolution would need to defend itself:

"Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighbouring communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defence." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 142]

And:

"the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made up of] delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times . . . all provinces, communes and associations . . . [will] delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly (all . . . invested with binding mandated and accountable and subject to recall), in order to found the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . and to organise a revolutionary force with the capacity of defeating the reaction . . . it is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent areas that the universality of the Revolution . . . will emerge triumphant." [Op. Cit., pp. 155-6]

Malatesta agreed, explicitly pointing to "corps of volunteers (anarchist formations)" as a means of defending a revolution from "attempts to reduce a free people to a state of slavery again." To defend a revolution required "the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter." [Anarchy, p. 42] Decades later, his position had not changed and he was still arguing for the "creation of voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside intervention" for only "the people in arms, in possession of the land, the factories and all the natural wealth" could "defend . . . the revolution." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 166 and p. 170]

Alexander Berkman concurred. In his classic introduction to anarchism, he devoted a whole chapter to the issue which he helpfully entitled "Defense of the Revolution". He noted that it was "your duty, as an Anarchist, to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion . . . the social revolution . . . will defend itself against invasion from any quarter . . . The armed workers and peasants are the only effective defence of the revolution. By means of their unions and syndicates they must always be on guard against counter-revolutionary attack." [What is Anarchism?, pp. 231-2] Emma Goldman clearly and unambiguously stated that she had "always insisted that an armed attack on the Revolution must be met with armed force" and that "an armed counter-revolutionary and fascist attack can be met in no way except by an armed defence." [Vision on Fire, p. 222 and p. 217] Kropotkin, likewise, took it as a given that "a society in which the workers would have a dominant voice" would require a revolution to create and "each time that such a period of accelerated evolution and reconstruction on a grand scale begins, civil war is liable to break out on a small or large scale." The question was "how to attain the greatest results with the most limited amount of civil war, the smallest number of victims, and a minimum of mutual embitterment." To achieve this there was "only one means; namely, that the oppressed part of society should obtain the clearest possible conception of what they intend to achieve, and how, and that they should be imbued with the enthusiasm which is necessary for that achievement." Thus, "there are periods in human development when a conflict is unavoidable, and civil war breaks out quite independently of the will of particular individuals." [Memiors of a Revolutionist, pp. 270-1]

So Durruti, while fighting at the front during the Spanish revolution, was not saying anything new or against anarchist theory when he stated that "the bourgeois won't let us create a libertarian communist society simply because we want to. They'll fight back and defend their privileges. The only way we can establish libertarian communism is by destroying the bourgeoisie" [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti in the Spanish Revolution, p. 484] Clearly, anarchism has always recognised the necessity of defending a revolution and proposed ideas to ensure it (ideas applied with great success by, for example, the Makhnovists in the Ukrainian Revolution and the CNT militias during the Spanish). As such, any assertion that anarchism rejects the necessity of defending a revolution is simply false. Sadly, it is one Marxists make repeatedly (undoubtedly inspired by Engels similar distortions - see section H.4.7).

[Ocean Seal]

Like a person said early on in this thread the Russian revolution could be considered Trotskyist. And my problem with the libertarian left generally has been that I'm not entirely sure how well they would be able to defend the gains of a revolution. For those who say that all ML states have had capitalism restored, lets remember that all states have had capitalism restored. At the very least Trotskyists should admit that if they believe that Stalin was a capitalist that Leninism in general leads to the restoration of capitalism.

[Rakhmetov]

Wrong. Contrary to the misconception popular among orthodox Marxists, anarchists are not against political violence against reactionaries. They are against the conduct of this violence by centralized bureaucratic bodies that are structured in a manner similar to punitive organs of capitalist State (like the USSR was). I hope this information will contribute to refuting such misconceptions - http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html#sech21:

I did not say political violence. I said anarchists refuse to use the state to oppress their enemies. There is a world of difference between the two.

[Kiev Communard]

I did not say political violence. I said anarchists refuse to use the state to oppress their enemies. There is a world of difference between the two.

However, it seems that you have implied "organized violence" when talking about "state", and I have tried to demonstrate by the quotes of prominent anarchist thinkers/militants that anarchism by no means denies the necessity of organization of revolutionary violence. However, it is firmly against such violence being organized by minority bureaucratic bodies, rather than by sovereign self-government organs of the proletarian class.

[Thirsty Crow]

I did not say political violence. I said anarchists refuse to use the state to oppress their enemies. There is a world of difference between the two.
Yeah, anarchists and non-affiliated workers in Aragon and Catalonia had just asked the landlords and bosses real nicely to vacate the premises and give up on claiming ownership of their productive facilities.

Organized expropriation and repression do not neccesitate a state.

[Rakhmetov]

Yeah, anarchists and non-affiliated workers in Aragon and Catalonia had just asked the landlords and bosses real nicely to vacate the premises and give up on claiming ownership of their productive facilities.

Organized expropriation and repression do not neccesitate a state.


But we are really glossing over this issue, aren't we? First of all what is your definition of "state"???

State in my opinion is a machine or an organization of violence for the oppression of a particular class. Now the anarchists in this thread say they want to employ "organization of revolutionary violence" and "implement sovereign self-government organs of the proletarian class"---- that is how we Marxist-Leninists define state. :rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

But we are really glossing over this issue, aren't we? First of all what is your definition of "state"???

State in my opinion is a machine or an organization of violence for the oppression of a particular class. Now the anarchists in this thread say they want to employ "organization of revolutionary violence" and "implement sovereign self-government organs of the proletarian class"---- that is how we Marxist-Leninists define state. :rolleyes:

a state is a highly hierarchical structure of governement, that why anarchist oppose to its utilisation., beccause they fear that, by trying to just take it over and using it, the same problem of classes would eventually reappear.

And in a sense, its true, if you agree to take control of a state, you aknowledge that there must be people who give order, and other folks who will obey to make things works, with the army and the police used has a tool of coercion. this will eventually recreate the same dynamic people endured under capitalism, the have, and the have-not.

Its also why the ML governements where able to set things up so fast, beccause even tho their economics policies where drasticly differents than the capitalistic ones, the dynamics of the have and have-not remain the same, there are still an army, judges, police, the bureaucrats, politicians, and under those folks the workers, scientists, doctor, machinists peasants.

[Thirsty Crow]

But we are really glossing over this issue, aren't we? First of all what is your definition of "state"???


State in my opinion is a machine or an organization of violence for the oppression of a particular class. Now the anarchists in this thread say they want to employ "organization of revolutionary violence" and "implement sovereign self-government organs of the proletarian class"---- that is how we Marxist-Leninists define state. :rolleyes:

That's not how I define what the state is. The state is a machine? Maybe you wanted to say - "machinery". Anyway, I don't think that metaphorical expressions are useful when it comes to communicating such ideas.

Now, you bring up the issue of the state functioning within class society - which is necessarily organized along the lines of support of one class by means of repression of another. I agree with that.
Now, here is the crux of the matter. If the proletariat is to organize themselves as the ruling class, this cannot be taken to mean that the prolatariat will organize itself like the bourgeoisie, as the ruling class, have organized their rule. But Marxists-Leninists, in my opinion, put forward an inherntly flawed notion of a party-state, i.e. a complex of institutions separate from the society as a whole which are mandated not only to implement decisions agreed upon at the level of base assemblies, but also to formally monopolize the decision making process itself.

In simpler terms: MLs, IMO, advocate rule on behalf of specialized institutions at the expense of basic organs of proletarian self-organization - workers' councils.


a state is a highly hierarchical structure of governement
I really doubt the usefulness of the traditional anarchist metaphor of "hierarchy". It obscures more than it explains, in my opinion.

[Rooster]

I dunno, man. Like, if m-l is the best way to organise for a revolution and it's provided such great benefits, then why is it so prone to revisionism and then eventual full blown capitalist restoration? Did all m-l states fall because of revisionism? Is that a success? :confused:

[Thirsty Crow]

I dunno, man. Like, if m-l is the best way to organise for a revolution and it's provided such great benefits, then why is it so prone to revisionism and then eventual full blown capitalist restoration? Did all m-l states fall because of revisionism? Is that a success? :confused:
They went soft on potential revisionists.
More purges needed.

[Tim Finnegan]

There has never been a successful anarchist revolution for the simple reason that the anarchists refuse to use the state to oppress the enemy of the people! :rolleyes:

The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes.
But what did he know, eh? :rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

I dunno, man. Like, if m-l is the best way to organise for a revolution and it's provided such great benefits, then why is it so prone to revisionism and then eventual full blown capitalist restoration? Did all m-l states fall because of revisionism? Is that a success? :confused:

Beccause there is a huuge difference between getting power and keeping it.

In theory, the M-L phase is supposed to be a temporary one, a mere transition phase toward a more free and emancipated society.

In practice, well, the M-L system appear to work well, capitalism crushed, everybody got job and food, bettter education, so the people in power dont really want to move further and perhaps loose all these thing they have implented, fall into more chaos, and beccuse of that, the system remain until its collapse or until some market oriented folks make their move and alter the system.

[Susurrus]

Wikipedia has a "list of anarchist communities" which is a helpful source.

At first, the Russian revolution itself was quite decentralized and anarchistic, which is why so many Russian anarchists aided and supported the Bolsheviks before the seized political domination and established an authoritarian state.

[Rafiq]

There hasn't been any successful proletarian revolutions since the October Revolution, though..

Also, Marxist-Leninists and Maoists tend to be much more Authoritarian(not that I'm an Anarchist criticizing this) and straightforward, which is usually why they gain power much more often than Anarchists.

Trotskyists are a different story, though I do hear they are popular in Latin America.

[Chambered Word]

Proletarian Revolution is the result of the working class movement against capital, this movement is the product of no intellectual sect or self proclaimed party, but the proletariat itself as the negation of capital. There is no such thing as a 'Leninist', 'Trotskyist', or 'Anarchist' revolution, you are either communist or you are capitalist; communists participate in the proletarian revolution and do not adhere to sectarian principles which confuse proletarian interests with those of the bourgeoisie, if you do this then you are no more than a left capitalist.

The discussion should have ended at this. The question posed is totally immaterial and exists as nothing more than a cheap point in RevLeft pissing contests.