I'm either a Trot, a left-com or an anarcho-com.

[CynicalIdealist]

(Sorry M-L's.)

I'm split on this matter because I know that I'm for internationalism and working class democracy in some meaningful sense or another--although admittedly I don't how how Lenin/Trotsky were supposedly more democratic than Stalin either theoretically or in practice because I'm ignorant of history. Anyway, do any of you think it's of major importance that I figure out my tendency? I feel like, on the one hand, I'm sympathetic to all of the three aforementioned tendencies, while on the other they all have their major differences and feel strongly about them (especially left-coms' and anarchists' supposed differences with Trotskyists).

Any suggestions for figuring out what my tendency is? I know that I have much reading to do and whatnot...

[Rafiq]

Combine all three if they conform to your views. Do not adapt your views for tendencies, make tendencies adapt for you!

[Q]

I find the Marxism intro page (http://communiststudents.org.uk/?page_id=5836) on the Communist Students website helpful to cover the basics. There is a reading list at the bottom and there are more subjects under the Theory menu.

The first bit of that page:


Marxism intro

Communist Students is guided by the ideas of Marxism and the history of the communist movement it inspired. For us Marxism is not a dogmatic list of beliefs or policies which come to us ready-made. Rather it is a political strategy for achieving communism, one which must be constantly updated, debated, and enriched.

This political strategy boils down to a handful of basic propositions:

1. The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

2. The emancipation of the working class is the fundamental basis for freeing humanity from class-divided society.

3. The emancipation of the working class and humanity means abolishing exploitation and ushering in a whole new way of organising society, politically, economically and culturally – communism.

4. Communism can only be achieved by the working class itself, through conscious political activity.

Marxism is not a monolithic belief system; indeed someone once said that there are more real disagreements within the Marxist school of thought than outside it. Exactly what we mean by communism and the working class (or proletariat), or what it would mean for the workers themselves to overthrow capitalism, are all live issues in Marxist theory.

Disagreements are natural and healthy, resulting in increased understanding and the changing of outdated ideas, and our members are encouraged to air their differences openly. It is only through criticism and struggle – from minor correctives to outdated notions, to painstaking research, to vigorous polemics – that we can arrive collectively the ideas we need to put Marx’s strategy into practice.
For the record: I'm not a member of CS by the way.

[Geiseric]

As for Trotsky, he invented the soviet. As for Lenin, the bolsheviks were actually a mass party with a HUGE working class base. He personally tutored workers, and in his theoretical works bashes other bolsheviks like kamanev and zinoviev for trying to exclude workers from party activities. a good read would be Leninism under Lenin by Marcel Liebman. Read his theoreticals like What is to be Done? and State and Revolution. anything they did during the revolution that can be seemed as "authoritarian" has to be seen as something done in order to cope with a country with such a backwards economy in which CANNIBALISM HAPPENS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE and where OTHER LEFTIST PARTIES WANT TO CONTINUE THE WAR AND SUPPORT THE BOURGEOIS GOVERNMENT. Had it not been for Lenin and Trotsky, the bolsheviks would have supported the provisional government! Anyways, just read some of the things I posted and you'll see. The other insurrections like Kronstadt and the Black Army were at the time seen as counter revolutionary.

[Magón]

Before I settled on Anarchist theory, I stuck to just calling myself an Internationalist, and I did that for about 5 years. My friend calls herself the same because she's sympathetic to both Anarchist and Council Communist thinking, and chooses not to side with any one particular radical left theory.

[Q]

As for Trotsky, he invented the soviet.

No, the soviets arose as a more or less spontaneous result of the revolution of 1905. Trotsky happened to be the chair of the first soviet of a major city (St Petersburg).

[Susurrus]

Read his theoreticals like What is to be Done? and State and Revolution. anything they did during the revolution that can be seemed as "authoritarian" has to be seen as something done in order to cope with a country with such a backwards economy in which CANNIBALISM HAPPENS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE and where OTHER LEFTIST PARTIES WANT TO CONTINUE THE WAR AND SUPPORT THE BOURGEOIS GOVERNMENT. Had it not been for Lenin and Trotsky, the bolsheviks would have supported the provisional government! The other insurrections like Kronstadt and the Black Army were at the time seen as counter revolutionary.

His theoreticals were quite different form his actions. The agricultural polices of the bolsheviks only exacerbated the famine. Not all other leftists wanted to continue the war, the anarchists were against it as well. I don't know about the provisional government thing, though the proddings of lenin and trotsky certainly spurred them to overthrow it(and take power afterwards). Only by the bolsheviks, and those who believed their propaganda.

To CynicalIdealist, I call myself an anarcho-com though I agree with some of Trotsky and a lot of the left-coms. Just call yourself whichever one you agree with most.

[thefinalmarch]

Above all, read and develop your own ideas. If your ideas happen to be in line with those of a certain tendency then so be it.

[Rooster]

I wouldn't lump Trotsky in with the other two. He was just as anti-democratic and ruthless as Stalin and co. His main gripe, as far as I can tell, is when the USSR declared itself socialist. Trotsky probably had a better understanding of what socialist meant but his ideas of reaching that stage differs from left-com and anarcho-com theories. especially for a backwards country like Russia. If you want a better understanding of certain trends within socialism then I recommend the quite readable The Two Souls of Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/) by Hal Draper (but his views on anarchism might be a bit harsh).

[Geiseric]

My fault, i read that the blueprint for the theoretical soviets came from Trotsky while he was exiled and the Mensheviks still in russia. The Soviet was however highly democratic. That came from Leninism Under Lenin btw. And also, something I considered is that Lenin's theoreticals were written, more or less for advanced western european revolution. The task of managing a workers revolution in Russia, capitalism's weak link, was seen as impossible by nearly every revolutionary in theoretics, except for Trotsky who thought it was possible. And I meant every mainstream party where the revolution started, as in St. Petersburg and the main cities was in favor of the Provisional Gov. And continueing the war, seeing russia as a bourgeois revolution. Lenin, Trotsky, and other radicals were the minority at first, saying the revolution was the first stage of an international wave, and russia was only an outpost of the world revolution. Everything we see as authoritarian was used to show revolution was possible.

[Geiseric]

They were all anti democratic, the conflict wasn't about how strong the government was, only to start the international wave, which sadly never happened. if they weren't anti democratic, they wouldn't have won the war. Makhno was also anti democratic, but it's okay because he's supposedly an anarchist? He did the same things the bolsheviks did, including executions, having an army, and excersising State Power where he was in charge! But that's all different, because he was an anarchist, standing up to the bully bolsheviks?

[Susurrus]

The Soviet was however highly democratic. Everything we see as authoritarian was used to show revolution was possible.

It could have been a successful revolution into socialism, except a certain party shut down the soviets and took control. Even if Lenin was advancing the cause of revolution in Europe, he did so by abusing the Russian proletariat. Revolution would have been fully possible in a non-authoritarian manner, and even if you claim it was necessary to win the Russian Civil War, then why didn't Lenin & Co. start withering away the state afterwards?

In short, to quote a conversation Trotsky had:
Trotsky: To make an omelet you have to break some eggs.
Voline: I see the broken eggs; now where is this omelet?

[Susurrus]

Makhno was also anti democratic, but it's okay because he's supposedly an anarchist? He did the same things the bolsheviks did, including executions, having an army, and excersising State Power where he was in charge! But that's all different, because he was an anarchist, standing up to the bully bolsheviks?

Yes he did executions and had an army, but the difference is that the summary executions were limited to enemies and those blatantly reactionary[all others were handled by trial(i think)], the army was democratic, and having the territory controlled by the Black Army set up democratic soviets.

[Geiseric]

At the time in Russia, shutting down the soviets was a necessary evil to create a central state which would be used for the upcoming counter revolution. I mean, if I was there at the time I wouldnt of understood either. But the russian revolution was an event used to spark the european fire that was covered by reformists, not unlike the mensheviks and SR's. I mean, everybody thought the revolution would of happened sooner, but russia was so screwed, the choices were either to industrialise and aid the world revolution (trotskyism) or to industrialise and have the recources go to building socialism in russia (stalinism). The latter proved to be more ruthless and killed the other side. I guess Trotsky was democratic enough not to kill other members of the mass party. But Lenin died as well, and Stalin's clique just rose to power. Grouping Trotsky and Lenin in the same group of Stalin is most disagreeable though, we saw that they were right and socialism couldn't happen in Russia without a world revolution.

[Susurrus]

At the time in Russia, shutting down the soviets was a necessary evil to create a central state which would be used for the upcoming counter revolution.

Again, why wasn't it reversed after the civil war then? The only sign of change was the NEP.



russia was so screwed, the choices were either to industrialise and aid the world revolution (trotskyism) or to industrialise and have the recources go to building socialism in russia (stalinism). The latter proved to be more ruthless and killed the other side.
Neither of those strategies are solely what happened, the Red Terror, Purges, etc are not necessary to industrialise.



I guess Trotsky was democratic enough not to kill other members of the mass party. But Lenin died as well, and Stalin's clique just rose to power. Grouping Trotsky and Lenin in the same group of Stalin is most disagreeable though, we saw that they were right and socialism couldn't happen in Russia without a world revolution.

No, but he was quite happy to have common people and dissidents outside the party executed. It is disagreeable, as Stalin was worse than Trotsky. Trotsky and Lenin are far from blameless though.

[Geiseric]

I'm not saying they're blameless. I am saying though, that every choice they made had the weight of the entire world on their shoulders. My grammar is fucked up since i'm sleep deprived but hear me out. If a workers revolution failed in russia, our ideologies would all be as significant as my toe nail. The world was looking at them, and who knows how many people would have gone back to reformism if the first workers revolution failed? Trotsky's quote which basically sums up the russian revolution is "the end justifies the means, as long as something justifies the end." And the end didn't happen because of chicken shit bandejo stalin and his little group of beurecrats, and that is my ideological crisis at the moment, and history showed that Trotsky was right, international revolution is needed for socialism. Everything they did was for the future, and everything they couldn't do that was promised in due time was impossible with the chaos of russia, and its isolation from the world after the revolution.

[Devrim]

As for Trotsky, he invented the soviet.

Actually I think Soviet were created by the working class itself.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

In summary the end goal, communism vs. socialism in one country, was the differences, as well as the strength of the beuracracy. Stalin killed the true communists. I can't imagine how depressed i'd be if I were in Trotsky's or Lenin's shoes and this was happening in front of my eyes. I would have purged Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamanev as soon as they started the troika.

[Geiseric]

I meant the blueprints for the organisational aspects of it. Ok if he didn't create it, he was a main part in thefirst one which was nearly direct democracy. That's what I meant to say.

[Susurrus]

i'm sleep deprived but hear me out.

You and me both, comrade. :sleep:

If a workers revolution failed in russia, our ideologies would all be as significant
as my toe nail. The world was looking at them, and who knows how many people would have gone back to reformism if the first workers revolution failed?
I think that's debatable, but who can say.


Trotsky's quote which basically sums up the russian revolution is "the end justifies the means, as long as something justifies the end." And the end didn't happen because of chicken shit bandejo stalin and his little group of buerocrats
They still had plenty of opportunities to handle things better.


and history showed that Trotsky was right, international revolution is needed for socialism.
Ehh, I think that when actual socialism come somewhere the world will follow quickly. Imagine how revived the leftist movement would be if the Spanish revolution had succeeded in 1936.


Everything they did was for the future, and everything they couldn't do that was promised in due time was impossible with the chaos of russia, and its isolation from the world after the revolution.

And Lenin accused us anarchists of only thinking in the future, while the Bolsheviks concentrate on the now. :rolleyes:

I think that Lenin and Trotsky definitely thought they were doing the right thing for the future, even if they thought it to be a cruel means to an end. The only hole in that theory is Trotsky's defense of everything pre-Stalin and denial of Kronstadt being revolutionaries, but who knows, perhaps he was as taken in as anybody about the bolshevik propaganda.

Anyway, we've totally diverted CynicalIdealist's thread(sorry:blushing:).

[Devrim]

I meant the blueprints for the organisational aspects of it. Ok if he didn't create it, he was a main part in thefirst one which was nearly direct democracy. That's what I meant to say.

He didn't create the blueprints either. All of the left organisations in Russia were caught by surprise by the emerge of the St. Petersburg Soviet. Trotsky came in later.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it is quite an important point that the Soviet was a creation of the working class itself, and not some left group.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Alright Devrim, i'll re check my sources later on about the soviets creation in 1905. anyways trotsky was part of that phase in russian workers politics, my main point is that since he was elected chairman, he must of at least supported the soviet and the workers democracy.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'd probably go with anarcho-communism.

If all the tendencies got together and had a drinking party, Anarcho-communism would probably be that cool guy who listens to everyones problems while they are drunk.

[Geiseric]

Anyways in relevance to OP: Pick whatever you want, there's no rush with the state of today's radical left. Just make sure you keep questioning whatever literature you find or whatever group you join. I don't mean like interrupt what the speaker says at a reading group, just make sure you don't end up a socialist in style only, and don't get obsessed at a young age like I did about a year ago, i hate going to high school and thinking materialistically. God sakes, I wish I didn't become a leftist till this year... Everybody think's i'm that wierd communist kid since they're all middle class white kids and i'm a working class socially consious white kid. I mean going to football with the morons on my team makes me hate my life. Ummmm anyways yeah. Don't be a stalinist.

[Q]

The Soviet was however highly democratic. That came from Leninism Under Lenin btw.

Yes, Lenin emphasised on political freedoms and democracy. No, there wasn't such a thing as "Leninism" before Lenin's death in 1924 (the construct is an invention of Stalin as far as I'm aware, although someone else might have been earlier even). And no, the Bolsheviks under Lenin were actually quite dismissive about the soviets back when they spran up in 1905. Something he regretted later on.

[Rowan Duffy]

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it is quite an important point that the Soviet was a creation of the working class itself, and not some left group.


It really depends on what you mean by "some left group". It's generally the case that the soviets in Russia, the soviets in Ireland, the soviets in Bavaria and pretty much every occurrence in history had as organisers a hard core of leftists. Would these actions have taken place without seriously dedicated leftists with arguments for why it is necessary for the working class to seize power for themselves? I seriously doubt it.

Being in a left group does not exclude you from the working class, and neither does it mean that the actions of working class people that cooperate with you are "not the self-activity of the working class". You're creating a purist dichotomy that will create pre-conditions on revolutionary activity that can never actually occur in reality.

A non-left ideology influenced working class revolt is likely to be blown around by the prevailing ideological winds. Without the strength of conviction the most likely outcome is failure.

Leftists can not function as sects off by themselves, and they must absolutely have the cooperation and active participation and activity of a great section of the working class or the actions will be either irrelevant or devolve into a Putsch. The process has to be one of conversation. One of finding out what the needs and aspirations of the working class are at the same time that leftists push for the psychological realisation of the possibility of working class power and egalitarian social dynamics.

However, the insistence on being an obsessively non-evangelical ideology that left-coms tend to espouse virtually assures its continued irrelevance as an ideology. Ideologies which don't intend to promote themselves can only spread by procreation. It's true that they will not divert the working class into cul-de-sacs, but only because they fail to engage with the working class at all.

EDIT: Also, I want to point out that Devrim is essentially right that the soviets were working class organs and Syd Barrett's history is almost completely wrong. It seems to me that the leftist political landscape is being dominated by two positions, one fully in support of cynical vanguardism and the other an ultraleft position. These are the two simplest positions to describe and form the poles of a sort of space of approaches but unfortunately they are both completely useless for the working class.

[Rowan Duffy]

Any suggestions for figuring out what my tendency is? I know that I have much reading to do and whatnot...

I used to identify with anarchist-communism but have come to believe that a number of the widely held positions of anarchist communists are completely wrong. There is too much focus on federalism and autonomy, both being principles which I'm convinced are in contradiction with any potential solution to collective action problems.

I'm also not a Marxist as I do not believe in prophets. People can produce theories which have value for the working class [theories of value? :)], but nobody is infallible and no theory works in all contexts. It is better to be more agnostic with respect to theories and use them as tools in a toolbox.

I'm an egalitarian direct-democratic communist of some persuasion and have read and found use from reading much more widely than anarchist communism. I've found value in some things written by Trotsky, Mandel, Luxemburg, Kautsky, Kropotkin, Marx, Bakunin, Dauve and even Mao and others. Being too focused on orientation might cause one to ignore important ideas present in other currents.

It's probably best to read widely and consider positions with an open mind.

That said, being non-doctrinaire communist leaves you with some difficulties in finding appropriate political groups. Most current groups are exceedingly doctrinaire, and the distribution of ecumenical as opposed to sectarian cults is extremely sparse. Hopefully we will eventually get over our current stage of micro-sect groupings.

[Devrim]

EDIT: Also, I want to point out that Devrim is essentially right that the soviets were working class organs and Syd Barrett's history is almost completely wrong. It seems to me that the leftist political landscape is being dominated by two positions, one fully in support of cynical vanguardism and the other an ultraleft position. These are the two simplest positions to describe and form the poles of a sort of space of approaches but unfortunately they are both completely useless for the working class.

It was just a brief historical point actually. Of course there are lots of ways to develop it into a discussion between party, organisation and class. In the case of the Russia revolution, I imagine that there would also be influences from the peasant commune too. I wasn't really trying to get that deep though.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

I'd probably go with anarcho-communism.

If all the tendencies got together and had a drinking party, Anarcho-communism would probably be that cool guy who listens to everyones problems while they are drunk.

Like the agony aunts of the left? I don't think so!

As regards the question of the OP, why isn't it enough, at this moment in time, to call yourself a socialist or a communist or a Marxist? Why do you need to engage in further definition of your politics?

I think it is important to understand that there is no 'one true faith' or 'perfectly correct line' running through the history of the working class that you can seize upon. Sure, there is a long line of inspirational leaders and thinkers who provide valuable lessons for us today, but we can only extract these lessons by appropriating them for our own time, which means assessing them critically, rather than in a doctrinaire fashion as a collection of catechisms.

[Hit The North]

I'm an egalitarian direct-democratic communist of some persuasion and have read and found use from reading much more widely than anarchist communism. I've found value in some things written by Trotsky, Mandel, Luxemburg, Kautsky, Kropotkin, Marx, Bakunin, Dauve and even Mao and others. Being too focused on orientation might cause one to ignore important ideas present in other currents.

It's probably best to read widely and consider positions with an open mind.

That said, being non-doctrinaire communist leaves you with some difficulties in finding appropriate political groups. Most current groups are exceedingly doctrinaire, and the distribution of ecumenical as opposed to sectarian cults is extremely sparse. Hopefully we will eventually get over our current stage of micro-sect groupings.

I'd humbly suggest that perhaps labelling yourself as an "egalitarian direct-democratic communist" or "non-doctrinaire communist" is itself still too doctrinaire and this is why you have difficulty joining with other communist groups?

As communists we should be attracted to each other on the basis of activity, not what abstract principles we hold apart from each other.

[Q]

I'd humbly suggest that perhaps labelling yourself as an "egalitarian direct-democratic communist" or "non-doctrinaire communist" is itself still too doctrinaire and this is why you have difficulty joining with other communist groups?

As communists we should be attracted to each other on the basis of activity, not what abstract principles we hold apart from each other.

I believe the point RD was making was more that the plethora of groups and grouplets are too restrictive for him to openly express his views and engage with others on disagreements, making membership of these groups a burden and unnecessarily partisan.

[gendoikari]

(Sorry M-L's.)

I'm split on this matter because I know that I'm for internationalism and working class democracy in some meaningful sense or another--although admittedly I don't how how Lenin/Trotsky were supposedly more democratic than Stalin either theoretically or in practice because I'm ignorant of history. Anyway, do any of you think it's of major importance that I figure out my tendency? I feel like, on the one hand, I'm sympathetic to all of the three aforementioned tendencies, while on the other they all have their major differences and feel strongly about them (especially left-coms' and anarchists' supposed differences with Trotskyists).

Any suggestions for figuring out what my tendency is? I know that I have much reading to do and whatnot...

do you have to identify with just one. I just call myself a socialist and people have described me as a anarcho socailist, a Democratic socialist, and a leninist at times. I don't get caught up in the isms and ists I just know that

A) The profit at all costs mechanism of capitalism is a destructive device that only tears a good civiliation apart and stagnates real scientific advancement that isn't seen as "profitable"

B) That when we work together what we can accomplish is greater than the sum of our labors

C)democracy, though flawed is a mechanism that needs to be instated, to prevent oppression, in every aspect of our society and that includes the workplace.

D) That the lives of the people, all people should be put before the importance of an artificial construct known as money.as a society we should be working to improve the standard of living not the profits of the big corporations.

[Zanthorus]

the construct is an invention of Stalin as far as I'm aware, although someone else might have been earlier even

If you read polemics by Lenin's enemies from as early as 1902 and the Bolshevik/Menshevik split you can read them talking about 'Leninism', I think Luxemburg and Trotsky also use the term in their famous anti-WITBD pamphlets. Kautsky and other centrist and Menshevik writers also talk about 'Leninism' in their anti-Bolshevik works after 1917. It is similar to how the idea of 'Marxism' was first conjured up by Bakunin in the faction fights in the IWMA, or the spectres of 'Trotskyism' and 'Bordigism' were conjured by Stalinists and Italian centrists respectively, or even how the idea of 'Stalinism' was originated by anti-Stalinists.

[Hit The North]

do you have to identify with just one. I just call myself a socialist and people have described me as a anarcho socailist, a Democratic socialist, and a leninist at times. I don't get caught up in the isms and ists I just know that

A) The profit at all costs mechanism of capitalism is a destructive device that only tears a good civiliation apart and stagnates real scientific advancement that isn't seen as "profitable"

B) That when we work together what we can accomplish is greater than the sum of our labors

C)democracy, though flawed is a mechanism that needs to be instated in every aspect of our society and that includes the workplace.

Yes, a "back to basics" approach is what is needed most of all when we are talking to other workers. This is true here in the UK where the socialist tradition of working class struggle has become the preserve of an ageing group of workers. No working class youth in Britain know about or give a fuck about the history of the Russian revolution or the ideological turns of the Fourth International, blah, blah, blah. But they might be interested in hearing the basic socialist critique of existing society and thoughts on how they can take control over their own lives.

[Ocean Seal]

Combine all three if they conform to your views. Do not adapt your views for tendencies, make tendencies adapt for you!
This is quite possibly one of the best things that I've read on this website for some time:thumbup1:.

[Q]

If you read polemics by Lenin's enemies from as early as 1902 and the Bolshevik/Menshevik split you can read them talking about 'Leninism', I think Luxemburg and Trotsky also use the term in their famous anti-WITBD pamphlets. Kautsky and other centrist and Menshevik writers also talk about 'Leninism' in their anti-Bolshevik works after 1917. It is similar to how the idea of 'Marxism' was first conjured up by Bakunin in the faction fights in the IWMA, or the spectres of 'Trotskyism' and 'Bordigism' were conjured by Stalinists and Italian centrists respectively, or even how the idea of 'Stalinism' was originated by anti-Stalinists.

I was kinda expecting someone making that point ;) It is indeed common to use the extension <name>ist or <name>ite in polemics. I was talking about "Leninism" as a positive body of theory. As far as I'm aware, this originated from Stalin (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm).

[Jose Gracchus]

It really depends on what you mean by "some left group". It's generally the case that the soviets in Russia, the soviets in Ireland, the soviets in Bavaria and pretty much every occurrence in history had as organisers a hard core of leftists. Would these actions have taken place without seriously dedicated leftists with arguments for why it is necessary for the working class to seize power for themselves? I seriously doubt it.

The soviets of 1905 were indeed spontaneous organizations, erected by the working class without real substantive deliberate organization by self-appointed leftists. The 1917 soviets, throughout Europe, were a much more mixed bag, as are such organs of popular democracy more broadly throughout history (from the workers'/revolutionary councils of Hungary in 1956, the cordones industriales of Chile in 1973, the comites de base in Portugal 1974 and Cochabamba public square mass assemblies in 2006).

[Zanthorus]

I was kinda expecting someone making that point ;) It is indeed common to use the extension <name>ist or <name>ite in polemics. I was talking about "Leninism" as a positive body of theory. As far as I'm aware, this originated from Stalin (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm).

The attachment of the label 'Leninism' to the doctrine by one of it's supporters may have originated with Stalin, although I think the more likely culprit is Zinoviev who as chairman of the Comintern executive committee began the 'Bolshevisation' process of forcing the Comintern affiliated parties to adopt the organisational structure of the Bolshevik party. However the creation of that structure itself dates back to the time of Lenin. My memory may be playing tricks on me but I think the politburo was first organised in 1919, and certainly and famously the ban on factions was instituted at the 10th congress of the Russian Communist Party under the direction of Lenin himself with Trotsky and others in full support. Certainly if you read the writings of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev or Stalin from around the same time you will find that they all agree that 'Leninism' is an meaningful entity with the debate being over what exactly constitutes Leninism rather than it's existence as such.

[Rowan Duffy]

As communists we should be attracted to each other on the basis of activity, not what abstract principles we hold apart from each other.

Exactly, and being sectarian, party-focused inwardly looking non-engaging, electorally dominated and dominated by controlling or self-serving central committees is all a question of activity, not abstract principles.

[Rowan Duffy]

The soviets of 1905 were indeed spontaneous organizations, erected by the working class without real substantive deliberate organization by self-appointed leftists.

I find this curious for several reasons. First, I've heard from people who researched it that there were in fact leftists involved centrally in many of the Soviets in 1905, so I don't actually know that I believe the assertion at all. That is, unless we know what we are suppose to make of the other bit of the statement. What is spontaneous? All leftists are "self-appointed" leftists, so I don't understand what that is suppose to mean. Are leftists not party of the working class? And if leftists take part in a soviet, is it no longer spontaneous? And would that be a bad thing?

Ideology alone clearly does not lead to the creation of soviets - the conditions of disorganisation of the state and other objective factors take part. However, the creation of sections or soviets clearly also does not lead to the notion of workers power as we can see repeatedly from revolutionary situations in which they are viewed by the participants as emergency temporary organisations (such as the community organs in the Egyptian revolution). I doubt the idea of workers power will spontaneously pop into peoples head because of the formation of emergency organs for working class defense. It's much more likely that they'll take revolutionary dimensions when these ideas are prevalent.

Are you trying to make some moral judgment on self-appointed leftists being involved in working class organisations and advocating workers power, or is that just how it appears from the statement.

[Kléber]

The Soviets did not arise spontaneously, nor were they founded by a single group. They were organized by united fronts of all tendencies in the workers movement.

[Devrim]

I find this curious for several reasons. First, I've heard from people who researched it that there were in fact leftists involved centrally in many of the Soviets in 1905, so I don't actually know that I believe the assertion at all. That is, unless we know what we are suppose to make of the other bit of the statement. What is spontaneous? All leftists are "self-appointed" leftists, so I don't understand what that is suppose to mean. Are leftists not party of the working class? And if leftists take part in a soviet, is it no longer spontaneous? And would that be a bad thing?

Of course what you are saying is true. I think that the central thing of the point is to contrast the first soviets with soviets which were later set up by political parties, where the delegates were representatives of political parties, and also to stress that it was not some master plan of the RSDLP (B), but something that they were actually surprised by.

Devrim

[Jose Gracchus]

I find this curious for several reasons. First, I've heard from people who researched it that there were in fact leftists involved centrally in many of the Soviets in 1905, so I don't actually know that I believe the assertion at all. That is, unless we know what we are suppose to make of the other bit of the statement. What is spontaneous? All leftists are "self-appointed" leftists, so I don't understand what that is suppose to mean. Are leftists not party of the working class? And if leftists take part in a soviet, is it no longer spontaneous? And would that be a bad thing?

I'll be more specific. The original Petrograd Soviet of 1905 was formed by the mass striking industrial workers in Petrograd, on their own initiative, at their mass assemblies. Later, 'conscious' militants and revolutionaries associated with the priorly-existing party apparatus and institutions, entered into, and participated in the 1905 soviets. However, the initiative of their formation did not come from "de-classe" revolutionary intelligentsia organized formally in revolutionary organizations, though they certainly participated in them after their formation.

In 1917, the mass strike led to the abdication of the Autocracy, and the Menshevik and SR party professionals formed a shadow executive committee, and then summoned delegates from among the striking workers to form soviets. In effect, the soviet executive committee was formed first, and then the soviet assembled around it to lend it legitimacy. Since the Mensheviks and SRs could count on (somewhat passive, we must admit) mass political support from the striking workers, and successfully organized the largest soviets according to political fractions, it was a simple matter for policy and decision-making within the 1917 soviets, particularly in Petrograd and Moscow, to devolve into negotiations among the party committees, and not originate within the militant workers at the base. Throughout 1917, this dynamic was challenged as the Right SR and Menshevik-Defensist-supported Provisional Government lost legitimacy and support, and militant workers began overturning the Right SR-Menshevik majorities in soviets, as well as entering the Bolshevik party (and to a lesser extent, the other members of the revolutionary bloc like the Left SRs - still forming as a distinct faction -, the SR-Maximialists, and anarchists). However, the major city soviets remained troublingly a top-down affair, with initiative and political energy concentrated in the party machines which had the support of the majority fraction of the soviet. Some soviets, such as the Helsingfors (Helsinki) and Kronstadt soviet, were more radical and militant, and workers in base assemblies fought to maintain apportionment of seats in the soviet according to discrete constituencies of workers, sailors, and soldiers, who regularly met en masse and maintained direct control over their delegates. Israel Getzler notes that they were much livelier soviet sessions in the debate and tousling than the "sleepy" by comparison Petrograd soviet, where policy was worked out in advance by negotiation among political fractions. (See: Israel Getzler's Kronstadt 1917-1921: Fate of a Soviet Democracy, and his "Soviets as Agents of Democratization" from the collection Revolution in Russia: Reassessments of 1917)


Ideology alone clearly does not lead to the creation of soviets - the conditions of disorganisation of the state and other objective factors take part. However, the creation of sections or soviets clearly also does not lead to the notion of workers power as we can see repeatedly from revolutionary situations in which they are viewed by the participants as emergency temporary organisations (such as the community organs in the Egyptian revolution). I doubt the idea of workers power will spontaneously pop into peoples head because of the formation of emergency organs for working class defense. It's much more likely that they'll take revolutionary dimensions when these ideas are prevalent.

Certainly, though that's not my point. I'm simply noting the historical facts, though I do believe there were clearly class-collaborationist, and objectively bourgeois, tendencies within Social Democracy and the classical socialist movement more broadly, given how it seems well-identified with those states that failed to complete the tasks of the bourgeois revolution by the end of the 19th century, and how rapidly in most cases the movement became an instrument antagonistic to the tasks of the proletarian revolution.


Are you trying to make some moral judgment on self-appointed leftists being involved in working class organisations and advocating workers power, or is that just how it appears from the statement.

No, I'm not trying to make a vulgar libertarian discourse on political power, agency, and intellectual activists. I'm pointing out certain historical realities and risks, and making a point about the nature of late 19th and early 20th c. socialism, that does not necessarily relate to it today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, the insistence on being an obsessively non-evangelical ideology that left-coms tend to espouse virtually assures its continued irrelevance as an ideology. Ideologies which don't intend to promote themselves can only spread by procreation. It's true that they will not divert the working class into cul-de-sacs, but only because they fail to engage with the working class at all.

Evangelical? I see you've read Lars Lih's findings on the secular evangelical legacy of German Social Democracy. :cool:


I used to identify with anarchist-communism but have come to believe that a number of the widely held positions of anarchist communists are completely wrong. There is too much focus on federalism and autonomy, both being principles which I'm convinced are in contradiction with any potential solution to collective action problems.

I'm also not a Marxist as I do not believe in prophets. People can produce theories which have value for the working class [theories of value? :)], but nobody is infallible and no theory works in all contexts. It is better to be more agnostic with respect to theories and use them as tools in a toolbox.

I'm an egalitarian direct-democratic communist of some persuasion and have read and found use from reading much more widely than anarchist communism. I've found value in some things written by Trotsky, Mandel, Luxemburg, Kautsky, Kropotkin, Marx, Bakunin, Dauve and even Mao and others. Being too focused on orientation might cause one to ignore important ideas present in other currents.

Comrade, why not Modern Orthodoxy (Google the term and you'll see why I chose this for a political description)? There are lots of tools in the toolbox to play around with, and a lot less "prophesying" (i.e., fetishes for crisis theory and abuses of it). Plus, the old evangelism from the classical Orthodoxy is retained.


However, the creation of sections or soviets clearly also does not lead to the notion of workers power as we can see repeatedly from revolutionary situations in which they are viewed by the participants as emergency temporary organisations (such as the community organs in the Egyptian revolution). I doubt the idea of workers power will spontaneously pop into peoples head because of the formation of emergency organs for working class defense. It's much more likely that they'll take revolutionary dimensions when these ideas are prevalent.

Before a revolutionary period, the only way for councils and/or assemblies can raise the necessity of ruling-class power is if they themselves are party organs, facilitating de facto branch meetings. With the party structure, there's less likelihood of fizzling out during a revolutionary period (like in Chile, Portugal, or Bolivia).

[RED DAVE]

Before a revolutionary period, the only way for councils and/or assemblies can raise the necessity of ruling-class power is if they themselves are party organs, facilitating de facto branch meetings. With the party structure, there's less likelihood of fizzling out during a revolutionary period (like in Chile, Portugal, or Bolivia).What you are saying, in typical stalinist manner, is that "councils and/or assemblies" can only be effective if they are tools of a party.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, the "typical Stalinist manner" is using councils and/or assemblies as fronts, controlled by their organization but not staffed exclusively by that organization.

[RED DAVE]

No, the "typical Stalinist manner" is using councils and/or assemblies as fronts, controlled by their organization but not staffed exclusively by that organization.You are playing with words.

There is no functional difference between councils as tools of a party and fronts of a party. In neither case are the organizations independent organs of the working class: they are organs of a party.

RED DAVE

[Leftsolidarity]

To OP: Forget out tendencies until you are comfortable with your own beliefs. Once you are, you might find one that fits your beliefs. If you don't it doesn't matter anyways. I don't call myself anything past "Marxist". I usually just keep it to communist or anti-capitalist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You don't need a bloody tendency. IRL you'll not go round saying 'hi i'm a trotskyist/stalinist/leninist or whatever'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To OP: Forget out tendencies until you are comfortable with your own beliefs. Once you are, you might find one that fits your beliefs. If you don't it doesn't matter anyways. I don't call myself anything past "Marxist". I usually just keep it to communist or anti-capitalist.

Can I be really pedantic and raise an objection to the 'anti-capitalist' label in general? Anti-capitalism =/= Socialism. I don't think it's a very good label at all as it tends towards policies against Capitalism, rather than policies for Scientific Socialism, which in any case recognises Capitalism as a step forwards from Feudalism, before the communist phase.

[Leftsolidarity]

Can I be really pedantic and raise an objection to the 'anti-capitalist' label in general? Anti-capitalism =/= Socialism. I don't think it's a very good label at all as it tends towards policies against Capitalism, rather than policies for Scientific Socialism, which in any case recognises Capitalism as a step forwards from Feudalism, before the communist phase.

I know that it's not the best label but sometimes calling myself a communist can push away anarchists. I usually only call myself an anti-capitalist around people who won't mistake me for a fascist or anything.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You are playing with words.

There is no functional difference between councils as tools of a party and fronts of a party. In neither case are the organizations independent organs of the working class: they are organs of a party.

RED DAVE

Um, go back and read the resolutions of Marx's IWMA. The worker-class party-movement is an independent organ of the working class, and not just any independent organ, but one without which "the working class cannot act, as a class."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I know that it's not the best label but sometimes calling myself a communist can push away anarchists. I usually only call myself an anti-capitalist around people who won't mistake me for a fascist or anything.

I just stick with Socialist.

Communist tends to lose me friends and family.:lol:

[RED DAVE]

There is no functional difference between councils as tools of a party and fronts of a party. In neither case are the organizations independent organs of the working class: they are organs of a party.
Um, go back and read the resolutions of Marx's IWMA. The worker-class party-movement is an independent organ of the working class, and not just any independent organ, but one without which "the working class cannot act, as a class."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htmHere's the relevant section from the above link:


Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes;

That the combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists —

The Conference recalls to the members of the International:

That in the militant state of the working class, its economical movement and its political action are indissolubly unitedYou are, and it's characteristic of stalinists, confusing the working class party and the organs of working class power. Even if, with your Kautskyite bullshit, you want to confound the working class party and the working class movement, neither of these are councils. One of the standard arguments of stalnists (and maoists) is that the USSR (or China) was socialist because a so-called working class party was in power.

We are talking about councils, organs of working class power. These councils cannot and should not become the fronts or tools for any party, even the most revolutionary. They must always be independent, no matter how strong the revolutionary party-movement-whatever is.

RED DAVE