why after a revolution do Maoist CP's become dictatorships over the proletariat?

[RedMarxist]

Is it just me, or does the history of Leninism-Maoism follow a disturbing trend. why is it that post-revolution the CP of a revolutionary army in X country go from a relatively utopian and more or less equal form to an authoritarian head of a single-party state so quickly?

China for example. The PLA's guerrilla down-to-earth nature led to a more or less equal relationship between the proletarian peasant army and the party. But then give or take several decades after 1949 and the PLA was crushing all dissent that eventually cultivated in the infamous and bloody Tiananmen Square massacre by 1989.

Is Leninism(and it worries me because I do believe in it, yet am still learning) doomed to authoritarianism?

But one could argue that the "failure" of the Russian Revolution to lead to multiparty socialist democracy led by the Soviets was what led to this unfortunate phenomenon for the rest of the 20th century.

and as a side question, what worries me further is the revolutions in Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines. fellow comrades praise them as proletarian and whatnot, but don't you think they will end up just like 1989's China, using the PLA to crush all dissent in their (most likely) single-party states. Or can they function democratically and learn from Leninism-Maoism's past mistakes? would the party leaders actually be so selfish as to repeat those mistakes and shame the name of socialism once more.

[Tommy4ever]

Two Maoist CPs successfully overthrew a government - Mao's CPC and the Nepali Maoists (and they only did half the job).

The really distrubing thing about Maoism isn't its tendency towards dictatorship (if you can call 1 out of 2 revolutions a tendency) but its inherent theoretical flaws that make it very easy (perhaps inevitable) for capitalism to be restored.

Look at the Bloc of Three Classes, 'Three Worlds Theory', Mao's morally abhorent foriegn policy etc etc.

Leninsm - or atleast the Marxist-Leninist ideology that developed from the ideas of Lenin, Stalin and a sprinkling of Marx - does seem to inevitably lead to authoritarianism. But you cannot remove the authoritarianism from the circumstances that led to it. Struggles with internal dissent (either because the regime was forced on a populace who had little care for Leninism as in Eastern Europe, or from opposite forces in a Civil War as in Russia), and foriegn threat (East Germany, Cuba and the USSR being fine examples) left many Leninist states with a choice between the fall of the regime or authoritarian measures. Since their ideology justified the authoritarian measures it seemed a natural way to go.

If you want to see what Maoist revolution looks like, then examine the situation in Nepal closely. That will be much more accurate that merely imagining what could happen in other Asian states that will probably never see their Maoist insurgents take power.

[RedMarxist]

The one thing I admire about Leninism is its apparent ability to easily mobilize the masses and in Maoism's case create a People's Liberation Army in order to topple the government.

The reason I'd say I am one(a Leninist) is that because Council Communism/orthodox Marxism, which comrades have told me is the right way to go, is just so utopian, even more so than Lenin's or Mao's versions of socialism. could it/has it ever even worked, excluding the Paris Commune(which again others have pointed out the reason it fell was not because of lack of a competent army/defense but because of a lack of general organization, which Leninism provides so easily.)

I have read plenty of Lenin btw. I'm making a conscious decision. I wholly agree that the #1 problem blanketing any future revolution, as pointed out by comrades,(for example Greece) is LACK of organization, which again the CP can provide for with ease.

If I took a political compass test today, I'd probably be listed off as an authoritarian communist. In my opinion, too much democracy in a revolution leads to lack of organization, lack of direction, and lack of "fighting ability"(IE violent revolt). There must, with out a doubt, be some form of vanguard party telling the people what to do. It doesn't have to be within the framework of a single party state, I am open to the notion of multiparty socialist democracy, but a vanguard must be present so people will not get confused.

the disturbing thing about my views is...I know my history. I know went wrong and how in the 20th Century, as well as what could have gone right. And yet I find myself heavily attracted to authoritarian Communistic views, which seriously bothers me.

Listen to me ramble on.

I just want to know: Am I making the right decision. I don't want to die an ML only to find out that the Council Communist's were right all along.

[Tommy4ever]

Your third last paragraph sounds like you'd enjoy the DDR's 'democracy'.

Basically, other parties were allowed to function within East Germany and compete in elections (although they had to be a part of a 'National Front').

All elections were nicely fixed so the 'glorius Marxist-Leninist vanguard party' (SED) could keep the majority of seats in the legislature. :rolleyes:

You still seem seriously confused in most of what you say in your posts.

[RedMarxist]

let me try to be clear, OK. Although I agree with Leninism, I side more with the Greek KOE in that I don't think the party should actually become the sole vanguard, as it would be wrong to do so. I think that the party should still exist and disseminate their viewpoint and spread ideas back and forth between the party and the people though.

I'm not confused. I don't enjoy the DDR's "democracy" either. By authoritarian I mean that I'm sympathetic with the somewhat paternalistic nature of Leninism, but only to a certain, limited extent.

What history tells us is that whenever and wherever 'the vanguard party' not only led a successful revolution, but also decided to lead the nation on the road to socialism and ultimately to that land of plenty, communism(which happened 99.9% of the time), it not only deviated from its own original utopian goals but also brutally suppressed the people in the name of crushing the bourgeoisie class.

it is evident that for us to truly reach the land of plenty, we can't simply throw up are arms and give into a small core group of revolutionaries and let them lead the nation for us. The KOE has the right idea in that they are combining Leninist ideals(being the vanguard, educating the masses), yet are restraining themselves as not to let them get caught up in being the ONLY party that can lead the nation. They are thus adhering to a more democratic, humanistic Leninism.


The reason as I have stated above that I am sympathetic with Leninism is that as I have said, it tends to get the masses organized in preparation for revolution and ultimately has been successful in leading them forward to victory. Even when and where they have taken power, I will admit that at first, good things came out of it(I'm not Stalin lover but every time so called Revisionists take power things seem to go to shit).

If you were to judge my believes, would you say I have the right or wrong idea?

[Luc]

What history tells us is that whenever and wherever 'the vanguard party' not only led a successful revolution, but also decided to lead the nation on the road to socialism and ultimately to that land of plenty, communism(which happened 99.9% of the time), it not only deviated from its own original utopian goals but also brutally suppressed the people in the name of crushing the bourgeoisie class.

What do you mean by that part (bolded):confused:

I would say the supression is the result of the fact that they are authoritarian, if the authority (of the socialist state, not the proletarians) isn't obeyed then the disobediant get crushed; even if they are proletarian.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

China for example. The PLA's guerrilla down-to-earth nature led to a more or less equal relationship between the proletarian peasant army and the party. But then give or take several decades after 1949 and the PLA was crushing all dissent that eventually cultivated in the infamous and bloody Tiananmen Square massacre by 1989.


I believe that after the death of comrade Mao, the supression and arrest of the Gang of Four and other various events the PRC ceased to Maoist or Marxist for that matter. Modern Maoists I do believe condemn the TS massacre and see it as a workingclass rebellion against the state capitalist system that the modern PRC has become.



But one could argue that the "failure" of the Russian Revolution to lead to multiparty socialist democracy led by the Soviets was what led to this unfortunate phenomenon for the rest of the 20th century.


I think this question should be asked: what is the need for multiple parties? What is their function? Can we not learn from the incompetence of the competing bourgeois parties that we are currently under in the Western world? Do you not see the partisan idiocy that the common man is forced to deal with? We elect these fucks as our representatives and they rather spend their time throwing partisan temper tantrums like 3 year olds. I don't see the point, function or need for multiple parties. Varying viewpoints on any matter either social, economic, etc. can be expressed, defended, debated within a one party system.

[Ocean Seal]

Is it just me, or does the history of Leninism-Maoism follow a disturbing trend. why is it that post-revolution the CP of a revolutionary army in X country go from a relatively utopian and more or less equal form to an authoritarian head of a single-party state so quickly?

China for example. The PLA's guerrilla down-to-earth nature led to a more or less equal relationship between the proletarian peasant army and the party. But then give or take several decades after 1949 and the PLA was crushing all dissent that eventually cultivated in the infamous and bloody Tiananmen Square massacre by 1989.

Is Leninism(and it worries me because I do believe in it, yet am still learning) doomed to authoritarianism?

But one could argue that the "failure" of the Russian Revolution to lead to multiparty socialist democracy led by the Soviets was what led to this unfortunate phenomenon for the rest of the 20th century.

For starters the 1989 repression wasn't done by the Maoists, it was done by the Dengists who held power then. It was essentially a capitalist state at that moment. However you are correct in saying that Leninism has serious structural problems. I don't believe that it tends towards authoritarianism (or that this is necessarily a bad thing). I do however see the problem with Leninism breaking down into counter-revolution Gorbachev and Deng being the main examples. Leninism has done the good of improving the lives of hundreds of millions worldwide by a tremendous amount, and hopefully history will remember it as so. It does however, require a good deal of revision, not in the form intended by the Khrushchevites or Brezhnevites, but in the expansion of working class power from within. When the workers take revolutionary control, they should not cede to the party what they can control themselves. The vanguard party, plays an important role in the revolution. The workers however, are the most central part, and in the areas where they have acquired a revolutionary class consciousness, they do not need the vanguard party. In production the workers should have control democratically and should be represented to make sure that their needs are met by workers. The vanguard should implement socialist reforms and be authoritarian in expanding the power of the working class, and dissolving themselves, reserving only the necessary powers. They might need to collectivise some things forcefully, and strike down counter-revolution. Authoritarianism is needed, but it should be a dictatorship of the proletariat. But when a caste of party members rule, it requires voluntarism for them to give up their power; so the workers must take it to themselves to prevent careerism and opportunism in the party and continually demand more powers, and the party will act as a counter-balance, but eventually the will of the workers will triumph, and the workers will have true socialist control.

So in the end, a revolution of the vanguard and a revolution (not just an insurrection) of workers is necessary. Otherwise the party may eventually be subject to counter-revolution by within, and if the workers can't resist this they are doomed to counter-revolution.




and as a side question, what worries me further is the revolutions in Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines. fellow comrades praise them as proletarian and whatnot, but don't you think they will end up just like 1989's China, using the PLA to crush all dissent in their (most likely) single-party states. Or can they function democratically and learn from Leninism-Maoism's past mistakes? would the party leaders actually be so selfish as to repeat those mistakes and shame the name of socialism once more.


Hopefully those parties will keep the good of Leninism, and also make sure to keep everything in perspective.

[Tim Cornelis]

The one thing I admire about Leninism is its apparent ability to easily mobilize the masses and in Maoism's case create a People's Liberation Army in order to topple the government.

The reason I'd say I am one(a Leninist) is that because Council Communism/orthodox Marxism, which comrades have told me is the right way to go, is just so utopian, even more so than Lenin's or Mao's versions of socialism. could it/has it ever even worked, excluding the Paris Commune(which again others have pointed out the reason it fell was not because of lack of a competent army/defense but because of a lack of general organization, which Leninism provides so easily.)

I have read plenty of Lenin btw. I'm making a conscious decision. I wholly agree that the #1 problem blanketing any future revolution, as pointed out by comrades,(for example Greece) is LACK of organization, which again the CP can provide for with ease.

If I took a political compass test today, I'd probably be listed off as an authoritarian communist. In my opinion, too much democracy in a revolution leads to lack of organization, lack of direction, and lack of "fighting ability"(IE violent revolt). There must, with out a doubt, be some form of vanguard party telling the people what to do. It doesn't have to be within the framework of a single party state, I am open to the notion of multiparty socialist democracy, but a vanguard must be present so people will not get confused.

the disturbing thing about my views is...I know my history. I know went wrong and how in the 20th Century, as well as what could have gone right. And yet I find myself heavily attracted to authoritarian Communistic views, which seriously bothers me.

Listen to me ramble on.

I just want to know: Am I making the right decision. I don't want to die an ML only to find out that the Council Communist's were right all along.


There must, with out a doubt, be some form of vanguard party telling the people what to do.

A vanguard is allowed to lead by virtue of the people choosing to follow, not by force. There is not only no need for a "vanguard" to force its particular views on revolution on the people, as you seem to imply, but it's detrimental to the cause of socialism.

Socialism from below is the way to go (pardon the rhyme).

[RedMarxist]

I wasn't trying to suggest forcing views on people(my writing is so confusing today)

What I mean is it should suggest ideas and try to voluntarily lead the people away from fascistic, right-wing viewpoints through education/suggesting ideas.

one thing that disturbs me deeply is that the largest Communist Party in America, the CPUSA, is a reformist, revisionist, and rather unrevolutionary party that supports the democrats.

I would love nothing more then form a communist party with a group of people and work towards actual anti-revisionist, orthodox Leninist ideals and actually educate the people, electrify protests and influence them just like the KOE.

this is a little secret of mine: I'm very interested in politics. I've been studying heavily 1800's politics in the US just for fun, as well as current politics. President Polk is my favorite, next to George Washington.

For college I was thinking of studying Political Science and furthering my knowledge of the revolutionary 20th century.

I believe that If I set my mind to something I can succeed(idealist I know). I very badly have set my sights on forming a communist party in America that actually would strive for real revolution. One independent of the US elections, one that's sole purpose is insurrection and mass peaceful protest.

One thing that sickens me, bothers me, is the fact that some people on the revolutionary left side of politics look at the U.S and say: "meh, revolution will never happen here. lets give up."

pessimists.

But It can happen here.

I know this rant makes no sense right now, but it will. I have set my sights on that goal. is it not commendable? I know that there will be many leaps and bounds, but I BELIEVE that I can pull through.

Why do people doubt revolution in the states is impossible?

[Tim Cornelis]

I wasn't trying to suggest forcing views on people(my writing is so confusing today)

What I mean is it should suggest ideas and try to voluntarily lead the people away from fascistic, right-wing viewpoints through education/suggesting ideas.

one thing that disturbs me deeply is that the largest Communist Party in America, the CPUSA, is a reformist, revisionist, and rather unrevolutionary party that supports the democrats.

I would love nothing more then form a communist party with a group of people and work towards actual anti-revisionist, orthodox Leninist ideals and actually educate the people, electrify protests and influence them just like the KOE.

this is a little secret of mine: I'm very interested in politics. I've been studying heavily 1800's politics in the US just for fun, as well as current politics. President Polk is my favorite, next to George Washington.

For college I was thinking of studying Political Science and furthering my knowledge of the revolutionary 20th century.

I believe that If I set my mind to something I can succeed(idealist I know). I very badly have set my sights on forming a communist party in America that actually would strive for real revolution. One independent of the US elections, one that's sole purpose is insurrection and mass peaceful protest.

One thing that sickens me, bothers me, is the fact that some people on the revolutionary left side of politics look at the U.S and say: "meh, revolution will never happen here. lets give up."

pessimists.

But It can happen here.

I know this rant makes no sense right now, but it will. I have set my sights on that goal. is it not commendable? I know that there will be many leaps and bounds, but I BELIEVE that I can pull through.

Why do people doubt revolution in the states is impossible?


one thing that disturbs me deeply is that the largest Communist Party in America, the CPUSA, is a reformist, revisionist, and rather unrevolutionary party that supports the democrats.

That's a "universal" problem, the French communist party even participated in bourgeois cabinet(s), I think. And I don't think the Communist Parties in any other country are any more revolutionary. Possibly this has to do with the fact that parties attempt to attract a wider base and electorate and therefore move the the center.

See median voter theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem

I don't think Leninism or Maoism intrinsically lead to a counter-revolutionary and authoritarian regime, on the condition that the social revolutions are organised from below and instigated ("lead" if you will) by a vanguard. It depends really what one means by leninism I suppose.

Taking power of the existing bourgeois state (top-down), forming a state liking the bourgeois state (top-down), or forming a new workers' state based on workers' councils altogether (bottom-up) is also a vital difference.

[Nox]

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3513/8378915.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/148/8378915.jpg/)

[RedMarxist]

I support the bottom-up approach but I believe it requires a vanguard, at least during the revolution, to guide that approach.

Would it be stupid to form my own Communist Party on my way out from College after studying history and politicking? after all as I've been told, how many parties do we honestly need?

I also do admire peaceful protest, but realize that in the end violence must be used to seize power. otherwise the police and possibly the army will continue to bully the well meaning peaceful protesters like in Greece. You can't seize power by holding up a sign asking for just that, as Syria has clearly shown us.

Once/if the masses are armed, there is nothing stopping them from going to the hills and waging war. to seize power, one must use a rifle to do so.

[Art Vandelay]

RedMarxist

I would have to agree with the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread that you are confused. However do not take that the wrong way what so ever, I am a fairly confused individual as well and can relate with you, which has prompted me to write this lengthy (at least for me) response. All it means is that there is more reading in your future, as well as mine.



Is Leninism(and it worries me because I do believe in it, yet am still learning) doomed to authoritarianism?


As far as the inherit authoritarianism in m-l, I think it can be fairly well documented. Every single m-l party that has taken power under the banner of the people, has lead not only to an authoritarian society but also the restoration of capitalism. Not to mention that not a single one of them has handed over power to the masses ie: control of the means of production in the hands of the proletariat. Which in its essence is one of the main components of marxism, and was the slogan the Bolsheviks road to power on "all power to the soviets."

In my opinion thinking the vanguard will relinquish their positions of power to the people is about as likely as the bourgeois simply stepping down from office and relinquishing their property rights.


If I took a political compass test today, I'd probably be listed off as an authoritarian communist. In my opinion, too much democracy in a revolution leads to lack of organization, lack of direction, and lack of "fighting ability"(IE violent revolt). There must, with out a doubt, be some form of vanguard party telling the people what to do. It doesn't have to be within the framework of a single party state, I am open to the notion of multiparty socialist democracy, but a vanguard must be present so people will not get confused.

I think that the parts in bold speak for themselves. They show an almost contempt for the proletariat and as far as I am concerned. Too much democracy? First off such a thing does not exist and secondly whether you realize it or not marxism is democracy, the two go hand in hand.



I just want to know: Am I making the right decision. I don't want to die an ML only to find out that the Council Communist's were right all along.


If you were to judge my believes, would you say I have the right or wrong idea?

The answer to this question can not and will not be found on a message board. It can only be found through studious research and lots and lots of reading.


I believe that If I set my mind to something I can succeed(idealist I know). I very badly have set my sights on forming a communist party in America that actually would strive for real revolution. One independent of the US elections, one that's sole purpose is insurrection and mass peaceful protest.

One thing that sickens me, bothers me, is the fact that some people on the revolutionary left side of politics look at the U.S and say: "meh, revolution will never happen here. lets give up."


I do not understand what this had to do with the thread or why it was brought up but if I can offer some advice to you it would be this: find out what you are fighting for, before you start fighting.

When I first got into revolutionary left politics I was a staunch Trotskyist. In actuality I had not the slightest clue what Troskyism really was, I was not attracted to the authortarian USSR and aligning myself with Trotsky was the easy way for me to be a communist and not support the USSR.

To me it seems that you are on the same path as I was, A staunch anti-revisionist m-l-m and yet, and I do not mean this to sound offensive, you probably have the same grasp on the theory of m-l-m as I did on Trotskyism.

As you begin to read more and more your views will most likely shift and while still believing in some aspects of Leninism (as I do) and it will have morphed into your own viewpoint not a set of political boundaries that must be followed to a T.

One last piece of advice, read works from all different tendencies. Do not simply stick to m-l or m-l-m, read everything from anarchists to authoritarian communists and everything in between, regardless if you agree with it. Exposing ourselves to the most amount of different viewpoints broadens the horizons of our knowledge.

p.s. on a side note can anyone inform me of how to switch your tendencies that show when you post?

[RedMarxist]

I brought it up as I have ambitions to found, or at least help found, a Communist Party. I know others are no doubt hard at work on this as well, but I want to form a true, Proletarian, American Communist Party.

it sounds crazy I know.

I have ambitions to study political science as well as Communist Soviet era history and better my understanding of Leninism and regular "vanilla" Marxism.

What should I expect if I go about attempting to complete this momentous goal?

what I seek to do is this: The idea has been rolling around in my head for ages. I want to combine American patriotism and secularism with Marxist-Leninism within a Communist Party. In essence, I want to help found a truly Proletarian, wholly American Communist Party.

I have a deep, proud love of my nation. My Ancestors, however and I am not ashamed, were of Swedish descent. it only makes me prouder. my nation allowed them to prosper.


I have Swedish blood in my veins. Blond hair, Blue eyes and a determined demeanor. and I'm also the first and only communist in the family, something which they deeply resent.

What I resent even more then them is the rich leeches living off of the American people. The poor suffering, the homeless begging for money. The wealthy corporations getting tax breaks. The Executives making millions "because they earned it". The president bowing before corporations. Imperialism.

But I feel powerless to stop it all. everyday its the same damn thing. American will never experience revolution. But I am driven by the idea that one day we can all reach Communism, that land of plenty. I am driven by the knowledge that everywhere, From Libya and Nepal to Greece, people are rising up against the old regimes.

[Art Vandelay]

I brought it up as I have ambitions to found, or at least help found, a Communist Party. I know others are no doubt hard at work on this as well, but I want to form a true, Proletarian, American Communist Party.

it sounds crazy I know.

I have ambitions to study political science as well as Communist Soviet era history and better my understanding of Leninism and regular "vanilla" Marxism.

What should I expect if I go about attempting to complete this momentous goal?

what I seek to do is this: The idea has been rolling around in my head for ages. I want to combine American patriotism and secularism with Marxist-Leninism within a Communist Party. In essence, I want to help found a truly Proletarian, wholly American Communist Party.

I have a deep, proud love of my nation. My Ancestors, however and I am not ashamed, were of Swedish descent. it only makes me prouder. my nation allowed them to prosper.


I have Swedish blood in my veins. Blond hair, Blue eyes and a determined demeanor. and I'm also the first and only communist in the family, something which they deeply resent.

What I resent even more then them is the rich leeches living off of the American people. The poor suffering, the homeless begging for money. The wealthy corporations getting tax breaks. The Executives making millions "because they earned it". The president bowing before corporations. Imperialism.

But I feel powerless to stop it all. everyday its the same damn thing. American will never experience revolution. But I am driven by the idea that one day we can all reach Communism, that land of plenty. I am driven by the knowledge that everywhere, From Libya and Nepal to Greece, people are rising up against the old regimes.

I have to be honest and say that you actually seem not interested in the topic you brought up at all. Under the guise of talking about the vanguard and inherent authoritarianism in m-l you created a thread to spout off about yourself. You seem like a young kid in love with the adventurous stories of past revolutionaries, I know because I used to be one, and do not seem to have listened to anything said. I'll repeat it, you have alot to learn.

This was not meant to come across as snotty or patronizing but from someone who has lots left to learn I can say one thing: we can spot our own.

[Geiseric]

Okay what the fuck does revisionist even mean? I hear it from stalinoids as much as I hear Fascist from hippies. Does it mean somebody who revises history? Because Stalin did alot of that... or does it mean somebody who shifted soviet economics away from stalinist heavy machinery industrialism, and towards things like living standards like I hear Khrushchev did, usually in the context of "revisionist khrishchev improved living standards! wtf!" from stalinists. Sounds like they fill the same role in USSR politics equivelant of the famed conspirators (george bush, the joint chiefs of staff, the CIA, the "military industrial complex") in the dumb JFK conspiracy, trying to kill the progress of super happy USSR and towards Revisionism, which isn't a materialistic analysis of all politics during Stalin era politics and how they would logically follow during khrushchev. the "revisionists" differ from stalin in the same way as John Adams differed from Thomas Jefferson...

[Geiseric]

Btw red marxist you sound kinda like a mussolini esque fascist. American Patriotism and Marxism? Are you serious?

[Art Vandelay]

Btw red marxist you sound kinda like a mussolini esque fascist. American Patriotism and Marxism? Are you serious?

That seriously through me for a loop as well, nationalism and communism do not exactly mix.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Would it be stupid to form my own Communist Party on my way out from College after studying history and politicking? after all as I've been told, how many parties do we honestly need?

Exactly, no, just join and work with a party which already currently exists, there is no need really to start your own. Joining my Donner Party would be a nice start though.

[RedMarxist]

I'm confused...

I'm just proud of my country, that's all. I've made up my mind. Screw forming a party, I'll just join one.

so much for fascist Communism! :lol:

[Luc]

About that nationalism ...

"Proletarian internationalism was perhaps best expressed in the resolution sponsored by Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg at the Seventh Congress of the Second International at Stuttgart in 1907. This asserted that:

"Wars between capitalist states are, as a rule, the outcome of their competition on the world market, for each state seeks not only to secure its existing markets, but also to conquer new ones. In this, the subjugation of foreign peoples and countries plays a prominent role. These wars result furthermore from the incessant race for armaments by militarism, one of the chief instruments of bourgeois class rule and of the economic and political subjugation of the working class.

"Wars are favored by the national prejudices which are systematically cultivated among civilized peoples in the interest of the ruling classes for the purpose of distracting the proletarian masses from their own class tasks as well as from their duties of international solidarity.

"Wars, therefore, are part of the very nature of capitalism; they will cease only when the capitalist system is abolished or when the enormous sacrifices in men and money required by the advance in military technique and the indignation called forth by armaments, drive the peoples to abolish this system."
The resolution concluded that:

"If a war threatens to break out, it is the duty of the working classes and their parliamentary representatives in the countries involved, supported by the coordinating activity of the International Socialist Bureau, to exert every effort in order to prevent the outbreak of war by the means they consider most effective, which naturally vary according to the sharpening of the class struggle and the sharpening of the general political situation.

"In case war should break out anyway, it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to rouse the masses and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule."

give it a read:thumbup: from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_internationalism
this is pretty good to:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/patriotism.html

[Ostrinski]

Is this thread about Maoism, or is this thread about RedMarxist? I am confused.

[Tommy4ever]

Okay what the fuck does revisionist even mean?

Its used to describe someone who revises Marxist theory. The first major revisionist current was Bernstein - basically the SPD right wing that took power after WWI. Whilst Lenin (and to a lesser degree Stalin) is technically also a revisionist, ''Anti-Revisionists'' don't consider them to be revisionist. The term is mostly used to describe ideologies that emerged from within the Communist (big C), movement after the Second World War in opposition to the official Marxist-Leninist dogma of Stalin.

Revisionist tendencies include (in order): Trotskyism (slightly different case but still considered revisionist), Titoism, Khruschevism, Maoism, Eurocommunism, Brezhnevism and, I guess, finally the ideology of Gorbachev.

They believe the failure of 'socialist' states was due to their policies under these revisionist tendencies.


- Historical revisionism is something else. ;)

[Rocky Rococo]

I've long been of the opinion that the central failure of Leninism is that it is the single greatest act of "revisionism" of Marxism ever, by discarding the central driving historical precept of Marx's theory: that socialism can emerge as a result of a high stage of development of capitalist industry and the industrial proletariat. Beginning with Lenin, somehow that underlying indispensable social condition and context was thrown out the window, and "Marxist" revolutions were undertaken in the world's most backward, reactionary societies with tiny or utterly non-existent industrial working classes. You can make a revolution in such a society, but it cannot possibly be a socialist revolution, and trying to use such a revolution as a means of creating a compulsory labor-mobilization state is not the same thing as building socialism and is highly unlikely to produce anything remotely resembling socialism.

[RedMarxist]

The problem with it is exactly the fact that a small group of revolutionaries guide the revolution. I don't have a problem with guiding it DURING the revolution but when they decide to 'build Socialism' for the nation, then historically things have gone downhill from there.

And Maoism-How can it possibly provide for actual democracy? the #1 and only successful example in China has seen the rise of totalitarianism, a destructive Cultural Revolution, and the restoration of Capitalism-all within
few decades following the 1949 end of the Chinese Civil War.

And again, I agree with the Greek KOE: be the vanguard, but don't usurp the revolution from the people-leave leading the nation to the people who overthrew the government.

[Tim Cornelis]

And Maoism-How can it possibly provide for actual democracy? the #1 and only successful example in China has seen the rise of totalitarianism, a destructive Cultural Revolution, and the restoration of Capitalism-all within
few decades following the 1949 end of the Chinese Civil War.


The question is is this something inherent in Maoism? I don't know.

The programme Lenin developed in State & Revolutions strongly contrasts what he implemented in practice, none of the things he advocated was implemented!

An Anarchist FAQ:


So what did Lenin argue for in State and Revolution? Writing in the mid-1930s, anarchist Camillo Berneri summarised the main ideas of that work as follows:

"The Leninist programme of 1917 included these points: the discontinuance of the police and standing army, abolition of the professional bureaucracy, elections for all public positions and offices, revocability of all officials, equality of bureaucratic wages with workers' wages, the maximum of democracy, peaceful competition among the parties within the soviets, abolition of the death penalty." ["The Abolition and Extinction of the State," pp. 50-1, Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, no. 4, p. 50]

As he noted, "[n]ot a single one of the points of this programme has been achieved." This was, of course, under Stalinism and most Leninists will concur with Berneri. However what Leninists tend not to mention is that by the end of the 7 month period of Bolshevik rule before the start of the civil war (i.e., from November 1917 to May 1918) none of these points existed.

So why didn't he implement it? Maybe because he believed Russia could skip the capitalist stage by centralising power and the economy. This is why it lead to tyranny.

Your ideas about patriotism seem at odds with socialism.

Your comment "the nation allowed them to prosper" is outright bullshit, a bourgeois state allowed your family to enjoy wealth? No! THE WORKERS DID. The workers created all the wealth, and then we're back at the proletariat. I really don't understand how you can support nationalism.

[RedMarxist]

sorry I got a little carried away.

Look, I am proud of my [Poor] Swedish background, but that is another story for another time

My family did prosper over the decades since they first arrived in the early 1900's. They started out as poor immigrants before working their way up the capitalist Social ladder to middle class status. Now most of my family, which has branched out across many states, are mostly well off.

I feel guilty that my part of the family is particularly well off. My mother, who came from the "poor side of the family" married into a middle class family, whom my father soon got to the point where he could be described as "upper middle class". he works in insurance, which by the way I soon learned was one of the more oppressive capitalist institutions, IMHO.


Me becoming a Communist and reading Lenin and Engels and Marx etc pissed/enraged both my mother and father. My mother's line of reasoning is(its complete bullshit) is this:

under Capitalism, the poor can get rich; The rich oppressing the poor has been going on for centuries and that is just the way it is.

My father's line of reasoning is(bullshit) this:

I worked hard to climb up the corporate ladder so I[insert "we" if you want according to him] deserve to be middle class. Wait til you get a "real job" and then you won't be a communist anymore. That's just the way it is son.


But seriously, enough about that. Look, I'm a Leninist by choice. I believe that without the organization provided by a CP, as well as the guidance of a few intellectual revolutionaries, than during, key word being during not after, the revolution, people will be led astray by honey coated right wing nonsense and fall prey to White Terror.

I have, in my extensive studies, found that an inherent problem in Marxist-Leninism is that when it[the party] tries to lead the revolution post-revolution, it gets way over its head and screws up, eventually revising itself to the point where it begins to slowly restore capitalism.

But during the revolution, it is more or less committed to its revolutionary goals and is actually willing to work in the proletariat's best interests. It must be, has to, dissolve or at least accept a limited role post revolution. Its main function should be to fight white terror during the revolution and set forth the right ideas. Just like the KOE.

this is my own opinion.

[Luc]

The question is is this something inherent in Maoism? I don't know.

The programme Lenin developed in State & Revolutions strongly contrasts what he implemented in practice, none of the things he advocated was implemented!

An Anarchist FAQ:



So why didn't he implement it? Maybe because he believed Russia could skip the capitalist stage by centralising power and the economy. This is why it lead to tyranny.

Your ideas about patriotism seem at odds with socialism.

Your comment "the nation allowed them to prosper" is outright bullshit, a bourgeois state allowed your family to enjoy wealth? No! THE WORKERS DID. The workers created all the wealth, and then we're back at the proletariat. I really don't understand how you can support nationalism.

Was that Lenin's view in the book? I thought it was Lenin talking about Marx's view. Weird thing is, I love the book and it made me an Anarchist:lol:

[Luc]

But seriously, enough about that. Look, I'm a Leninist by choice. I believe that without the organization provided by a CP, as well as the guidance of a few intellectual revolutionaries, than during, key word being during not after, the revolution, people will be led astray by honey coated right wing nonsense and fall prey to White Terror.

I have, in my extensive studies, found that an inherent problem in Marxist-Leninism is that when it[the party] tries to lead the revolution post-revolution, it gets way over its head and screws up, eventually revising itself to the point where it begins to slowly restore capitalism.

But during the revolution, it is more or less committed to its revolutionary goals and is actually willing to work in the proletariat's best interests. It must be, has to, dissolve or at least accept a limited role post revolution. Its main function should be to fight white terror during the revolution and set forth the right ideas. Just like the KOE.

this is my own opinion.

I think one of the problems is "how long does the revolution last?" what with the Permanent Revolution and Cultural Revolution theories that seem to permeate the Leninists and it's detractors which is probably what led to the vanguards continued existance post-revolution.

I think the vanguards eixsted post-revolution in Russia (maybe this aplies to China idk) since Russia was in the Feudal stage, they thought that the Vanguard would have to take the Russia through a state(Vanguard) controlled Capitalist stage for the developement to Socialism (or as others including myself prefer; low Communism)

In that case there shouldn't be an athoritarian regime because we are in fully developed capitalist countries.

Also, aren't Leninism and Maoism adaptations of Marxism for Russia and China respectively? One could say that the Authoritarian state is inherent in them because both these places were feudal societies(?) and the two theories were developed for the material conditions of that past time. Hence, (in their opinion) the need for this state controlled capitalism to develope enough for Socialism. Of course this would take to long (and isn't the right way for capitalist developement) which would probably result in the corruption of the party state (if it already wasn't).

Personally I think the risk is too great and that the ideologies are out-dated. Afterall, isn't Leninism and Maosim without those past conditions (and thus the revisions for those conditions chanigng the ideology and method) just Marxism?

I don't know:confused: just thought I'd add my thoughts. Hope it helps!:thumbup1:

[Geiseric]

What it comes down to is that socialism in one country is impossible. A workers state in one country is not impossible. the bolsheviks couldn't let the country fall apart, that is why they led the country. The revolution isn't over untill every last capitalist is hung with the entrails of every last priest. Oppurtunists tried to take advantage of how bad things were going, just so they could get power, which is where the SR's and Mensheviks came in. The anarchists didn't want to compromise with the bolsheviks, despite several attempts by Lenin to negotiate on some issues. I know that in peacetime suppressing these parties would be abhorent in a workers state, but at the time I believe it was needed to be done. anyways sorry if I seemed like an ass in my previous post. But oppurtunists, manipulators had an easy job in taking advantage of the chaos and scarcity of the post war USSR.

[Geiseric]

Einfach, the difference between Lenin and the Mensheviks was on the sole issue that the mensheviks and SR's thought capitalism was needed before Socialism, and the reason Lenin broke with them was basically because he agreed with Perminant Revolution, and he and trotsky both knew that if a revolution happened in russia, it would spread and rapid capitalist development would have been un needed because of an international socialist presence in advanced countries and feudal countries. If the Stalinists didn't ruin the revolutions, russia wouldn't of even needed to super industrialise.

[Luc]

Einfach, the difference between Lenin and the Mensheviks was on the sole issue that the mensheviks and SR's thought capitalism was needed before Socialism, and the reason Lenin broke with them was basically because he agreed with Perminant Revolution, and he and trotsky both knew that if a revolution happened in russia, it would spread and rapid capitalist development would have been un needed because of an international socialist presence in advanced countries and feudal countries. If the Stalinists didn't ruin the revolutions, russia wouldn't of even needed to super industrialise.

Wow I really need to learn more about Leninism (now that I think about it that was obvious):blushing:

Thanks! :)

RedMarxist (or anyone) please ignore my post, I would edit it but that would disrupt the conversation's development, or something.

[Geiseric]

Yeah dude all of this stuff is new to me too. But if leninism was reformist, the october revolution would have never happened, because the bolshevik leadership, including comrades kamanev and zinoviev, for a sizeable portion, actually opposed the revolution, and wanted reunification with the mensheviks. there was democratic centralism for a reason, zinoviev and kamanev released a bunch of information about the party's factions at one point, and Lenin was so angry he wanted to expel them from the party. We can't exactly understand what it was like, but think of centralism as something to increase productivity. if there were splits over things like what I said above, it would have been catastrophic.

[A Marxist Historian]

Is it just me, or does the history of Leninism-Maoism follow a disturbing trend. why is it that post-revolution the CP of a revolutionary army in X country go from a relatively utopian and more or less equal form to an authoritarian head of a single-party state so quickly?

China for example. The PLA's guerrilla down-to-earth nature led to a more or less equal relationship between the proletarian peasant army and the party. But then give or take several decades after 1949 and the PLA was crushing all dissent that eventually cultivated in the infamous and bloody Tiananmen Square massacre by 1989.

You didn't have to wait for Tienanmen. The Cultural Revolution was an extremely bloody and repressive affair, with different Maoist student factions killing each other, dissenters, and workers who tried to interfere in the ugly squabble. You had a workers general strike in Beijing I think it was led by opponents of the CR which the different feuding factions united to crush. Popular hatred for the Cultural Revolution is a lot of what is behind popular support for the current regime vs. those who want to bring back Maoism. And of course there was the great famine of the early '60s in which millions of people starved to death, just like in Ukraine in the early '30s, and for basically the same reasons of bureaucratic economic ineptitude and dictatorial behavior.

And China was a bureaucratic dictatorship from the getgo, with no workers councils, instead the guerillas from the hills taking charge and ordering the workers around, with Trotskyists and anarchists and other revolutionary dissenters facing the same kind of repression that the Kuomintag faced.

None of this was some sort of accident. It is because the Stalin-Mao-Hoxha perversion of Marxism, the idea of "socialism in one country," corresponds to the material interests of the bureaucracy of a workers state just like Social Democratic reformism corresponds to the material interests of a labor bureaucracy in a capitalist state.

So Maoists in power, if they don't make their peace with capitalism like the Nepalese Maoists, will inevitably be like that.


Is Leninism(and it worries me because I do believe in it, yet am still learning) doomed to authoritarianism?

But one could argue that the "failure" of the Russian Revolution to lead to multiparty socialist democracy led by the Soviets was what led to this unfortunate phenomenon for the rest of the 20th century.

Lenin's original idea, as he said over and over, was of the Russian Revolution not as the basis for some utopian Russian Socialism, but as the launching pad for world revolution. It was on this basis that Trotsky joined the Bolshevik Party and became its co-leader with Lenin during the Revolution.

If the Revolution had spread to the rest of Europe and then the world, as it came very, very close to doing, then the bureaucratic features of the early Soviet Union would have naturally withered away.

If you have an isolated workers state for a long period of time, then the tendency to bureaucratic degeneration into Stalinism or just plain collapse are strong. They can be resisted, but in practice in Russia they were not resisted strongly enough. Lenin dying was tragic. He in fact in the last year of his life opposed Stalin more strongly than Trotsky did. Trotsky was too prone to compromise at that point.


and as a side question, what worries me further is the revolutions in Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines. fellow comrades praise them as proletarian and whatnot, but don't you think they will end up just like 1989's China, using the PLA to crush all dissent in their (most likely) single-party states. Or can they function democratically and learn from Leninism-Maoism's past mistakes? would the party leaders actually be so selfish as to repeat those mistakes and shame the name of socialism once more.

The answers to your three questions in the paragraph above are yes, no, and yes.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The one thing I admire about Leninism is its apparent ability to easily mobilize the masses and in Maoism's case create a People's Liberation Army in order to topple the government.

The reason I'd say I am one(a Leninist) is that because Council Communism/orthodox Marxism, which comrades have told me is the right way to go, is just so utopian, even more so than Lenin's or Mao's versions of socialism. could it/has it ever even worked, excluding the Paris Commune(which again others have pointed out the reason it fell was not because of lack of a competent army/defense but because of a lack of general organization, which Leninism provides so easily.)

I have read plenty of Lenin btw. I'm making a conscious decision. I wholly agree that the #1 problem blanketing any future revolution, as pointed out by comrades,(for example Greece) is LACK of organization, which again the CP can provide for with ease.

If I took a political compass test today, I'd probably be listed off as an authoritarian communist. In my opinion, too much democracy in a revolution leads to lack of organization, lack of direction, and lack of "fighting ability"(IE violent revolt). There must, with out a doubt, be some form of vanguard party telling the people what to do. It doesn't have to be within the framework of a single party state, I am open to the notion of multiparty socialist democracy, but a vanguard must be present so people will not get confused.

the disturbing thing about my views is...I know my history. I know went wrong and how in the 20th Century, as well as what could have gone right. And yet I find myself heavily attracted to authoritarian Communistic views, which seriously bothers me.

Listen to me ramble on.

I just want to know: Am I making the right decision. I don't want to die an ML only to find out that the Council Communist's were right all along.

"Too much democracy" is not a problem in a revolution. The formula that came out of the Russian Revolution, *not* invented by the Bolsheviks by the way, was "democratic centralism." The Soviets, and the unions for that matter, were democratic but in centralized fashion.

You need to have *both* lots of democracy *and* lots of centralism. Full discussion, freedom of opinion, votes, but when the decisions are democratically made, there has to be central leadership and disciplined followship afterwards.

In American unions, by the way, you have lots of centralism but no democracy. As a social democratic union leader I knew in my old union liked to say (I think he was DSA), a union is like an army, and in action vs. the employer has to have the same kind of discipline an army has to win. Quite right, except for the problem that all the decisions are made by the bureaucrats instead of the rank and file.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I believe that after the death of comrade Mao, the supression and arrest of the Gang of Four and other various events the PRC ceased to Maoist or Marxist for that matter. Modern Maoists I do believe condemn the TS massacre and see it as a workingclass rebellion against the state capitalist system that the modern PRC has become.



I think this question should be asked: what is the need for multiple parties? What is their function? Can we not learn from the incompetence of the competing bourgeois parties that we are currently under in the Western world? Do you not see the partisan idiocy that the common man is forced to deal with? We elect these fucks as our representatives and they rather spend their time throwing partisan temper tantrums like 3 year olds. I don't see the point, function or need for multiple parties. Varying viewpoints on any matter either social, economic, etc. can be expressed, defended, debated within a one party system.

This was not Lenin's position. Search his writings, all 45 volumes of them, as much as you like, and you will find no trace of it.

The reason that the Soviet state effectively became a one-party dictatorship is that all the other parties either went over to the other side altogether or were trying to sabotage the workers state from within as were the Mensheviks. (Or were engaged in terrorist bomb plots and such, like the anarchists and the Left SR's).

And indeed there is no other role the Mensheviks could have played, as their whole platform was that Russia needed capitalism due to its backwardness, rather than a socialist revolution, which they saw as premature. So they couldn't really be a "loyal opposition," except as a temporary tactic.

Lenin all his life was still hoping that his old friend Martov, the Menshevik leader, would see the light. So when the Mensheviks were strongly encouraged to go into exile, the Cheka secretly subsidized their exile newspaper, secretly from Martov as well as everyone else.

The reason the USA and other capitalist countries can have multiparty systems is that all the major parties are committed to capitalism. In a workers state absolutely you can have multiple parties, if all the parties are committed to socialism and not trying to bring back capitalism.

And you should, as soon as the situation in the country stabilizes. However, the situation in the country is unlikely to stabilize until revolution spreads, as you can't build socialism in one country.

It took twenty years for a multiparty system to develop in America. When Thomas Jefferson formed his party, it faced largescale repression from George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams's Federalists, who saw it as a Jacobin conspiracy trying to sabotage the American Revolution. And in fact it was funded by the French Ambassador, who wanted to see a Jacobin America. Ironical, because it was really the slaveowner's party.

It wasn' until the so-called "Revolution of 1800" with Jefferson as President that you had a multiparty system in the USA.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Its used to describe someone who revises Marxist theory. The first major revisionist current was Bernstein - basically the SPD right wing that took power after WWI. Whilst Lenin (and to a lesser degree Stalin) is technically also a revisionist, ''Anti-Revisionists'' don't consider them to be revisionist. The term is mostly used to describe ideologies that emerged from within the Communist (big C), movement after the Second World War in opposition to the official Marxist-Leninist dogma of Stalin.

Revisionist tendencies include (in order): Trotskyism (slightly different case but still considered revisionist), Titoism, Khruschevism, Maoism, Eurocommunism, Brezhnevism and, I guess, finally the ideology of Gorbachev.

They believe the failure of 'socialist' states was due to their policies under these revisionist tendencies.


- Historical revisionism is something else. ;)

Revisionism entered the political glossary when Eduard Bernstein tried to revise Marxism to include a peaceful reform path to socialism. Lenin always considered himself an extremely orthodox follower of Marx. Just read "State and Revolution," which the Social Democrats claim is a revision of Marxism. Half of the whole book is quotes from Marx, except quotes in context rather than out of context like Bernstein or Stalin go for.

Stalinism, the idea of socialism in one country, is definitely a revision of Marxism, not some creative new idea due to changes in the world or further theoretical thinking. It goes against the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto, and everything Marx ever wrote. Soviet or Chinese style "Marxism-Leninism" is a bad parody of the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

So Lenin and Trotsky are orthodox Marxists more or less, though neither in a dogmatic fashion, whereas Bernstein, Stalin, Mao, Khruschchev, Deng, Tito, Hoxha etc. are all revisionists.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The question is is this something inherent in Maoism? I don't know.

The programme Lenin developed in State & Revolutions strongly contrasts what he implemented in practice, none of the things he advocated was implemented!

An Anarchist FAQ:



So why didn't he implement it? Maybe because he believed Russia could skip the capitalist stage by centralising power and the economy. This is why it lead to tyranny.

Your ideas about patriotism seem at odds with socialism.

Your comment "the nation allowed them to prosper" is outright bullshit, a bourgeois state allowed your family to enjoy wealth? No! THE WORKERS DID. The workers created all the wealth, and then we're back at the proletariat. I really don't understand how you can support nationalism.

He didn't implement it because he couldn't, because you can't build socialism in one country, and especially not a country as economically and socially backward as Tsarist Russia. What he says in "state and revolution" is the program for after the victory of the world revolution.

When he wrote it he was living in Switzerland, and basically thinking, as he said in a speech in January 1917, that he would not live to see a revolution. So it was as much a program for Switzerland and neighboring Germany, countries much more socially advanced than Russia, as anything else.

-M.H.-

[RedMarxist]

So basically, if the revolution spread west and soon around the whole entire World, then Capitalism would be abolished, the state would over time wither away, and we'd all be living in a paradise.

not to sound sarcastic here but Lenin's plan for the World(as I'm calling it) seemed so grandiose.

[Luc]

So basically, if the revolution spread west and soon around the whole entire World, then Capitalism would be abolished, the state would over time wither away, and we'd all be living in a paradise.

not to sound sarcastic here but Lenin's plan for the World(as I'm calling it) seemed so grandiose.

hey, go big or go home. ;)

:lol:

[Tiger Tamer]

Because Maoism is Stalinism.

[A Marxist Historian]

So basically, if the revolution spread west and soon around the whole entire World, then Capitalism would be abolished, the state would over time wither away, and we'd all be living in a paradise.

not to sound sarcastic here but Lenin's plan for the World(as I'm calling it) seemed so grandiose.

Yes. Socialism is a pretty grandiose idea, isn't it? But without it we are all screwed, and Lenin and Trotsky's idea of the way to go about it is the only one that can possibly work. Otherwise the human race is doomed.

A grandiose but all too accurate statement.

-M.H.-

[Geiseric]

it's called "Internationalism,"... it's the only way any kind of real socialism will work. Read up on Marx or something.

[bietan jarrai]

developed from the ideas of Lenin and Marx - does seem to inevitably lead to communism.

fixed that for ya.