Some ideas on making the left relevant again...

[SVeach94]

Instead of posting one of my usual tirades on how you're all wasting your time, that communism has been discredited, etc. I'm going to give a few of my ideas on how to make the far left vocal and relevant again. Tell me what you guys think.

1. Distinguish yourselves from the past. No matter what "true revolutionary socialism" entails, today it means "totalitarian communazi dictatorship" in the eyes of America and "social democracy" in the eyes of Europe. Suggesting a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism leads to nightmarish fears of gulags, concentration camps, secret police, etc. As modern revolutionary leftists, you need to figure out where your predecessors went wrong, why they messed up, and ensure people that a "true" socialist revolution wouldn't go down the same path.

2. Tolerate dissent. With the rise of the Internet, free speech is a given in more parts of the world than ever before. Everyone, no matter how smart and no matter how stupid, can express themselves as long as they have an Internet. No monitoring service, no matter how effective, can combat the modern World Wide Web. That needs to transfer over to real life: if a socialist government were ever to take over in a country, you can't go around locking up people every time they say "I don't think this revolution will last" or something along those lines. That isn't to say you should let fascists openly rally in the streets, of course-Neo-Nazis and the like are scum and should be treated as such. But if a group of capitalists wants to hold an anti-socialist demonstration, it might be best to let them have their say instead of calling in the riot police.

3. Cease hostility towards religion. Taking a look at the "religion" section of the OI forum, pretty much every thread is hostile to, or criticizing Christianity or another religion in some way. Now, I'm an atheist myself, and I'm all for a healthy examination of religion. But to be quite frank, the vast majority of the world's population remains religious, and if revolutionary leftism is ever going to become a mainstream ideology, the hardcore atheists of the Fillintheblank Worker's Party will have to learn to get along with the devout Christians. I know that the church is traditionally seen as a "reactionary" institution by the left, but if there are some preachers encouraging their congregants to "rise up for socialism," wouldn't it be best to utilize him instead of mocking his beliefs?

4. Unity, Unity, Unity. I understand that there are fundamental disagreements among leftists as to how the world should be run-a Trotskyist is not the same thing an as anarchist, and a Leninist is not the same as a Titoist. However, I think that, instead of arguing amongst yourselves as to how a hypothetical future society will look, you need to put aside your differences and focus on your immediate, common foe: capitalism. You all hate it, you all wish to overthrow it, and that is what should unite you, not a debate as to whether or not industries should be nationalized or worker-owned. Once the revolution has succeeded, then you can argue about the future.

--------------

Those are my ideas. What do you think-did I hit the mark anywhere, or is this just reactionary chatter?

[RGacky3]

Most of these are already going on in the real left, i.e. the Occupy, indignados and so on, the old school angry maoists are NOT the left anymore.

[Commissar Rykov]

In regards to number 4 the majority of the problems don't have to do with how communism will be run. The problem is that tactics in getting there or whether one needs a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and transitory state, etc. Number 4 is just not possible and has been called for by certain individuals since the days of Marx.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

This is the single best topic I've ever seen on revleft.


^5

[Zav]

1. The only way to destroy people's misconceptions about Communism is to get rid of the Capitalist influence in education and the media, such as through revolution.

2. You have the misconceptions you just mentioned, apparently. A Communist society indeed tolerates dissent.

3. Not all of us are dogmatically opposed to religion. I think it's all a load of shit, but if a person agrees with Anarchism and/or Communism, there is no reason for me to regard him as lesser.

4. That's easier said than done. Sure, temporarily ignoring differences will work fine for the thirty kinds of Marxists (save for the Trots and Baby Stalins) and for the thirty kinds of Anarchists, but those two camps can never be united because the fundamental difference between them has nothing to do with Anarchy/Communism itself but rather the Revolution. If/when the Revolution happens, Marxists and Anarchists will be fighting each other as well as the private armies and the Fascists. It will look something like Greece does at the moment.




If the Left wants to accomplish something, it will need to:

1. Suck it up and support reforms. People are suffering NOW, and the Revolution isn't Tuesday. That means voting for the Dem Soc's if necessary.

2. Get its hands dirty and actually do something. Create free zones, volunteer at shelters, set up communes, free schools, etcetera etcetera.

3. Stop playing the damn Soviet anthem whilst marching in Stalin-era uniforms. We've all seen MaoistRebelNews on YouTube. People like him drive potential Leftists away faster than they can possibly be brought back.

4. Stop using dated words like 'proletariat', 'property' (in the older sense), and 'bourgeoisie' when talking to people outside the Leftist clique.

5. Stop acting like a militant cult. We're trying to get people to play nice, not recruiting for a game of Call of Duty.

6. Actually be excellent to each other. Show the world how to live without competition.

[Optiow]

1. The only way to destroy people's misconceptions about Communism is to get rid of the Capitalist influence in education and the media, such as through revolution.

How do you expect the masses to support you when they don't even know what communism is?

[Tim Cornelis]

Actually, I would say your points are already outdated and thus irrelevant in itself.

1. You can't really do that, and it won't make socialism any more or less relevant.

2. Most of the left already does, and many always have

3. My guess is the majority of the left is not hostile to religion as such.

4. How do you imagine Stalinists (or Marxist-Leninists) to cooperate with anarchists while their immediate goal is opposite? There is no need for such strict unity.

[Ocean Seal]

If the Left wants to accomplish something, it will need to:

1. Suck it up and support reforms. People are suffering NOW, and the Revolution isn't Tuesday. That means voting for the Dem Soc's if necessary.

No it doesn't. Social democracy has been useless for almost a century. They can function without our help, and we can work without theirs. What we do is we start bringing the workers together and starting up direct action. Winning reforms through genuine working class movement organizes the workers, gives them confidence and will be useful during the revolution. Getting workers to vote won't help us when the time comes for revolution in fact it will get workers to accept austerity cuts and other reactionary measures when their 'saviors' the social democrats ask them too.




2. Get its hands dirty and actually do something. Create free zones, volunteer at shelters, set up communes, free schools, etcetera etcetera.

This could be useful especially if we do this as communist, but remember that this demand shouldn't be forced on revolutionaries. Because this is lifestylism ultimately.



3. Stop playing the damn Soviet anthem whilst marching in Stalin-era uniforms. We've all seen MaoistRebelNews on YouTube. People like him drive potential Leftists away faster than they can possibly be brought back.


While Stalin-era uniforms are annoying, I really don't see this as an important issue.




4. Stop using dated words like 'proletariat', 'property' (in the older sense), and 'bourgeoisie' when talking to people outside the Leftist clique.

Most of us do this anyway, but its a good thing for people to get used to this language.



5. Stop acting like a militant cult. We're trying to get people to play nice, not recruiting for a game of Call of Duty.

You and I are doing different things then.



6. Actually be excellent to each other. Show the world how to live without competition.
This I agree with.

[Zav]

How do you expect the masses to support you when they don't even know what communism is?
Leading through example. The best way to bring about Communism is to start small.

[Zav]

No it doesn't. Social democracy has been useless for almost a century. They can function without our help, and we can work without theirs. What we do is we start bringing the workers together and starting up direct action. Winning reforms through genuine working class movement organizes the workers, gives them confidence and will be useful during the revolution. Getting workers to vote won't help us when the time comes for revolution in fact it will get workers to accept austerity cuts and other reactionary measures when their 'saviors' the social democrats ask them too.
How you expect to rally the workers against Capitalism without the help of the rest of the Left I have no idea. I don't like the Democratic Socialists, nor do I like the voting system in most countries, but it's better than nothing, and nothing is what we have.


This could be useful especially if we do this as communist, but remember that this demand shouldn't be forced on revolutionaries. Because this is lifestylism ultimately.
Unless you're in a revolutionary militia, there aren't many other ways to be a revolutionary.



While Stalin-era uniforms are annoying, I really don't see this as an important issue.
It isn't. I meant to use that example to imply that we need to let go of the past.



Most of us do this anyway, but its a good thing for people to get used to this language.
Most, but not all. The one's that don't become the image of the crazies everyone presumes us to be. The words died out of use, and while increasing the proles' vocabulary is important, it is not more so than getting their support.


You and I are doing different things then.
What, then, are you if not someone trying to create a world where people don't exploit, rape, steal from, and kill each other?


This I agree with.
You just disagreed with that statement, though...:confused:

[Ocean Seal]

How you expect to rally the workers against Capitalism without the help of the rest of the Left I have no idea. I don't like the Democratic Socialists, nor do I like the voting system in most countries, but it's better than nothing, and nothing is what we have.

That's the thing. They don't help and they won't help. It's not better than nothing in most countries it contributes to the hegemony of the bourgeoisie.



Unless you're in a revolutionary militia, there aren't many other ways to be a revolutionary.

Revolutionary unions, revolutionary propaganda, turning yellow unions into combative unions, organizing the unemployed, anti-capitalist protests, labor rights protests, even discussing Marxism with your friends and co-workers is somewhat revolutionary.




It isn't. I meant to use that example to imply that we need to let go of the past.


I agree, it doesn't make it a big deal though.




Most, but not all. The one's that don't become the image of the crazies everyone presumes us to be. The words died out of use, and while increasing the proles' vocabulary is important, it is not more so than getting their support.

I think that they're smart enough to support their own liberation while understanding what it is that their doing.



What, then, are you if not someone trying to create a world where people don't exploit, rape, steal from, and kill each other?

And we don't get here by playing nice. We get here through revolution... Ugly revolution.



You just disagreed with that statement, though...:confused:
No its important for proles to be kind to another, for them to be against discrimination, among other things. But not to be lovely to the class enemy.

[NewLeft]

2. What are you referring to..?

[Prometeo liberado]

I know that within the PSL we comprised a brochure on the 10 most common myths of socialism.
Then there is the talk of a Socialist Bill of rights.
By doing this we can engage with people who now have accepted or at least read the material.
Lastly, we must take or history back. By that I mean the language. Sorry mom and dad I am a COMMUNIST and these friends of mine are my COMRADES. These words, the red flag, singing the internationale are not things to be forgotten or be ashamed of.
WE make Socialism relevant by exposing untruths and not forgetting our past.
Last we dont need to make Socialism relevant so long as Big Business continues to bleed the workers for all they got. Just lean over and ask if all that pain is relevant enough.

[tom1992]

It depends on the country, at least in Chile (and Latin America in general), socialist ideas are more relevant than ever, people are getting really educated in politics. A lot of this is thanks to the work of many of us, teaching teenagers, adults and kids in the slums we live in, we generally occupy abandoned houses, rebuild them and make libraries. This really works. Historical slums in my country have always had this and have always been a big resistence to the right wing, the biggest ones alive today, have many of these "libraries". Of course reading is not enough, but it helps.

[RGacky3]

No its important for proles to be kind to another, for them to be against discrimination, among other things. But not to be lovely to the class enemy.

I think its important to focus on the system rather than "those guys."

[Thirsty Crow]

Instead of posting one of my usual tirades on how you're all wasting your time, that communism has been discredited, etc. I'm going to give a few of my ideas on how to make the far left vocal and relevant again. Tell me what you guys think.

I think that the premise of the thread is severely flawed. Namely, it seems as if revolutionary politics were a matter of a marketing/PR campaing. It is pretty much obvious that it isn't so, that revolutionary politics arise from actual experience of struggle and find its fertile soil exactly there. I don't think revolutionaries should aim at establishing themselves as the bearers of nice ideas which would persuade the population by means of slick use of media tricks (and that also includes the implicit positioning of revolutionaries "above" the actual struggling working class, which can only result in parliamentary reformism). Revolutionaries participate with the working class (that does not imply that they do not share the same class background) in struggle, aiming at providing the class with indispensable tools for self-emancipation.


1. Distinguish yourselves from the past. No matter what "true revolutionary socialism" entails, today it means "totalitarian communazi dictatorship" in the eyes of America and "social democracy" in the eyes of Europe. Suggesting a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism leads to nightmarish fears of gulags, concentration camps, secret police, etc. As modern revolutionary leftists, you need to figure out where your predecessors went wrong, why they messed up, and ensure people that a "true" socialist revolution wouldn't go down the same path.Well, generally I do think that revolutionaries should face the reality of the historical experience with sober senses, and that implies a resolute criticism of what I think represented a degeneration, a strangling of workers' social revolution, resulting in the establishment of regimes which function as an effective dictatorship over the working class.
But again, this does not follow from a careful examination of popular opinion polls or the circus that is the media.


2. Tolerate dissent. With the rise of the Internet, free speech is a given in more parts of the world than ever before. Everyone, no matter how smart and no matter how stupid, can express themselves as long as they have an Internet. No monitoring service, no matter how effective, can combat the modern World Wide Web.Oh, but it can. I'd suggest that you look up legislation bills called SOPA and PIPA.


That needs to transfer over to real life: if a socialist government were ever to take over in a country, you can't go around locking up people every time they say "I don't think this revolution will last" or something along those lines. That isn't to say you should let fascists openly rally in the streets, of course-Neo-Nazis and the like are scum and should be treated as such. But if a group of capitalists wants to hold an anti-socialist demonstration, it might be best to let them have their say instead of calling in the riot police.It's entirely naive to conceive of a peaceful, and yet organized opposition to workers' power. I think you're significantly underestimating the extent and the means of the struggle against revolution, and extending from that, of necessary measures to deal with it (and no, your ridiculous example does not fall into the category of necessary measures).

That's it for now, will return to it if there's time.

[RGacky3]

I think there is a confusion between the "left" and the left, the working class struggle is going to happen no matter what the "left" does, I think Menocchio is correct, its not about "winning" the working class over to our ideas, its about fighting with them for their struggles.

I think trying to convince people of "communism" or whatever is a waste of time, we don't need labels or names, the people that are sticking with those things are the ones left behind.

I think the Occupy movement and things like that are the future of the left, not different communist parties, not leninists, not maoists, not even classical anarchists, not social democracts either.

I'm an old school syndicalist, but I don't feel the need to convince other poeple of syndicalism, as a syndicalist I fight against capitalism with the working class. I don't care if they carry a red flag or whatever, I don't care if they are perfectly class conscious or not, I don't care if they are revolutionary or reformist, the point is to fight the system of oppression, not bring about your personal ideology.

[#FF0000]

1. Distinguish yourselves from the past. No matter what "true revolutionary socialism" entails, today it means "totalitarian communazi dictatorship" in the eyes of America and "social democracy" in the eyes of Europe. Suggesting a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism leads to nightmarish fears of gulags, concentration camps, secret police, etc. As modern revolutionary leftists, you need to figure out where your predecessors went wrong, why they messed up, and ensure people that a "true" socialist revolution wouldn't go down the same path.

You mean what people are already doing?

Okay.


2. Tolerate dissent. With the rise of the Internet, free speech is a given in more parts of the world than ever before. Everyone, no matter how smart and no matter how stupid, can express themselves as long as they have an Internet. No monitoring service, no matter how effective, can combat the modern World Wide Web. That needs to transfer over to real life: if a socialist government were ever to take over in a country, you can't go around locking up people every time they say "I don't think this revolution will last" or something along those lines. That isn't to say you should let fascists openly rally in the streets, of course-Neo-Nazis and the like are scum and should be treated as such. But if a group of capitalists wants to hold an anti-socialist demonstration, it might be best to let them have their say instead of calling in the riot police.


You mean what people are already doing?

Okay.


3. Cease hostility towards religion. Taking a look at the "religion" section of the OI forum, pretty much every thread is hostile to, or criticizing Christianity or another religion in some way. Now, I'm an atheist myself, and I'm all for a healthy examination of religion. But to be quite frank, the vast majority of the world's population remains religious, and if revolutionary leftism is ever going to become a mainstream ideology, the hardcore atheists of the Fillintheblank Worker's Party will have to learn to get along with the devout Christians. I know that the church is traditionally seen as a "reactionary" institution by the left, but if there are some preachers encouraging their congregants to "rise up for socialism," wouldn't it be best to utilize him instead of mocking his beliefs?


Have you ever been involved with a leftist organization in real life.


4. Unity, Unity, Unity. I understand that there are fundamental disagreements among leftists as to how the world should be run-a Trotskyist is not the same thing an as anarchist, and a Leninist is not the same as a Titoist. However, I think that, instead of arguing amongst yourselves as to how a hypothetical future society will look, you need to put aside your differences and focus on your immediate, common foe: capitalism. You all hate it, you all wish to overthrow it, and that is what should unite you, not a debate as to whether or not industries should be nationalized or worker-owned. Once the revolution has succeeded, then you can argue about the future.

Nah.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. Distinguish yourselves from the past. ... you need to figure out where your predecessors went wrong, why they messed up, and ensure people that a "true" socialist revolution wouldn't go down the same path.Yes this is pretty much the main reason for all the various different socialist and anarchist groupings and tendencies out there. People have theories for what happened in the 20th century and why the so-called socialist countries of the Cold War era were wrong or (shudder) right.


2. Tolerate dissent. Tolerate, we want to promote it and we want to destroy little things such as the US prison system and the CIA and the US's gulag in Gitmo. It's a bit strange to accuse a hypothetical worker's society of locking up people who post things on the internet.


3. Cease hostility towards religion. Taking a look at the "religion" section of the OI forum, pretty much every thread is hostile to, or criticizing Christianity or another religion in some way. Now, I'm an atheist myself, and I'm all for a healthy examination of religion. But to be quite frank, the vast majority of the world's population remains religious, and if revolutionary leftism is ever going to become a mainstream ideology, the hardcore atheists of the Fillintheblank Worker's Party will have to learn to get along with the devout Christians. I know that the church is traditionally seen as a "reactionary" institution by the left, but if there are some preachers encouraging their congregants to "rise up for socialism," wouldn't it be best to utilize him instead of mocking his beliefs?
I don't mock religious people and outside of RevLeft it doesn't seem to be a big concern of organized radicals. Actually in the US it tends to be people of a progressive bent that complain that religious "sheep" are the main barrier to change.


4. Unity, Unity, Unity. I understand that there are fundamental disagreements among leftists as to how the world should be run-a Trotskyist is not the same thing an as anarchist, and a Leninist is not the same as a Titoist. However, I think that, instead of arguing amongst yourselves as to how a hypothetical future society will look, you need to put aside your differences and focus on your immediate, common foe: capitalism. You all hate it, you all wish to overthrow it, and that is what should unite you, not a debate as to whether or not industries should be nationalized or worker-owned. Once the revolution has succeeded, then you can argue about the future. Unity isn't something that can be artificially created. Our movementhas been divided over certain questions of politics, history, and tactics, and has remained divided because there's hasn't been a way to test these ideas in practice. I think the occupy movement shows that when there is struggle it's more possible for people to work together on common goals even if we have different politics.

[Comrade Hill]

1. Distinguish yourselves from the past. No matter what "true revolutionary socialism" entails, today it means "totalitarian communazi dictatorship" in the eyes of America and "social democracy" in the eyes of Europe. Suggesting a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism leads to nightmarish fears of gulags, concentration camps, secret police, etc. As modern revolutionary leftists, you need to figure out where your predecessors went wrong, why they messed up, and ensure people that a "true" socialist revolution wouldn't go down the same path.


Actually are goal should be to educate people about the past, not to ignore it in a desperate attempt to gain relevancy.



2. Tolerate dissent. With the rise of the Internet, free speech is a given in more parts of the world than ever before. Everyone, no matter how smart and no matter how stupid, can express themselves as long as they have an Internet. No monitoring service, no matter how effective, can combat the modern World Wide Web. That needs to transfer over to real life: if a socialist government were ever to take over in a country, you can't go around locking up people every time they say "I don't think this revolution will last" or something along those lines. That isn't to say you should let fascists openly rally in the streets, of course-Neo-Nazis and the like are scum and should be treated as such. But if a group of capitalists wants to hold an anti-socialist demonstration, it might be best to let them have their say instead of calling in the riot police.


Why should we let a small rich minority group of people blurt out their demands for their own class interest? In a workers state where te objective is to get rid of classes, why give the oppressing class a voice?



3. Cease hostility towards religion. Taking a look at the "religion" section of the OI forum, pretty much every thread is hostile to, or criticizing Christianity or another religion in some way. Now, I'm an atheist myself, and I'm all for a healthy examination of religion. But to be quite frank, the vast majority of the world's population remains religious, and if revolutionary leftism is ever going to become a mainstream ideology, the hardcore atheists of the Fillintheblank Worker's Party will have to learn to get along with the devout Christians. I know that the church is traditionally seen as a "reactionary" institution by the left, but if there are some preachers encouraging their congregants to "rise up for socialism," wouldn't it be best to utilize him instead of mocking his beliefs?


There has never been any hostility towards religion in socialism, it's just depoliticized.



4. Unity, Unity, Unity. I understand that there are fundamental disagreements among leftists as to how the world should be run-a Trotskyist is not the same thing an as anarchist, and a Leninist is not the same as a Titoist. However, I think that, instead of arguing amongst yourselves as to how a hypothetical future society will look, you need to put aside your differences and focus on your immediate, common foe: capitalism. You all hate it, you all wish to overthrow it, and that is what should unite you, not a debate as to whether or not industries should be nationalized or worker-owned. Once the revolution has succeeded, then you can argue about the future. [B]


We are not going to become a bunch of Mensheviks.

[Renegade Saint]

You're aren't in the DSA by chance are you?


Distinguish yourselves from the past. No matter what "true revolutionary socialism" entails, today it means "totalitarian communazi dictatorship" in the eyes of America and "social democracy" in the eyes of Europe. Suggesting a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism leads to nightmarish fears of gulags, concentration camps, secret police, etc.
This is less true every day. Most people under 30 don't think "socialism=Stalinism". That's not just me saying that, that's the polling numbers. If someone asks I'm happy to tell them that I'm in no way associated with the Communist states of the last century (or this one), but I think it puts you in a position of weakness to be constantly apologizing for what others have done.


As modern revolutionary leftists, you need to figure out where your predecessors went wrong, why they messed up, and ensure people that a "true" socialist revolution wouldn't go down the same path.
I think that's what half the discussions on this forums and hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been doing at least since 1917.


Tolerate dissent....No monitoring service, no matter how effective, can combat the modern World Wide Web.... That needs to transfer over to real life: if a socialist government were ever to take over in a country, you can't go around locking up people every time they say "I don't think this revolution will last" or something along those lines.
Well for arguments sake China has been pretty damn effective at doing just that.
I think most modern socialist groups do embrace free speech (Stalinists and their offshoots being the exception), so I don't think this is a big problem. When people ask me about socialism they never ask "so do you want to imprison everyone who disagrees with you?"-they're questions are always toward the practical side.



3. Cease hostility towards religion.

My hostility toward religion is directly proportional to how much particular religions are pushing reactionary and oppressive ideas. I don't really have a problem with, say, unitarian universalists or jainists and I'd be very happy to work with some liberation theology priests.



Unity, Unity, Unity.

A forced unity is worse than none at all.
I think leftist groups that are actively working within Occupy are showing that they're able to work together and get along with others. Otherwise our heads would explode from having to deal with all the mushy liberals and anarchists that are involved.

[hatzel]

In a workers state where te objective is to get rid of classes, why give the oppressing class a voice?

Now I don't know about you but I was kind of under the impression that the very point of this "workers' state" you guys like to talk about is so that the bourgeoisie are no longer an oppressing class, you know? Because surely if they are then that means it's not a workers' state, because it suggests the bourgeoisie are still in power. Or how else could they oppress anybody as a class, how would that dynamic come about...?

[Tim Cornelis]

Why should we let a small rich minority group of people blurt out their demands for their own class interest? In a workers state where te objective is to get rid of classes, why give the oppressing class a voice?

Well, the problem with most/many Marxist-Leninists is the way they define classes. First, the denounce the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie, then when they criticise the regime: to the gulag.

But since Marxists-Leninists have objectively and scientifically discovered what the objective and only true interest of the working class is, only petite-bourgeois conspirators could possibly criticise a Marxist-Leninist regime. So, every dissent to the gulag.

Also, throughout its history peasants were seen as a non-working class class and therefore they were too stripped of their freedom.

What I'm trying to say, if you make dissent by the bourgeoisie illegal you are initiating a slippery slope.

Does this mean workers would allow the bourgeoisie to print, promote, or broadcast their false propaganda?

That depends completely on workers' power. The workers should cease supplying them with ink, paper, labour, transportation, retail, etc. instead of making it illegal to raise your voice.

[Renegade Saint]

Well, the problem with most/many Marxist-Leninists is the way they define classes. First, the denounce the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie, then when they criticise the regime: to the gulag.

But since Marxists-Leninists have objectively and scientifically discovered what the objective and only true interest of the working class is, only petite-bourgeois conspirators could possibly criticise a Marxist-Leninist regime. So, every dissent to the gulag.
That's the problem with anyone who 'knows' (ie, believes) beyond any doubt that they've found the one true truth. Since it's axiomatic that they represent the only true truth they feel very comfortable oppressing anyone who disagrees-because anyone who would disagree with the truth cannot be honestly disagreeing, they must be a tool of the capitalist class and actively plotting the downfall of socialism.

[Comrade Hill]

Now I don't know about you but I was kind of under the impression that the very point of this "workers' state" you guys like to talk about is so that the bourgeoisie are no longer an oppressing class, you know? Because surely if they are then that means it's not a workers' state, because it suggests the bourgeoisie are still in power. Or how else could they oppress anybody as a class, how would that dynamic come about...?

We don't deny the fact that the Soviet Union went through many class struggles. Stalin himself admitted that there were many bourgeois class elements existing within the party. That is why he and other comrades worked to rid the Soviet Union of it's exploitative origins.

Eventually, the kolkhozy would surpass the kulaks in agricultural production, and it would be collectivized to further develop the socialist economy.

Viola, op. cit. , p. 27.

"During 1929, collectivized agriculture produced 2.2 million tonnes of market wheat, as much as the kulaks did two years previously. Stalin foresaw that during the course of the next year, it would bring 6.6 million tonnes to the cities."

"`Now we are able to carry on a determined offensive against the kulaks, to break their resistance, to eliminate them as a class and substitute for their output the output of the collective farms and state farms.' "

http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/node31.html



What I'm trying to say, if you make dissent by the bourgeoisie illegal you are initiating a slippery slope.


So we should allow bourgeois radio stations to come on etc? How would this NOT initiate a slippery slope? Gorbachev tried this and instead of this helping the working class, it just opened the flood gates for capitalist restoration. Why do you want to try this again?



Does this mean workers would allow the bourgeoisie to print, promote, or broadcast their false propaganda?

That depends completely on workers' power. The workers should cease supplying them with ink, paper, labour, transportation, retail, etc. instead of making it illegal to raise your voice.

They'll just get it from somewhere else.


That's the problem with anyone who 'knows' (ie, believes) beyond any doubt that they've found the one true truth. Since it's axiomatic that they represent the only true truth they feel very comfortable oppressing anyone who disagrees-because anyone who would disagree with the truth cannot be honestly disagreeing, they must be a tool of the capitalist class and actively plotting the downfall of socialism.

If this is truly your view on how Marxist-Leninists behave then you are being naive.

The Soviet Union allowed self-criticism under the banner of democratic centralism.

"The Party...must firmly and resolutely adopt the course of inner-Party democracy; our organizations must draw the broad mass of the Party membership, which determines that fate of our Party, into discussing the questions of our constructive work. Without this, there can be no question of raising the activity of the working class."
-Stalin, The Economic Situation of the Soviet Union and the Policy of the Party

"Precisely in order to develop self-criticism and not extinguish it, we must listen attentively to all criticism coming from Soviet people, even if sometimes it may not be correct to the full and in all details. Only then can the masses have the assurance that they will not get into "hot water" if their criticism is not perfect, that they will not be made a "laughing-stock" if there should be errors in their criticism. Only then can self-criticism acquire a truly mass character and meet with a truly mass response."
(J.V. Stalin, Report to the Seventeenth Party Congress On the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B. Pravda, No 27, January 28, 1934)

However, self-criticism must not be confused with factionalism, which means forming partisan groups within the party to attempt to establish a new system of government forcefully. And yes, that IS wrong.

[hatzel]

We don't deny the fact that the Soviet Union went through many class struggles. Stalin himself admitted that there were many bourgeois class elements existing within the party. That is why he and other comrades worked to rid the Soviet Union of it's exploitative origins.

...sorry but what does any of this have to do with anything? We're talking about the theoretical concept of a "workers' state," not what was going on in the Stalin-times and what he had to say about it. So enough with the breeze already, and let's get back to business. That business being the question of how the bourgeoisie could be an oppressor-class in a "workers' state" when the existence of such a state precludes the possibility of the bourgeoisie as a class partaking in oppression. As far as I am aware. In a "workers' state" (of the Marxist definition, and according to Marxist understanding of the state as I understand it) no class but the proletariat would have the means to oppress, namely, the organs of state power and a dominant position in a systematic and institutionalised hierarchy, which questions your earlier assertions concerning the treatment of oppressor-classes in a "workers' state." So you can answer me that now, if you would be so kind...


Eventually, the kolkhozy would surpass the kulaks in agricultural production, and it would be collectivized to further develop the socialist economy.

Forgive my ignorance but who are these people and what are you talking about? And by that question I actually mean where did you get your time-machine and can I come back to the 20's with you? That's what I meant to say, see, I just worded it slightly differently.

[Comrade Hill]

...sorry but what does any of this have to do with anything?


You asked me how a society could be a "worker's state" when the bourgeoisie exist, and I showed you that a workers state can form when there is an existence of the bourgeoisie.



In a "workers' state" (of the Marxist definition, and according to Marxist understanding of the state as I understand it) no class but the proletariat would have the means to oppress, namely, the organs of state power and a dominant position in a systematic and institutionalised hierarchy, which questions your earlier assertions concerning the treatment of oppressor-classes in a "workers' state." So you can answer me that now, if you would be so kind...


I already answered your question. The kulaks slowly were phased out as an oppressing class, and the workers and peasants were given more control over the socialist economy as more and more people joined the kolkhozy. Bureaucrats and managers in the government were forbidden from individually benefiting from the fruits of labor of the proletariat, profits had to be invested in further collectivization and expanding the means of production, which a socialist economy thrives on. However, since the Soviet Union was still surrounded by enemies, there were some contradictions within the economy. Conditions were tough, but the peasants and the workers willingly sacrificed for the future of the whole society.



Forgive my ignorance but who are these people and what are you talking about?

The kolkhozy were collective farms set up by the Politburo. Peasants would then produce the majority of wheat (74%) in 1926 and on, then consume 89% of their own production themselves.



And by that question I actually mean where did you get your time-machine and can I come back to the 20's with you? That's what I meant to say, see, I just worded it slightly differently.


This has more to do with reading books and being educated on history than some silly make-believe time machine. So you can either sit your ass down and watch me answer your questions, or you can pick up a book about Soviet history and learn yourself.

With that said, why don't we give the OP the chance to respond to the comments.

[Astarte]

...sorry but what does any of this have to do with anything? We're talking about the theoretical concept of a "workers' state," not what was going on in the Stalin-times and what he had to say about it. So enough with the breeze already, and let's get back to business. That business being the question of how the bourgeoisie could be an oppressor-class in a "workers' state" when the existence of such a state precludes the possibility of the bourgeoisie as a class partaking in oppression. As far as I am aware. In a "workers' state" (of the Marxist definition, and according to Marxist understanding of the state as I understand it) no class but the proletariat would have the means to oppress, namely, the organs of state power and a dominant position in a systematic and institutionalised hierarchy, which questions your earlier assertions concerning the treatment of oppressor-classes in a "workers' state." So you can answer me that now, if you would be so kind...

I am not sure exactly, as I have not browsed the entire collected works of Stalin yet, but I think when Stalin was calling out what GuttahMastah is calling "bourgeoisie" in the party he was actually naming in his polemics "labor aristocracy", especially in the case of Trotsky and the Left Opposition. It is telling Stalin himself would point out the development of a ruling class consciousness in the Party bureaucracy, as if by pointing a flash light at other people in the dark he himself would remain hidden.

The USSR, when it was dominated by a Party dominated by The Stalin, absolutely did achieve industrialization and modernization impressively fast, and the majority of peoples' living standards did ultimately rise, and the methods of the "5 year plan in four" were absolutely working, and with the "Leninist Levy", even poor country bumpkins like Khrushchev could rise up in the party - thus, poor people saw their situations in life getting better for the most part, despite it all - that is why they could not understand why Trotsky and all the opposition groups were such "wreckers".

It depended exactly which tenet of ML according to JV you were deviating from which determined whether you were a "Right", "Trotskyite", or simply a wrecker. "Bourgeois" essentially is just a blanket term for deviationists.



The opposition is in an even worse plight on the question of our Party, on the question of the C.P.S.U.(B.). Trotsky does not understand our Party. He has a wrong conception of our Party. He regards our Party in the same way as an aristocrat regards the "rabble," or a bureaucrat his subordinates. If that were not so, he would not assert that it is possible in a party a million strong, in the C.P.S.U.(B.), for individuals, for individual leaders, to "seize," to "usurp" power. To talk about "seizing" power in a party a million strong, a party that has made three revolutions and is now shaking the foundations of world imperialism—such is the depth of stupidity to which Trotsky has sunk!

Is it at all possible to "seize" power in a party a million strong, a party rich in revolutionary traditions? If it is, why has Trotsky failed to "seize" power in the Party, to force his way to leadership of the Party? How is that to be explained? Does Trotsky lack the will and the desire to lead? Is it not a fact that for more than two decades already Trotsky has been fighting the Bolsheviks for leadership in the Party? Why has he failed to "seize" power in the Party? Is he a less powerful orator than the present leaders of our Party? Would it not be truer to say that as an orator Trotsky is superior to many of the present leaders of our Party? How, then, are we to explain the fact that notwithstanding his oratorical skill, notwithstanding his will to lead, notwithstanding his abilities, Trotsky was thrown out of the leadership of the great party which is called the C.P.S.U.(B.)? The explanation that Trotsky is inclined to offer is that our Party, in his opinion, is a voting herd, which blindly follows the Central Committee of the Party. But only people who despise the Party and regard it as rabble can speak of it in that way. Only a down-at-heel party aristocrat can regard the Party as a voting herd. It is a sign that Trotsky has lost the sense of Party principle, has lost the ability to discern the real reasons why the Party distrusts the opposition.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/09/27.htm

Stalin-Times are important for precisely this reason though to Marxists - they present for the first time in history the problems Marxism-Leninism, vanguardism, and perhaps even the dictatorship of the proletariat encounter after gaining hegemonic political power.

[Azraella]

My comments are in brackets.


Instead of posting one of my usual tirades on how you're all wasting your time, that communism has been discredited, etc. I'm going to give a few of my ideas on how to make the far left vocal and relevant again. Tell me what you guys think.

1. Distinguish yourselves from the past. No matter what "true revolutionary socialism" entails, today it means "totalitarian communazi dictatorship" in the eyes of America and "social democracy" in the eyes of Europe. Suggesting a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism leads to nightmarish fears of gulags, concentration camps, secret police, etc. As modern revolutionary leftists, you need to figure out where your predecessors went wrong, why they messed up, and ensure people that a "true" socialist revolution wouldn't go down the same path. [LC: I support this in theory. The problem is that we also need to learn from our mistakes. If we look at say the USSR, we still need to see what worked and what failed.]

2. Tolerate dissent. With the rise of the Internet, free speech is a given in more parts of the world than ever before. Everyone, no matter how smart and no matter how stupid, can express themselves as long as they have an Internet. No monitoring service, no matter how effective, can combat the modern World Wide Web. That needs to transfer over to real life: if a socialist government were ever to take over in a country, you can't go around locking up people every time they say "I don't think this revolution will last" or something along those lines. That isn't to say you should let fascists openly rally in the streets, of course-Neo-Nazis and the like are scum and should be treated as such. But if a group of capitalists wants to hold an anti-socialist demonstration, it might be best to let them have their say instead of calling in the riot police. [LC: frankly, I think the revolution won't look like anything we've seen before, we're probably more likely to have a hybrid ideology like the Zapististas that mixes Marxism and anarchism and there may not be a state apparatus]

3. Cease hostility towards religion. Taking a look at the "religion" section of the OI forum, pretty much every thread is hostile to, or criticizing Christianity or another religion in some way. Now, I'm an atheist myself, and I'm all for a healthy examination of religion. But to be quite frank, the vast majority of the world's population remains religious, and if revolutionary leftism is ever going to become a mainstream ideology, the hardcore atheists of the Fillintheblank Worker's Party will have to learn to get along with the devout Christians. I know that the church is traditionally seen as a "reactionary" institution by the left, but if there are some preachers encouraging their congregants to "rise up for socialism," wouldn't it be best to utilize him instead of mocking his beliefs? [LC: I agree and disagree. If we're talking about street activists, people in parties, revolutionary groups, and whatever this is not the issue you make it out to be. If we're talking about certain demographics in the left then I might agree but it depends. A religious anarchist or communist is as much my comrade as an atheist or agnostic.]

4. Unity, Unity, Unity. I understand that there are fundamental disagreements among leftists as to how the world should be run-a Trotskyist is not the same thing an as anarchist, and a Leninist is not the same as a Titoist. However, I think that, instead of arguing amongst yourselves as to how a hypothetical future society will look, you need to put aside your differences and focus on your immediate, common foe: capitalism. You all hate it, you all wish to overthrow it, and that is what should unite you, not a debate as to whether or not industries should be nationalized or worker-owned. Once the revolution has succeeded, then you can argue about the future. [LC: I agree with pan-leftism to an extent, I can work with a Marxist on some issues and not associate with them on other issues. But I don't think the revolution will be strictly Marxist or anarchist and it will be some sort of fusion. Right now it seems as though anarchists are adopting aspects of Marxism this is a good thing.]

--------------

Those are my ideas. What do you think-did I hit the mark anywhere, or is this just reactionary chatter?

Regarding religion, again, I sent this in an email about the internet anarchists on reddit in regards to it but it could probably count for everyone:

"People are very...modernist, I guess, or dualistic, in their conception of certain struggles, and they need not be. Anarchists come to believe that there is a side called hierarchy, and a side called non-hierarchy, and that's all there can be. Same with "you're either anti-sex or pro-sex" or "religious or open-minded." That last one really speaks to the overall reddit view, which is basically "nothing about the enlightenment is to be criticized," even if it is never said that way. Of course the Enlightenment is great, I'm mostly in line with it, but the we need to mature as people, not stay in perpetual teenage rebellion (which is what I feel religion=evil, sex=alwaysgreat amounts to)."

I am pretty defensive about the idea of religious anarchists in particular, it simply makes no sense to me that someone's view on the damn nature on this universe(which does not say anything about their views regarding social justice issues or earthly hierarchy) makes them unanarchist. I can get the issue with Marxism and religion(even though I really doubt religion will disappear with socialism/communism) but holy fuck, it always grinds my gears when people can't say "I don't agree with your views but I can respect them, but how do you feel about capitalism or the state"

[RGacky3]

Well, the problem with most/many Marxist-Leninists is the way they define classes. First, the denounce the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie, then when they criticise the regime: to the gulag.

But since Marxists-Leninists have objectively and scientifically discovered what the objective and only true interest of the working class is, only petite-bourgeois conspirators could possibly criticise a Marxist-Leninist regime. So, every dissent to the gulag.

Great post. This says it all.