Anarcho-communism/syndicalism vs Authoritarian communism

[Lanky Wanker]

I know it would be unreasonable to ask for a huge essay post on your views against one of the two (although you're more than welcome to do so), so could anyone recommend anything for me to read which directly criticises one from the other side of the story? I know people say don't rush towards any labels, but I find it helpful to hear arguments against rather than just arguments for.

[Lucretia]

By definition communism cannot be authoritarian. It is a classless society in which the state as such has ceased to exist, and its functions are in the process of withering away.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't mean to piss on your question, but what you're asking for here is a tendency war. Basically the two 'sides' (anarchists/left-communists and stalinists) differ on fundamental questions about authority, hierarchy, and the uprooting of capitalism and transition to communism.

- August

[Lanky Wanker]

By definition communism cannot be authoritarian. It is a classless society in which the state as such has ceased to exist, and its functions are in the process of withering away.

I do know this, I mean authoritarian means of reaching communism.


I don't mean to piss on your question, but what you're asking for here is a tendency war. Basically the two 'sides' (anarchists/left-communists and stalinists) differ on fundamental questions about authority, hierarchy, and the uprooting of capitalism and transition to communism.

- August

Well that's why I'd prefer links or recommendations as opposed to people giving responses in the thread. I know how they differ, but I just want to understand why people carry these different views.

[Искра]

I don't mean to piss on your question, but what you're asking for here is a tendency war. Basically the two 'sides' (anarchists/left-communists and stalinists) differ on fundamental questions about authority, hierarchy, and the uprooting of capitalism and transition to communism.
This is wrong.

We Left Communists reject anarchist point of view where there's "autoritarian" and "libertarian" approach to communism/socialism. Why? Because if there's an "authoritarian" communism than Soviet Union was a communist society. Since, we consider Stalinists as bourgeoisie and reactionaries and Soviet Union as capitalist society we reject any defintion which puts "Soviet Union/Stalinism" in same basket with communism. Also, we Left Communists can hardly be "libertarian" since we support CI.

Our difference with Stalinists, Trotskites, socialdemocrats etc. is an answer on this question: "how can we overthrow capitalism, how can we act thowards this end in a such way that, troughtout the whole process, the proletariat keeps things unter its control?" (KAPD at 3rd Congress of CI, 19219

[Decolonize The Left]

This is wrong.

We Left Communists reject anarchist point of view where there's "autoritarian" and "libertarian" approach to communism/socialism. Why? Because if there's an "authoritarian" communism than Soviet Union was a communist society. Since, we consider Stalinists as bourgeoisie and reactionaries and Soviet Union as capitalist society we reject any defintion which puts "Soviet Union/Stalinism" in same basket with communism. Also, we Left Communists can hardly be "libertarian" since we support CI.

Our difference with Stalinists, Trotskites, socialdemocrats etc. is an answer on this question: "how can we overthrow capitalism, how can we act thowards this end in a such way that, troughtout the whole process, the proletariat keeps things unter its control?" (KAPD at 3rd Congress of CI, 19219

Relax. You are basically affirming what I said. I said that we all have different opinions on fundamental questions like: authority, hierarchy, bouregoisie, etc...

Also, I have no clue what you're talking about when you say:

We Left Communists reject anarchist point of view where there's "autoritarian" and "libertarian" approach to communism/socialism.

Anarchists are arguably the most anti-authoritarian leftists out there, why would they have a "point of view" where there's an "authoritarian approach to communism"?

You aren't making sense.

- August

[Robespierre Richard]

I know it would be unreasonable to ask for a huge essay post on your views against one of the two (although you're more than welcome to do so), so could anyone recommend anything for me to read which directly criticises one from the other side of the story? I know people say don't rush towards any labels, but I find it helpful to hear arguments against rather than just arguments for.

You mean like this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/)?

[Искра]

Relax. You are basically affirming what I said. I said that we all have different opinions on fundamental questions like: authority, hierarchy, bouregoisie, etc...
Hm... why relax? Let’s keep this discussion on political level.

Anyhow, I disagree with you. It's not authority or hierarchy what makes left communists differ from Stalinists. That can be case with anarchists. Left Communists criticize Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin etc. from different point of view. We criticize from point of revision of basic Marxist principles. For example, when make critique of Soviet Union we start from concept of “socialism in one state” not from concepts of vanguard party, or proletariat dictatorship, transitional period etc. which we, unlike anarchists – support. Also, our critique of Soviet Union is based on Marx’s Capital.


Anarchists are arguably the most anti-authoritarian leftists out there, why would they have a "point of view" where there's an "authoritarian approach to communism"?As, I said division on “libertarian” and “authoritarian” communism is anarchist bollocks, which left-communists don’t accept. We don’t use it. Why? Maybe this my quote from other discussion will help:


Hm, “libertarian Marxist” is a term invented by anarchists who discovered that Marx was not as bad as Bakunin thought. But I think that we should ask ourselves what makes a tendency tendency? My criterion is set of political views which make them different from other similar political tendencies. For example there’s obvious difference between anarchism and Marxism. Under “libertarian Marxism” anarchists put bunch of different Marxist tendencies which they rate under “libertarian” criteria, which is somehow against “authoritarian”. Now, funny thing is that Mr. Bakunin thought that Marx was an “authoritarian”. So, my first question is how “libertarian” tendency could be formed upon such “authoritarian” basis? Were they influenced by mighty anarchist theory? Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Bordiga etc. were all fierce critics of anarchism, so I guess that they didn’t consider anarchism as something important or inspirational. My second question is if term “libertarian” means absence of parliamentary struggle and usage of state in proletarian dictatorship, why do you put people who advocated such policies under “libertarian” umbrella? My point here is that “libertarian vs. authoritarian” concept is bunch of bollocks and that socialist tendencies should be valued if they follow main principles of Marxism or not. Using this criterion you wouldn’t come into situation that you label Stalinism as “authoritarian socialism”, but you would label it revisionism, because of its revisionist ultra-liberal idea of “socialism in one state”.

So when you say that there’s something called “authoritarian socialism” you are admitting that Stalinists and crew are socialists, while they are nothing but a bunch of revisionists and nationalist bourgeoisie.

[Decolonize The Left]

In short, I agree with you. I don't think that Stalinists (and to a similar degree Leninists) are communists. But the OP's question necessarily involved the assumption that M-Ls were communists as they are the closest thing to authoritarian communism that I can think of.

- August

[Lanky Wanker]

I think maybe I should rephrase my question:

Anarchist communism vs socialist transition communism. Articles? Books? Existing threads on the topic?

...better? :confused:

[Lanky Wanker]

You mean like this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/)?

A more direct "fuck your ideology" would be better, but this is also good.

[Blake's Baby]

I think maybe I should rephrase my question:

Anarchist communism vs socialist transition communism. Articles? Books? Existing threads on the topic?

...better? :confused:

No. For some of us there is no 'socialist transition to communism'. Communism and socialism are the same thing.

Do you mean Anarchism v Stalinism (ie 'socialism in one country', 'actually existing socialism', Bukharin's theory that the state becomes super-inflated before it withers away)?

Or do you mean Anarchism v Marxism (ie dictatorship of the proletariat)?

Marx and Englels said that the 'if you want to know what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like, it's the Paris Commune'. The Paris Commune that was started by anarchists and supported by anarchists...so presumably (?) you don't see a problem with the dictatorship of the proletariat?




In short, I agree with you. I don't think that Stalinists (and to a similar degree Leninists) are communists. But the OP's question necessarily involved the assumption that M-Ls were communists as they are the closest thing to authoritarian communism that I can think of.

- August

What about those Left Communists who see themselves as Leninists? Pretty sure Bordigists regard themselves as Leninists, Bordiga I believe declared himself to be 'more Leninist than Lenin' or some such.

The distinction (as I've tried to get at above quoting GK95) may well be between anarchism and Marxism.

Or it may be between immediate communisation and the transitional society.

It's difficult to tell.

[Zav]

Read Emma Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia for a critique of Bolshevism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

revolution is inherently "authoritarian" conceptually as a result of post-WWII capitalism creating "authoritarianism" as a concept to validate its aggression against the soviet union.

[Omsk]

Since i see anarchists suggesting you some literature for you to read,here is something from the other side.So here is what Vladimir Lenin and Trotsky have to say about anarchism.

(I am quite the anti-trotskyist type,but since you want to read and learn,i am going to list some his works too)

Leon Trotsky
My First Exile, My Life
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism, 1909
The July Days, History of the Russian Revolution
The Makhno Movement, 1919
Makhno’s Coming Over to the Side of the Soviets, 1920
How Is Makhno’s Troop Organised?, 1920

Lenin
Anarchism and Socialism, 1901
Guerilla Warfare, 1906
Socialism and War, 1914
State & Revolution. Controversy with the Anarchists, 1917

And about left communism,read : Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder , Vladimir Lenin.

You could also read about the civil war in Spain,in which the anarchists performed "brilliantly".

[Искра]

Since i see anarchists suggesting you some literature for you to read,here is something from the other side.So here is what Vladimir Lenin and Trotsky have to say about anarchism.
Although I'm quite anti-anarchist and I consider a book Zav proposed an utter bullshit, I have to comment these works you proposed.


Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism, 1909
This is actually against nihilists and narodniki, which are not anarchists.


The Makhno Movement, 1919
Makhno’s Coming Over to the Side of the Soviets, 1920
How Is Makhno’s Troop Organised?, 1920
Reading Trotsky on Makhno is like reading Regan on USSR. Only worst thing you can do is to read Trotsky on Kronstadt.


Anarchism and Socialism, 1901
This is just a few notes without anything to back them up.


State & Revolution. Controversy with the Anarchists, 1917 This is actually, only thing which is ok from this list, but the problem is that it doesn’t criticize anarchist movement from 1917, but it goes about Bakunin, Proudhon etc.


And about left communism,read : Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder , Vladimir Lenin.
Yes, but not without response by Herman Gorter: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm


You could also read about the civil war in Spain,in which the anarchists performed "brilliantly".Better not to come into this subject because it’s more complex then Marxism vs. anarchism. Actually, whole struggle can be put as Marxism vs. bourgeoisie (Stalinists, anarchists, liberals etc.) but then we have really big problem and that is that Marxists were invisible.

[Tim Finnegan]

Better not to come into this subject because it’s more complex then Marxism vs. anarchism. Actually, whole struggle can be put as Marxism vs. bourgeoisie (Stalinists, anarchists, liberals etc.) but then we have really big problem and that is that Marxists were invisible.
Or we could avoid resorting to idealism of either variety.

[Omsk]

Although I'm quite anti-anarchist and I consider a book Zav proposed an utter bullshit, I have to comment these works you proposed.



Of course,the OP cant form his opinion based on just a couple of texts,recomend him Left-Communist sources.


This is actually against nihilists and narodniki, which are not anarchists

But it has a focus on terrorism,so you could say it is linked with the anarchist movements in Russia who used terrorism.(Bombings etc)



Reading Trotsky on Makhno is like reading Regan on USSR. Only worst thing you can do is to read Trotsky on Kronstadt.



Trotsky on anarchists is as same as Left-Comms on the USSR.And i think he should read and inform himself from various sources.If he doesent like what Trotsky has to say about anarchism,he can always stop reading.


This is just a few notes without anything to back them up.

Let him be the judge.


This is actually, only thing which is ok from this list, but the problem is that it doesn’t criticize anarchist movement from 1917, but it goes about Bakunin, Proudhon etc.


He should go from the start,not jump into 1917 when things were complicated as they were.He cant skip Bakunin and jump to the revolution.


Better not to come into this subject because it’s more complex then Marxism vs. anarchism. Actually, whole struggle can be put as Marxism vs. bourgeoisie (Stalinists, anarchists, liberals etc.) but then we have really big problem and that is that Marxists were invisible.

Well,maybe on the forum,because a tendency war might start,but he should definitely read about the civil war,it was an important conflict in history of the 20th century.Your comment was also an over-simplification,not everyone who gave their life in the fight against Franco was a Stalinist,Trotskyist or anarchist.There were many ordinary non political men who left ideology behind and decided that they will fight against the fascists ideas.

[Tim Finnegan]

Trotsky on anarchists is as same as Left-Comms on the USSR.
When were left-coms organised in military opposition to the USSR? :confused:

[Omsk]

When were left-coms organised in military opposition to the USSR?


No,no,i didnt mean it like that,i wanted to say that reading Trotskys works on anarchism can be considered as same as reading Left-comms on Stalin and the USSR.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Reading "Syndicalism" by William Z. Foster and Earl C. Ford, along with "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice" by Rudolf Rocker are good starting points.
The first book is a good case of early syndicalism, influenced by the CGT in France and the IWW in the US, and is quite anti-social democracy.
The second book is better and more-detailed. It was written during the Spanish Civil War, when the anarcho-syndicalist CNT-FAI held major strongholds in Spain (see: Anarchist Catalonia). They were very influential. The book makes a lot of cases against Marxist-Leninist (and in general, Communist) parties.

Both are relatively short reads and easily accessible.

[Искра]

No,no,i didnt mean it like that,i wanted to say that reading Trotskys works on anarchism can be considered as same as reading Left-comms on Stalin and the USSR.
That's bollocks, because Trotsky is writing in order to "come clean". His writings on Stalin come from the same position. Left Communists criticize USSR from ortodox Marxist position from position of Marx's Capital, because USSR was a capitalist society.

[Tim Finnegan]

No,no,i didnt mean it like that,i wanted to say that reading Trotskys works on anarchism can be considered as same as reading Left-comms on Stalin and the USSR.
I know, my comment was intended as an ironic observation that the comparison is defective, because the relationship between Trotsky and Makhno and that between left-coms and the USSR is of an entirely different sort. Left-coms had never ordered the wholesale butcher of Soviet Bolsheviks, so they lack the need to rationalise their behaviour through polemics, and are free to engage with the USSR on a political rather than personal level. As Kontrra says, Trotsky was writing, to whatever extent, self-apologism; Bordiga or Pannekoek were not.

[Omsk]

That's bollocks, because Trotsky is writing in order to "come clean". His writings on Stalin come from the same position. Left Communists criticize USSR from ortodox Marxist position from position of Marx's Capital, because USSR was a capitalist society.

And that subject we should leave for some other thread.(was the USSR capitalist or not)
But just as a side-note,didnt Bordiga himself always considered himself a Leninist?If left-communists considered Stalins USSR to be capitalist,do they have the same opinion about the USSR before Stalin?

[Tim Finnegan]

But just as a side-note,didnt Bordiga himself always considered himself a Leninist?If left-communists considered Stalins USSR to be capitalist,do they have the same opinion about the USSR before Stalin?
It could hardly go backwards.

[Искра]

Left Communists criticize Soviet Union right from the begining. For example, left opposition in Bolshevik party. Even other communists such as Rosa Luxemburg did that. They criticize certain aspects of Lenin's Soviet Union and with Stalin's reforms they go on rampage.

[Omsk]

For example, when make critique of Soviet Union we start from concept of “socialism in one state” not from concepts of vanguard party, or proletariat dictatorship, transitional period etc. which we, unlike anarchists – support. Also, our critique of Soviet Union is based on Marx’s Capital.


The Leninist Soviet Union was built on ideas which you support.So what do you have against it other than the NEP,Brest-Litovsk?You say you are against SiOC,which was introduced by Stalin in 1924,and finished by Bukharin.(Who you personally support???)

Your opinions are a bit incoherent.

[Tim Finnegan]

Being built on the right "ideas" doesn't mean that it was built on the right material basis, and, if we're going to go around pretending to Marxists, that's a tiny bit more important.

[Искра]

Being built on the right "ideas" doesn't mean that it was built on the right material basis, and, if we're going to go around pretending to Marxists, that's a tiny bit more important.
This.

Aslo, the fact that something is build on right "ideas" doesn't mean that realisation is according to these ideas.

Regarding Bukharin, I don't support him but his ideas. He was internationalist communist until Brest-Litovski and later he left his positions and created Marxism-Leninism. He also made good ciritque of early USSR. Alexandra Kollontai and her Workers Opposition also.

[Susurrus]

@Kontra, what's your critique of Goldman's book?

[Omsk]

Being built on the right "ideas" doesn't mean that it was built on the right material basis, and, if we're going to go around pretending to Marxists, that's a tiny bit more important.


I dont know why are you so hostile,but you should know that English is not my first language,and that sometimes i cant express myself in the best possible way while writting in English,and you dont have to understand everything literally.The vanguard party,democratic centralism,dictatorship of the proleteriat,were followed in the USSR while Lenin was one of the leading figures.


Aslo, the fact that something is build on right "ideas" doesn't mean that realisation is according to these ideas.

During the USSR until Stalin,those ideas and plans were realised.


I don't support him but his ideas

Well,he didnt follow his ideas.And later,he made a complete turn.And if you are not a Bukharinist while supporting Bukharins ideas,why are some people automatically called Stalinists on this board by non-Marxist Leninists if they support some of Stalins ideas while not supporting the man himself?

[Искра]

During the USSR until Stalin,those ideas and plans were realised.
What plans? Creation of capitalism? Reduction of workers rights? Sending workers to labour camps? Stakhanovists? Market? Commodity production? Revisionism of Marxism? Banning political economy from universities because students who read Capital recoqnised capitalism in USSR? Famine? I can go forever.


Well,he didnt follow his ideas.And later,he made a complete turn.And if you are not a Bukharinist while supporting Bukharins ideas,why are some people automatically called Stalinists on this board by non-Marxist Leninists if they support some of Stalins ideas while not supporting the man himself?
Marxism-Leninism has only one point - to defend every shit Stalin did. I don't defend Bukharin. I believe he ended up his life as a wanker. Same goes to Iron Felix. Still, I support both of them before 1918 and their actions and ideas. Why? Because they were internationalists!

[Omsk]

Marxism-Leninism has only one point - to defend every shit Stalin did.

Well dont be so rude and disrespectful toward other tendencies,dont be so blunt.
You give people the right to say something like:" Left Communism is a pure fantasy and Left Communists wont ever actually succede in anything because they expect too much."



I don't defend Bukharin


You mentioned defending.I said supporting.


What plans? Creation of capitalism? Reduction of workers rights? Sending workers to labour camps? Stakhanovists? Market? Commodity production? Revisionism of Marxism? Banning political economy from universities because students who read Capital recoqnised capitalism in USSR? Famine? I can go forever

What an evading manouver.

And btw,i said,"the USSR until Stalin consolidated his role as the leader.




Same goes to Iron Felix. Still, I support both of them before 1918 and their actions and ideas. Why? Because they were internationalists!




And i support Stalins actions during the GPW.Why?Because he lead the country successfully.And made a lot of right decisions.

[Tim Finnegan]

I dont know why are you so hostile,but you should know that English is not my first language,and that sometimes i cant express myself in the best possible way while writting in English,and you dont have to understand everything literally.The vanguard party,democratic centralism,dictatorship of the proleteriat,were followed in the USSR while Lenin was one of the leading figures.
This has nothing to do with language, and everything to do with theory. Plans, principles and good intentions do not make a mode of production, and that includes the points you list. So the Bolsheviks self-conceptualised as a vanguard party? Meaningless until they fulfilled that historical function! So they had (or claimed to have) a system of democratic centralism? So can any petty bourgeois Green Party! So they upheld the principle of dictatorship? Mere rhetoric when their concrete political activity worked to deny it!

Communism is not a program, it is not a principle, it's not even an ideal; it is, as the grand old man himself said, "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things". If the Bolsheviks did not act as the agents of that movement, then their program, however sincere, is not and could not be anything but Blanquism by another name.

[Omsk]

If the Bolsheviks did not act as the agents of that movement


But how can you say they were not "agents" of that movement?When they were,they completely changed Russia and a good portion of Eurasia.And if you cant accept that they changed it (I wont be specific) ,for the betterment of workers and people generally,than i really dont know how can we even discuss over this matter.

[Blake's Baby]

So you can stop discussing. Many of us see the years 1921*-1989 as being no better than any of the years since 1989 or any of the years before 1917. If that means you don't want to talk to us, that's fine.

*I'm not going to claim that 1921 is the only possible date of counter-revolutionary victory in the Soviet Republic but I'm damned sure that after 1921 if not before the counter-revolution was gaining the upper hand. There were healthy groups in the Bolshevik party up until 1921 for sure (though they were small minorities and they were purged after the banning of fractions, and the more-or-less healthy reactions outside of the party were crushed by the Red Army even before 1921 sometimes), and there were healthy currents in the CI after 1921; and even Trotsky had some valid criticisms, and the Trotskyists were purged after 1924, though I see Trotskyism as the last, the weakest and most confused - in other words the least healthy - of those reactions to the degeneration of the revolution.

In short, if you want to claim the revolution was lost in 1918, or 1919, or 1920, I'm not going to argue too much. But anyone who claims that the Russian revolution was healthy after 1921 (limping along as it did until perhaps 1924), or the world revolution after 1926 (and it dies in 1927), is a supporter of the counter-revolution. 'In my opinion'.

[Lanky Wanker]

Or it may be between immediate communisation and the transitional society.

Yay, we're getting somewhere. :thumbup1: This is what I mean lol.

[Zav]

Yay, we're getting somewhere. :thumbup1: This is what I mean lol.
There were about four posts with texts for you to read, and the rest is a tendency war about to boil over. These threads rarely get three pages long without someone calling someone else a revisionist or a reactionary. You probably should have made separate topics.


Kontrrazvedka, saying a book is utter bullshit does not constitute an argument, nor is it relevant, as the OP was requesting books from both sides of the brawl and not what ones you like and don't.

[Comrade Hill]

What plans? Creation of capitalism? Reduction of workers rights? Sending workers to labour camps? Stakhanovists? Market? Commodity production? Revisionism of Marxism? Banning political economy from universities because students who read Capital recoqnised capitalism in USSR? Famine? I can go forever.

Marxism-Leninism has only one point - to defend every shit Stalin did. I don't defend Bukharin. I believe he ended up his life as a wanker. Same goes to Iron Felix. Still, I support both of them before 1918 and their actions and ideas. Why? Because they were internationalists!

First, before I recommend more sources to this guy, I will have to address the tendency arguments.

Kontrrazvedka, I'd like to point out that in order to make a valid argument, you MUST give sources and examples.

You cannot just make claims without evidence, and expect people to take you seriously. Revisionism? Besides the post-Stalin era, where was there revisionism of Marxism? And when specifically did they ban "Capital" from Universities? In the USSR, the wage structure was substantially different than what you would see in an average capitalist society.

"The new class of state managers, or "red directors" of factories, who have replaced the former capitalist owners, are mostly Communists and former workers. But by the very nature of their position they must look at industrial life from a rather different angle from that of the workers. Although they make no personal profit out of the enterprises which they manage, they are supposed to turn in a profit for the state."
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 174

You can call that capitalism if you are honestly that desperate to just implement a communist society without taking into consideration the material conditions of class society. I call that socialism.

Commodity production will exist in socialism. The PROFIT motive will exist in socialism. It's just that in socialism, society as a whole benefits from the profit, and not the bourgeoisie.

And famine, for heaven's sakes, when are you left-coms, lib-coms, and bourgeois democrats going to come up with EVIDENCE that the famine was caused by the STATE? And which specific famine are you talking about? Most of the famine that happened in the east was due to poor weather, the refusal of the Kulaks to cultivate the soil, or wrong reports to the central committee. Those miscalculations could be solved by using technology and computers.

To the OP:

If you are interested in some M-L anti-revisionist literature, here it is.

"A Wrong Conception of the Dialectical Dying Off of Commodity-Money Relations in Socialism or a Concealed Theory of Market Socialism"
http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/Rdv3n2/inter.htm

"The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism - V.I. Lenin"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm

"The Foundations of Leninism - J.V. Stalin"
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm

"Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - F. Engels"
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

[Blake's Baby]

...

You cannot just make claims without evidence, and expect people to take you seriously. Revisionism? Besides the post-Stalin era, where was there revisionism of Marxism? And when specifically did they ban "Capital" from Universities? In the USSR, the wage structure was substantially different than what you would see in an average capitalist society.

"The new class of state managers, or "red directors" of factories, who have replaced the former capitalist owners, are mostly Communists and former workers. But by the very nature of their position they must look at industrial life from a rather different angle from that of the workers. Although they make no personal profit out of the enterprises which they manage, they are supposed to turn in a profit for the state."
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 174

You can call that capitalism if you are honestly that desperate to just implement a communist society without taking into consideration the material conditions of class society. I call that socialism.

Commodity production will exist in socialism. The PROFIT motive will exist in socialism. It's just that in socialism, society as a whole benefits from the profit, and not the bourgeoisie...

As I think you're trying to be reasonable about this I'm going to extend to you the same courtesy.

You have to realise that for Marxists who are not Leninists, even those from tendencies that supported the October Revolution (such as the Left Communists), Lenin was a revisionist of Marxism; his notion that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the same as the lower stage of Communism and that both could be equated with socialism were a revision of Marxism; the idea that communism was 'the soviet system plus electrification' was a revision of Marxism; his fusion of party and state was a revision of Marxism that led to the massacre of Kronstadt, on the anniversary of the Paris Commune no less - Lenin became Thiers, leader of a country that massacred its own revolutionary workers; his idea that 'socialisation' could occurr in Russia without the world revolution was a revision of Marxism; his institution of the NEP was a revision of Marxism; his call for a 'democratic republic of the workers and peasants' was a revision of Marxism.

Now, some of these revisions were due to trying to apply Marxist method in a situation unseen by Marx - the proletarait overthrowing the state in a large, majority peasant country but the revolution failing to spread. But we - non-Leninist Marxists - argue the majority of these revisions could be argued to be mistakes - massive tragic mistakes committed in a time of turmoil while the way ahead was not clear - and this is what the Left Communists tend to argue. But the point about mistakes is that one makes them once and never again, one does not hold up the mistakes as a great new policy.

Of course the greatest rivisionism of Marxism was by Stalin with the theory of 'socialism in one country'. This seals the counter-revolution in the eyes of Left Communists; there is no way back from the adoption by the CI of 'socialism in one country' in 1927. Of course, the Bolsheviks had already lost the other Marxists, for instance the SPGB, long before that. Even the Trotskyists, who generally are regarded by Left Communists as far too tied to the Soviet state, regard 'socialism in one country' as a betrayal of Marxism.

On to some of your assertions, there will be no 'profit motive' in socialism if your understanding of socialism is a Marxist one; Marx does not distinguish between socialism and communism, but Lenin does (and he doesn't distinguish between the lower phase of communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Marx does). So if you argue there will be 'profit' and 'commodities' under socialism, you aren't arguing as a Marxist, because 'profit' and 'commodities' are defining characteristics of capitalism. Capitalism is not socialism and vice versa. If you think that the state will control the economy as a giant industrial combine, then you are arguing for state capitalism, as Engels outlines in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, chapter 3: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm (1880) and Wilhelm Liebknecht argues in 1896 that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism - http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm - so again, we have here a problem of Leninst revisionism of Marxism. Yes, we do refer to the Soviet Union as capitalism, as the working class in the USSR had their labour expropriated by a capitalist combine - the state capitalist USSR itself. It makes no difference if control of the combine is entrusted to a bank, a board or the state - if the working class is working for its labour to be expropriated it's capitalism, not socialism. That is a fundamental difference between Leninist and non-Leninist interpretations of Marxism, in which Lenin quite obviously used the word 'socialism' in a manner different to Marx, whereas Left Comms, SPGBers, Luxemburgists and other non-Leninist Marxists use 'socialism' in the same way Marx and Engels did.

[Искра]

Kontrrazvedka, I'd like to point out that in order to make a valid argument, you MUST give sources and examples. I gave examples.

Here are sources.

Raya Dunayevskaya: Marxism & Freedom
Raya Dunayevskaya: Marxist-Humanist theory of State Capitalism

Both books can be found on amazon.com.

Here are also some of articles from second book:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm), 1941
An Analysis of Russian Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm), 1942
A New Revision of Marxian Economics (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1944/revision.htm), 1944
New Developments in Stalin’s Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/10/new-developments-russia.htm), 1946
The Nature of the Russian Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm), 1946

I believe that this is good enough.

Also, this is verry good book:
Chattopadhyay, Paresh: The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience (http://libcom.org/files/Chattopadhyay,%20Paresh%20-%20The%20Marxian%20Concept%20of%20Capital%20and%20 the%20Soviet%20Experience.pdf)

Anything else?

[Omsk]

Left Communism is too idealistic,for instance,Bordiga believed that a society in which money,buying,trading etc cant be considered socialist or communist,and the Left Communists who admire him have the same stance,and that is one of the things they put against the SU.I wonder if a teritory led by Left-Communists would actually be any better than the many states who claimed to be socialist or communist.Probably not.
But lets not go into hypothetical questions.

Another these ultra-leftists seem to completely condemn is the NEP.

I personally agree with Lenin on this one,it was a step backwards.

The NEP was needed,and if idealist left communists would rather see the Soviet Union perish and the class struggle grounded to a halt,so be it.It is obvious that the NEP was not something that was greated with joy among the Bolsheviks,even Lenin admited it was not something positive,in any way,but he made it clear that it was necessary.

The opposition forgot that Lenin,in his later articles,warned of the "rushing ahead too rashly and quickly," they forget the "better fewer, but better" These articles were completely ignored and forgoten.And still they act as if Lenin was responsible for everything that didnt go right in the SU.


Here are also some of articles from second book:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm), 1941
An Analysis of Russian Economy (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm), 1942
A New Revision of Marxian Economics (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1944/revision.htm), 1944
New Developments in Stalin’s Russia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/10/new-developments-russia.htm), 1946
The Nature of the Russian Economy (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm), 1946


All the articles you posted have a heavy emphasis on the the Soviet Union under Stalin,and are not worth much in the debate over the Leninist SU.

[Tim Finnegan]

But how can you say they were not "agents" of that movement?When they were,they completely changed Russia and a good portion of Eurasia.And if you cant accept that they changed it (I wont be specific) ,for the betterment of workers and people generally,than i really dont know how can we even discuss over this matter.
Everything you've just said is also true of Napoleon Bonaparte. So maybe think about that a bit harder.


I wonder if a teritory led by Left-Communists would actually be any better than the many states who claimed to be socialist or communist.Probably not.The problem there is in thinking that putting territory under the control of ideologues of any stripe is a good idea. Hence "dictatorship of the proletariat" and and all.

[Rooster]

believed that a society in which money,buying,trading etc cant be considered socialist or communist

Why is it idealistic to believe that you have to abolish the conditions that maintain capitalism so that you can move on and create socialism? :confused:

[Искра]

If there's class society with commodity production and wedge labour it's called capitalism, Stalin or no Stalin in charge.

[Comrade Hill]

As I think you're trying to be reasonable about this I'm going to extend to you the same courtesy.

You have to realise that for Marxists who are not Leninists, even those from tendencies that supported the October Revolution (such as the Left Communists), Lenin was a revisionist of Marxism; his notion that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the same as the lower stage of Communism and that both could be equated with socialism were a revision of Marxism; the idea that communism was 'the soviet system plus electrification' was a revision of Marxism; his fusion of party and state was a revision of Marxism that led to the massacre of Kronstadt, on the anniversary of the Paris Commune no less - Lenin became Thiers, leader of a country that massacred its own revolutionary workers; his idea that 'socialisation' could occurr in Russia without the world revolution was a revision of Marxism; his institution of the NEP was a revision of Marxism; his call for a 'democratic republic of the workers and peasants' was a revision of Marxism.


My goodness, you make it sound like M-Ls are the ultimate revisionists.

Marx did not put forth any specific "revolutionary theory" or way of achieving communism. So the points you have made for the most part are moot.

And you claim Lenin became of a leader of a country whose workers died. Isn't that what happens during a revolution?

And who said that M-Ls were against world revolution? We fully support a world revolution. It's "permanent revolution" that has to happen all at once that we don't support.



Now, some of these revisions were due to trying to apply Marxist method in a situation unseen by Marx - the proletarait overthrowing the state in a large, majority peasant country but the revolution failing to spread. But we - non-Leninist Marxists - argue the majority of these revisions could be argued to be mistakes - massive tragic mistakes committed in a time of turmoil while the way ahead was not clear - and this is what the Left Communists tend to argue. But the point about mistakes is that one makes them once and never again, one does not hold up the mistakes as a great new policy.


These "revisions" you are talking about are not revisions, but the additional dialects that Lenin contributed to Marxism.

The peasantry was an oppressed class just like the proletariat, and the theory was to revolt against the Bourgeoisie and turn the peasantry against the bourgeoisie, and to the proletariat.

Albeit there were some slight problems with that, it wasn't "wrong" to support the peasantry at that time. Even Stalin has said that we should not support ANY form of peasantry regardless of the situation.



Of course the greatest rivisionism of Marxism was by Stalin with the theory of 'socialism in one country'. This seals the counter-revolution in the eyes of Left Communists; there is no way back from the adoption by the CI of 'socialism in one country' in 1927. Of course, the Bolsheviks had already lost the other Marxists, for instance the SPGB, long before that. Even the Trotskyists, who generally are regarded by Left Communists as far too tied to the Soviet state, regard 'socialism in one country' as a betrayal of Marxism.


Do you know how many times I've heard this argument?

Socialism in one country, again, is a dialectical and materialist contribution to Marxism.

And what is this "counter-revolution" you are talking about?



On to some of your assertions, there will be no 'profit motive' in socialism if your understanding of socialism is a Marxist one; Marx does not distinguish between socialism and communism, but Lenin does (and he doesn't distinguish between the lower phase of communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Marx does). So if you argue there will be 'profit' and 'commodities' under socialism, you aren't arguing as a Marxist, because 'profit' and 'commodities' are defining characteristics of capitalism. Capitalism is not socialism and vice versa. If you think that the state will control the economy as a giant industrial combine, then you are arguing for state capitalism, as Engels outlines in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, chapter 3: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm (1880) and Wilhelm Liebknecht argues in 1896 that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism - http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm - so again, we have here a problem of Leninst revisionism of Marxism. Yes, we do refer to the Soviet Union as capitalism, as the working class in the USSR had their labour expropriated by a capitalist combine - the state capitalist USSR itself. It makes no difference if control of the combine is entrusted to a bank, a board or the state - if the working class is working for its labour to be expropriated it's capitalism, not socialism. That is a fundamental difference between Leninist and non-Leninist interpretations of Marxism, in which Lenin quite obviously used the word 'socialism' in a manner different to Marx, whereas Left Comms, SPGBers, Luxemburgists and other non-Leninist Marxists use 'socialism' in the same way Marx and Engels did.

You are arguing from a non-existant viewpoint that Marx supposedly held, that socialism is where profit does not exist, Marx did not say such a thing.

And also, the word "profit" can have different functions from how "profit" functions in a bourgeois republic.

Engels also says this:


Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.

That is what was taking place in the USSR. The typical work day in the Soviet Union was organized by SOVIETS, workers councils. Those factories then set their own hours and schedules to meet the central plan.

How is this state capitalist?

[Comrade Hill]

As I think you're trying to be reasonable about this I'm going to extend to you the same courtesy.

You have to realise that for Marxists who are not Leninists, even those from tendencies that supported the October Revolution (such as the Left Communists), Lenin was a revisionist of Marxism; his notion that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the same as the lower stage of Communism and that both could be equated with socialism were a revision of Marxism; the idea that communism was 'the soviet system plus electrification' was a revision of Marxism; his fusion of party and state was a revision of Marxism that led to the massacre of Kronstadt, on the anniversary of the Paris Commune no less - Lenin became Thiers, leader of a country that massacred its own revolutionary workers; his idea that 'socialisation' could occurr in Russia without the world revolution was a revision of Marxism; his institution of the NEP was a revision of Marxism; his call for a 'democratic republic of the workers and peasants' was a revision of Marxism.


InEngels says here that democratic governments set up by the proletariat can be elected directly or indirectly, indirectly meaning if the majority of the population is the peasantry, they can still join sides with the proletariat.

That idea is hardly revisionist at all, and Marx never specifically spoke out against that.

And how is the NEP revisionist? You are doing the same thing Kontrrazvedka is doing, you are making claims but you are not offering anything else.



Now, some of these revisions were due to trying to apply Marxist method in a situation unseen by Marx - the proletarait overthrowing the state in a large, majority peasant country but the revolution failing to spread. But we - non-Leninist Marxists - argue the majority of these revisions could be argued to be mistakes - massive tragic mistakes committed in a time of turmoil while the way ahead was not clear - and this is what the Left Communists tend to argue. But the point about mistakes is that one makes them once and never again, one does not hold up the mistakes as a great new policy.


Mistakes such as.....? Not enforcing the rule of socialist law? Allowing the kulaks to refuse to cultivate soil in the agricultural sector? Allowing some revisionists to have a say in the government? What mistakes are you talking about?



Of course the greatest rivisionism of Marxism was by Stalin with the theory of 'socialism in one country'. This seals the counter-revolution in the eyes of Left Communists; there is no way back from the adoption by the CI of 'socialism in one country' in 1927. Of course, the Bolsheviks had already lost the other Marxists, for instance the SPGB, long before that. Even the Trotskyists, who generally are regarded by Left Communists as far too tied to the Soviet state, regard 'socialism in one country' as a betrayal of Marxism.


You are not saying anything new here. What makes you think I don't know the position of Left-Coms and Trotskyists?

And are you sure the SPGB is Marxist? What exactly is the Socialist Party of Great Britain? What is their stance on revolution? I am looking on Wikipedia and it says they take in interest in using the ballot box. It also says they opposed War World II. They sound like a bunch of pacifists.

Do I even want to picture what could've happened to the Soviet Union, yet alone the whole world, if they refused to fight in WW2?



On to some of your assertions, there will be no 'profit motive' in socialism if your understanding of socialism is a Marxist one; Marx does not distinguish between socialism and communism, but Lenin does (and he doesn't distinguish between the lower phase of communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Marx does). So if you argue there will be 'profit' and 'commodities' under socialism, you aren't arguing as a Marxist, because 'profit' and 'commodities' are defining characteristics of capitalism. Capitalism is not socialism and vice versa. If you think that the state will control the economy as a giant industrial combine, then you are arguing for state capitalism, as Engels outlines in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, chapter 3: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm (1880) and Wilhelm Liebknecht argues in 1896 that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism - http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm - so again, we have here a problem of Leninst revisionism of Marxism. Yes, we do refer to the Soviet Union as capitalism, as the working class in the USSR had their labour expropriated by a capitalist combine - the state capitalist USSR itself. It makes no difference if control of the combine is entrusted to a bank, a board or the state - if the working class is working for its labour to be expropriated it's capitalism, not socialism. That is a fundamental difference between Leninist and non-Leninist interpretations of Marxism, in which Lenin quite obviously used the word 'socialism' in a manner different to Marx, whereas Left Comms, SPGBers, Luxemburgists and other non-Leninist Marxists use 'socialism' in the same way Marx and Engels did.

Capital circulation was set up purtaining to the law of value in the USSR.

Workers worked for factories that were run by local Soviets, or worker's councils. They would decide the schedule and the hours for the day, which typically was 8 hours, however they were much longer during the industrialization period.

Commodities had a different function in the Soviet Union, they functioned according to plan for society as a whole. There was no alienation of labor because employment relied on a universal expansion of the means of production. That means that near full employment was required to keep the economy expanding.