Pete
19th November 2003, 03:33
Originally posted by Revolution
[email protected] 18 2003, 07:13 PM
I had been anarchist, and then I became Marxist Leninist. I think that each leftist, who tries to find the truth, will finally come to the conclusion that scientific theory of Marxism Leninism is the only objective teaching, which opens the road to communism (stateless society)!
:lol: Come on now, you can't replace one ruling class with another and expect it to ever roll over and disappate itself.
I myself have been transforming over the past year or so, but I've been where I am now for the past 6 months or so. Leninism just makes no sense and is definitely not "objective," such an opinion is extremely subjective in favour of Leninism.
Now I am more in line that it is only through consious class action that anything can happen and be sustained. I mean, if you try to force an armed revolution on a population who does not completely understand your motives, what are you acheiving? Are they just following you because you are giving them bread and are not as bad as the ones who came before you? What if they find out you are wrong? No, forcing these ideals on people can not succeed, that is the way of the past, and seeing it as the failure that it is we can learn from these mistakes and move on.
If the entire working class becomes consious of their plight and that they can make a change their will be no need for an elitist vanguard, as the people will speak for themselves. What is the point of going through someone else's mouth when yours is just as effective? Just as loud? Just as strong? Leninism is for the times when these conditions have not been met yet, and as we have seen, it has not been very successful.
The inflexible doctrine which most Leninists seem to present is hardly objective, but it always seems like they are looking through their own hero's glasses, and if not disregarding, not accepting anyother view point. Through open thought, and the acceptance of others open thought, change can come. Of course I don't accept Leninism, although at one time it seemed right for some situations. The Zapitista's changed my mind.
My doctrine may seem inflexible against Leninism, which it certaintly is, but I have accepted that I was wrong in believing that Leninism could accomplish anything substantial. Sure the USSR became a super power, and Cuba is now brighter than it was under Batista, but so what. That is hardly "democratic" centralism, but "bureaucratic" or even "authoritarian" centralism.
Centralization is not what we want, but decentralization so that each can have what the need. There need be no "invisible" (or in some cases highly visible) hand forcing (or coercing or even directing) people to do things they don't want to. If that exists, then obviously change came before it could be substained by those who it is supposively benifiting. This new elite is not helpful, but harmful.
If someone tells you what to do from birth to death, you may question it, but do you question it fundamentally? To the core of its "truth?" Or would you go forth believing that you are in the right just because, as so many people do today?
The left is not fundamentally right with out question. Niether is any one doctrine. Doctrines have flaws, all of them. So, then, what is the correct path? I think that question is not irrelevant, but irranswerable. The correct path would be the one that the masses sporatically see coming together before them, not the one that some petty group tells them is correct. I feel that the path will be one towards decentralization, lack of authority, and an acceptance of humanity for what it is: a part of nature.
And what is nature but a series of interactions between equally important pieces? Like an organism. Each part is important to the overall survival, if not vital. Class just doesn't fit well into this 'structure,' now does it? Yet every creature knows what it needs to do to survive, and does it. Selfishness does not have a place, and niether does a hierarchy, for the most part.
But the direction, the road, that we (not "educated elite" or "vangaurd" but "we the people") cannot be defined by anything, not even Marxist-Leninism, not even Marxism (although it gives a framework to think in, the class struggle), but by the actions taken en mass.
We may not be able to create the material conditions, but we are able to spread the seeds, like the Zapitistas, and allow a decentralized movement take evolve in many locations simultaneously against what is percieved as a threat. The threat, of course, is the "system" and all of its mechanicisms, right down to any and all forms of elitism.
Well that was a rather long ramble, I hope it is atleast thought provoking.
-Pete