Future of Communism

[Capitalist Octopus]

In the past it seems as if the Marxist-Leninist tendency had it's time in the sun, and ultimately sputtered out. In the future, what tendency do you think will lead the struggle (if any) and why?

[Blake's Baby]

Is this deliberate flamebait/trolling?

There are still a lot of Marxist-Leninists around. Add the Stalinist MLs to the Maoists and you have more MLs than any other tendency that calls itself Marxist. Probably more than the Anarcho-Syndicalists too. So they would be the largest tendency that claims to be revolutionary.

I don't think tendencies 'lead struggle'. I think the working class leads struggle. The working class produces minorities trying to learn political lessons: these are the people who become political activists. They take up the analyses and theories, and join the organisations, that seem most sensible to them, either because they think that the analyses of these organisations coincide with their own view of reality, or because they see these organisations as the most likely to be able to influence the future class struggle in a positive way, or both.

No-one is going to claim any tendency other than their own will be the most important in terms of future struggle, even if it's not necessarily going to be the biggest. That would imply that people believed that their own tendency would be less important than other tendencies, in other words that the working class would not be able to generally recognise the correctness of their own tendency's positions. Why would anyone believe that?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I think it will be simply Marxist.
The only reason is that the us demonizes the ussr(which was not really Marxist-Leninist but whatever) I have the feeling people are going to go back to the roots

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A combination of various tendencies which will eventually culminate in a workers revolution against the establishment of capitalism.My view anyway.

[el_chavista]

In the past it seems as if the Marxist-Leninist tendency had it's time in the sun, and ultimately sputtered out. You don't explain why M-L's time "sputterd out". ¿Is it the falling of the URSS, the capitalist restoration of China? Clearly it's a matter of ideological deviation of some ruling cliques: a "capitalist roader" is not a M-L-ist any more.


In the future, what tendency do you think will lead the struggle (if any) and why?Tendencies are just points of view on what tactic/strategy is suited best for a revolutionary situation. There even may be a unified theory for that matter we haven't got yet.

[Lanky Wanker]

A combination of various tendencies which will eventually culminate in a workers revolution and the establishment of capitalism.My view anyway.

Agreed. I don't see how we can suddenly say "hi everyone, we are going to go about the revolution the way *random communist* said it should happen, and any other leftists who disagree can go fuck themselves." It'll happen according to what needs to happen at the time and place.

[ed miliband]

Communism isn't about how many people call themselves 'Maoists' or 'anarcho-communists' or whatever.

[Tim Cornelis]

There will certainly be some leading concepts of revolution that are adopted by the working class.

There will not be a uniform revolution. There will be multiple tendencies at the same time with one dominating discourse and practice depending on the region in question.

For example, Scandinavia is marked by a social tranquility. A social revolution over there is more likely to be a social-democratic one of gradualism.

A social revolution in Mexico and South Africa is more likely to be indebted to anarchic ideals given the anarchic activities over there which seemingly outnumber Marxist-Leninists.

There is no clear cut answer to be given.

[ed miliband]

There will certainly be some leading concepts of revolution that are adopted by the working class.

There will not be a uniform revolution. There will be multiple tendencies at the same time with one dominating discourse and practice depending on the region in question.

For example, Scandinavia is marked by a social tranquility. A social revolution over there is more likely to be a social-democratic one of gradualism.

A social revolution in Mexico and South Africa is more likely to be indebted to anarchic ideals given the anarchic activities over there which seemingly outnumber Marxist-Leninists.

There is no clear cut answer to be given.

this stinks of a sort of national essentialism that really pisses me off. e.g. i once read that there had never been a revolution in england (which is bullshit) because the english are naturally suspicious of fast social change or something. this was written by a liberal intellectual (with marxist pretensions) in a book about folk music. it's clearly crap.

yeah, revolutions may differ around the globe, but to say:


Scandinavia is marked by a social tranquility. A social revolution over there is more likely to be a social-democratic one of gradualism.

just.. what?!

[feral bro]

movements are dead. welcome to the post-modernist world, baby!

[Tim Cornelis]

this stinks of a sort of national essentialism that really pisses me off. e.g. i once read that there had never been a revolution in england (which is bullshit) because the english are naturally suspicious of fast social change or something. this was written by a liberal intellectual (with marxist pretensions) in a book about folk music. it's clearly crap.

yeah, revolutions may differ around the globe, but to say:

just.. what?!


What you're implying, though, is that there is some revolutionary blueprint that is universally applicable. I, on the other hand, recognise that revolutions are shaped by the economic state and political culture of society. I am not at all arguing that there is something ingrained into Scandinavia's gene pool that inhibits them from executing a revolution. The notion that "the English are naturally suspicious of fast social change" is not based on political culture or economic circumstances but an argument from the genetic nature of English people, which is indeed ridiculous.

Obviously, a country marked by social, economic, and political tranquility is unlikely to see a violent social revolution and is more likely to be prone to a social-democratic approach.

[Firebrand]

this stinks of a sort of national essentialism that really pisses me off. e.g. i once read that there had never been a revolution in england (which is bullshit) because the english are naturally suspicious of fast social change or something. this was written by a liberal intellectual (with marxist pretensions) in a book about folk music. it's clearly crap.
No there haven't been any recent revolutions in england because of a variety of social-economic factors, including the fact that england industrialised first and that on the whole the english ruling class called it right on when to make concessions and when to start a crack-down in order to keep a lid on unrest. This just proves that liberals are totally wrong-headed about how society works.

[Firebrand]

Obviously, a country marked by social, economic, and political tranquility is unlikely to see a violent social revolution and is more likely to be prone to a social-democratic approach.

There is no social democratic route. What part of revolutionary left do you not understand.

[MotherCossack]

In the past it seems as if the Marxist-Leninist tendency had it's time in the sun, and ultimately sputtered out. In the future, what tendency do you think will lead the struggle (if any) and why?

OH GOODY.... A DEBATE WORTH HAVING!
I KEEP TRYING TO BRING THIS UP, BUT NO-ONE SEEMS INTERESTED.
I SERIOUSLY THINK THAT THE COMMITTED REVOLUTIONARIES AMONG US NEED TO ADDRESS THE SEEMINGLY UNSTOPPABLE DETERIORATION IN THE HEALTH OF THE LEFT.
You go straight to the centre [you should be able to see it from here] , turn sharp left... and it will hit you... the malaise is everywhere....is it terminal?.... nobody knows, whether enough people care is open to debate.... time will tell...
politics has no free health service, no insurance, no-one is responsible...we are all responsible.
in fact...WE ARE POLITICS....

if we all say;
HA!..i'm not interested... its not a fair system...not my concern...i'n not gonna get my hands dirty.... naaaaa! leave that to the poor suckers who ... whatever...democracy is shit... i'm too good for that shit...i cant be bothered... too busy living... bla bla bla bla......

guess what will inevitably happen?!....
yep! not that hard to work it out is it?..

politics will die!!!
everyone loves democracy.. talks about preserving it ... extending it...but democracy is only a [or rather has become]
a word hijacked by imperialists and capitalists to protect their nice little earner.... namely US! THE STATE, WRAPPED UP IN A TASTY COVER called DEMOCRACY
Meanwhile lost in the shadows... hides the political spectrum.... lost, forgotten and getting more unwell by the minute.

damn!.. I HAVE WORKED OUT THAT LONG POSTS GET, LARGELY, IGNORED..SHORT,SEXY AND TO THE POINT...SO I MIGHT STOP RIGHT NOW.... anyway, my daughter wants to go on skype!!!!! back later..?

[MotherCossack]

Hey did i just become an anarchist?
i just read my post...
what do i mean?
i know i mean something.....

[Lanky Wanker]

Hey did i just become an anarchist?
i just read my post...
what do i mean?
i know i mean something.....

You mean we don't have democracy and the word is used as pretty packaging for ugly food. That, or I read your post completely wrong.

[MotherCossack]

you are on the right track...
let me try to elaborate....
DEMOCRACY... is a bit of a red herring... a thing we have all been told repeatedly is the defining feature of a civilised society, the big, meaningful, wonderful system that we, being so enlightened, have elected to uphold!..
of course it is all such a heap of super-shite.
DEMOCRACY is nothing but a word. a word that is becoming increasingly more meaningless and furthermore has become a huge weapon that the elite and the lucky few that have the means to wield such a stick use to perpetuate the status quo.

i dont wanna come across as an arrogant clever dick,and i dont know about you lot, but i dont understand why a few more people dont see through all their crap... i mean most of it isn't even very clever....

WHAT THEY SAY, WHAT WE SAY, WHAT ANYONE SAYS... DOESNT MATTER A JOT.... IT IS WORDs..... SOUNDS.... GRUNTS....
WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT WE DO, HOW WE DO IT, THE WAY WE DO IT..

Maybe we should scrap all words and start again ... with basic priorities, like:
-is it fair?
-is it cruel
-if it got done to us would we like it.?
-do we need it?
-will it hurt anyone?
-can we do things together this time?........
etc etc

[MotherCossack]

oh yeah i meant to add that because we all have been told that democracy is an end in itself, we have stopped thinking for ourselves or asking any probing questions about any damn thing.
us, the ruled over classes think [possibly]or more accurately, dont think..in a civilised democracy we dont have to... all very convenient for those who landed at the top when the game of musical chairs stopped.
but such complacency is[as us on the left should know full well] is the corrosive by-product of it all that does the real damage.

now... too much heavy duty brain ache... this fool needs a rest...