can someone from this group explain this?

[gorillafuck]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=929


Considering the fact that 2/3 of Russia is in Asia we can also talk about the October Revolution and the current Socialist state of the Russian Federation.

yeah, that right there.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=929



yeah, that right there.

I think what Bostana really meant was "the current state of socialism (i.e. the activity of communist parties, the current government's portrayal of Soviet times, and the current effects of past socialist rule) in the Russian Federation."

[Caj]

As if the idea of a "socialist state" wasn't already absurd enough. . . .

[The Douche]

Maybe they mean the state of socialism in the Russian Federation, I hope thats what it means, anyway...

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

As if the idea of a "socialist state" wasn't already absurd enough. . . .

Just because Marx and Engels used the term "socialism" and "communism" "interchangeably," that does not mean that you have to constantly equate socialism to what everyone else calles communism.

[Caj]

Just because Marx and Engels used the term "socialism" and "communism" "interchangeably," that does not mean that you have to constantly equate socialism to what everyone else calles communism.

And who's "everyone else"? M-Ls? :laugh:

[Dogs On Acid]

Just because Marx and Engels used the term "socialism" and "communism" "interchangeably," that does not mean that you have to constantly equate socialism to what everyone else calles communism.

Yes you do.

Unless you want to help Capitalists spread disinformation and mutilate the word Socialism even further.

[Red Rabbit]

Didn't you know? Russia has always been Socialist. The resolving of the Soviet Union was just a hoax to try and trick the U.S into believing they're no longer Socialist.

But we know better, don't we comrades? *wink**wink* *nudge**nudge*

[Krano]

And who's "everyone else"? M-Ls? :laugh:
I guess so since no other tendency has any political power anywhere.

[Offbeat]

Didn't you know? Russia has always been Socialist. The resolving of the Soviet Union was just a hoax to try and trick the U.S into believing they're no longer Socialist.


Like in that Simpsons episode, I'd post a clip but I'm not allowed.

[Caj]

I guess so since no other tendency has any political power anywhere.

Yes, and the other tendencies don't want to hold political power. They want the proletariat to do so.

[Krano]

Yes, and the other tendencies don't want to hold political power. They want the proletariat to do so.
Pretty oxymoronic what you just said.

[Red Rabbit]

Pretty oxymoronic what you just said.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Care to elaborate?

[Caj]

Pretty oxymoronic what you just said.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron

I also don't think you know what that word means.

[DrStrangelove]

It means discussing the current state of socialist political parties and organizations within the Russian Federation.

It seemed p. obvious to me that's what it meant, but whatever.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

To Caj and Red Rabbit,

Krano is from Finland, while we are from the United States. Stop being assholes and going nuts over one English word that even some English speakers might not know how to use correctly.

[hatzel]

Children, children, behave...please...

[Caj]

To Caj and Red Rabbit,

Krano is from Finland, while we are from the United States. Stop being assholes and going nuts over one English word that even some English speakers might not know how to use correctly.

I'm not going nuts. I'm explaining to him/her that his/her post doesn't make any sense. That's hardly being an asshole.

[Krano]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron

I also don't think you know what that word means.
You don't want to hold political power, but you want to hold political power? :confused:

[Caj]

You don't want to hold political power, but you want to hold political power? :confused:

I want the workers to hold political party. I'm not the workers.

[Krano]

I want the workers to hold political party. I'm not the workers.
I want that also?..

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Also, it is funny how some people came to this thread only to spread their propaganda and they still got more thanks than the people who actually came to answer the OP's question. How sad.

Just look at Caj's first post. . . he already set the thread to be fucked up in only the second post.

CLOSE THIS THREAD.

[Caj]

Also, it is funny how some people came to this thread only to spread their propaganda and they still got more thanks than the people who actually came to answer the OP's question. How sad.

Just look at Caj's first post. . . he already set the thread to be fucked up in only the second post.

CLOSE THIS THREAD.

I wasn't expecting a bunch of Stalinists to freak out in response to my post.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I wasn't expecting a bunch of Stalinists to freak out in response to my post.

Yeah, cuz' that never happens . . .

[Omsk]

You all need to be reeducated,all of you need to be reeducated!(A joke of course.)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

You all need to be reeducated,all of you need to be reeducated!(A joke of course.)

Why the fuck does that have to be a joke:confused::confused::confused:

We can make it possible if we only revive Stalin and Hoxha.

[Red Rabbit]

I wasn't expecting a bunch of Stalinists to freak out in response to my post.

You should always expect Stalinists to freak out. That's like, their job here.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, and the other tendencies don't want to hold political power. They want the proletariat to do so.anarchists have held political power as a political force distinct from "the working class" as evidenced by their secret police forces, armed forces, forced collectivization, and governmental bodies which were run by anarchist ideologues.

[Caj]

anarchists have held political power as a political force distinct from "the working class" as evidenced by their secret police forces, armed forces, forced collectivization, and governmental bodies which were run by anarchist ideologues.

Accepting these things were true in the Free Territory (I presume that is what you are referring to), what's your point?

[gorillafuck]

Accepting these things were true in the Free Territory (I presume that is what you are referring to), what's your point?they were true in the free territory and Spain. the point is that anarchists have always sought political power when they were a force in revolution. you claimed that "other tendencies" (which I assumed included anarchism) didn't seek political power.

[Rafiq]

Yes you do.

Unless you want to help Capitalists spread disinformation and mutilate the word Socialism even further.

Wrong. Marx mentioned the "lower phase of communism" retaining the state.

So socialism isn't stateless. Lenin just replaced lower phase of communism with a different word.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

anarchists have held political power as a political force distinct from "the working class" as evidenced by their secret police forces, armed forces, forced collectivization, and governmental bodies which were run by anarchist ideologues.

I thought you were being sarcastic.

[Caj]

Wrong. Marx mentioned the "lower phase of communism" retaining the state.

No, he didn't. The difference between the lower and higher phases of communism is purely one of distribution.

[gorillafuck]

I thought you were being sarcastic.No, I was being completely serious.

[Caj]

they were true in the free territory and Spain. the point is that anarchists have always sought political power when they were a force in revolution. you claimed that "other tendencies" (which I assumed included anarchism) didn't seek political power.

Theoretically, though, they are opposed to anybody but the proletariat holding state power. The same can't be said of M-Ls who advocate the subjection of the proletariat to the party.

[gorillafuck]

Theoretically, though, they are opposed to anybody but the proletariat holding state power. The same can't be said of M-Ls who advocate the subjection of the proletariat to the party."theoretically"

[Caj]

"theoretically"

And?

You do realize that the actions of the anarchists in the aforementioned revolutions were a response to the material conditions of their respective regions, right? It's not like they sought power for powers sake or some bourgeois-idealist bullshit like that.

[Grenzer]

So socialism isn't stateless. Lenin just replaced lower phase of communism with a different word.

But didn't Lenin also say that Socialism is State Capitalism made to serve "the people"? It would be kind of weird if the lower phase of communism was actually capitalism, but then it would make sense in keeping with the idea that capitalism is the transitory, statist phase on the way to communism.

[gorillafuck]

And?theoretically north korea has free speech, as guaranteed in its constitution. it's obviously a load of complete bullshit. just as the anarchist claims of not seeking political power are.


You do realize that the actions of the anarchists in the aforementioned revolutions were a response to the material conditions of their respective regions, right? It's not like they sought power for powers sake or some bourgeois-idealist bullshit like that.that's the exact argument of statists to justify state power. in fact, Lenin laid out a very democratic and bottom up state initially. the argument was that that can't occur within the conditions that were given. you're making the same argument, but putting anarchists in the place of leninists. and actually justifying anarchists using the exact same tactics as leninists, but at the same time deriding leninists for their tactics.

[Caj]

theoretically north korea has free speech, as guaranteed in its constitution. it's obviously a load of complete bullshit. just as the anarchist claims of not seeking political power are.

Are you seriously incapable of understanding that the anarchists' pursuit of state power was a response to material conditions? It's not like anarchists are naturally "power hungry" or something.


that's the exact argument of statists to justify state power. in fact, Lenin laid out a very democratic and bottom up state initially. the argument was that that can't occur within the conditions that were given. you're making the same argument, but putting anarchists in the place of leninists. and actually justifying anarchists using the exact same tactics as leninists, but at the same time deriding leninists for their tactics.

Firstly, Lenin didn't lay out the DotP. The soviets were formed by the workers in the months prior to the Bolsheviks actually taking power. So quit perpetuating a great man version of events with Lenin portrayed as some sort of god.

Secondly, analyzing revolutions and their aftermaths through a materialist framework is a way of explaining and understanding, not justifying. We can show how the rise of a pseudo-socialist bourgeois regime was attributable to the material conditions of its respective region without supporting said regime.

Lastly, if you don't accept that the anarchists did what they did because of the material conditions of their respective regions, then what did cause them to do what they did? Any other answer to this question apart from what I said would amount to nothing more than idealist drivel.

[gorillafuck]

. . . What?it's true. in theory they claim to uphold free speech, elections, fair trial. Libya also in theory, as laid out in the constitution, was a very democratic state under Qaddafi. because "theoretically" doesn't mean anything.


No, it's not. It's a way of explaining and understanding the development of state revolutionary power from a materialist perspective, not justifying it.

If you don't accept that the anarchists did what they did because of the material conditions of their respective regions, then what did cause them to do what they did? Any other answer to this question apart from what I said would amount to nothing more than idealist drivel.oh, of course I accept that they did that because of material conditions. just as I accept that leninists have acted the way they have due to material conditions. because, due to material conditions, leninists and anarchists act identically.


Are you seriously incapable of understanding that the anarchists' pursuit of state power was a response to material conditions?I've denied that in no way at all. I've only pointed out your hypocritical application of that knowledge, i.e. condemnation of leninism, non-condemnation of anarchism


Firstly, Lenin didn't lay out the DotP. The soviets were formed in the months prior to the Bolsheviks actually taking power by the workers. So quit perpetuating a great man version of events with Lenin portrayed as some god.I didn't do that. but the bolsheviks played such a role in forming the soviet union that I don't feel like I need to mention when exactly everything happened.

[Manic Impressive]

Wrong. Marx mentioned the "lower phase of communism" retaining the state.

So socialism isn't stateless. Lenin just replaced lower phase of communism with a different word.
So you admit that Lenin changed the meaning that's cool. But someone else had already used the term socialism as having a state and money.


"From all according to their ability; to each according to his needs " is a Communist, not a Socialist, formula. The Socialist would insert "services" for "needs." They both agree about the common stock ; they disagree regarding the nature of what should be the effective claim of the individual to share in it. Socialists think of distribution through the channels of personal income ; Communists think of distribution through the channels of human rights to live. Hence Socialism requires some medium of exchange whether it is pounds sterling or labour notes; Communism requires no such medium of exchange."

It seems that Leninists have more in common with Ramsey Mac than they do with Marx or Engles. Must have been why Zinoviev approved of them :lol:

[Positivist]

I want the workers to hold political party. I'm not the workers.

Ok so it's settled. The workers will host the political party. Does that mean that they're catering it or are the ML's responsible for that? And who's bringin the beer?

[Caj]

it's true. in theory they claim to uphold free speech, elections, fair trial. Libya also in theory, as laid out in the constitution, was a very democratic state under Qaddafi. because "theoretically" doesn't mean anything.

You're misunderstanding what I meant by "theoretically". I was talking about anarchist theory, which advocates workers' power, versus Marxist-Leninist theory, which advocates a single-party bourgeois dictatorship, Socialism in One Country, and other anti-proletarian measures.


oh, of course I accept that they did that because of material conditions. just as I accept that leninists have acted the way they have due to material conditions. because, due to material conditions, leninists and anarchists act identically.

Okay, this seems sarcastic. They didn't act identically, but remotely similarly. Do you deny this?


I've denied that in no way at all. I've only pointed out your hypocritical approach to that knowledge, i.e. condemnation of bolsheviks, non-condemnation of anarchism

When the fuck did I condemn the Bolsheviks?! Perhaps you should read my god damn posts. Nothing I said indicated any condemnation for the Bolsheviks.


I didn't do that. but the bolsheviks played such a role in forming the soviet union that I don't feel like I need to mention when exactly everything happened.

You said Lenin laid out a "democratic" and "bottom up" state. That's a bunch of great man pseudo-history. The workers did this before the Bolsheviks took power.

[Bostana]

Exactly what Comrade Commistar said.

Really just the Socialist and Communist influence that Russia has.

And guy's really?
A simple question turned into this?

[gorillafuck]

You're misunderstanding what I meant by "theoretically". I was talking about anarchist theory, which advocates workers' power, versus Marxist-Leninist theory, which advocates a single-party bourgeois dictatorship, Socialism in One Country, and other anti-proletarian measures.and I'm talking about how that theory is useless when applied to real life revolutionary situations. Lenin and the bolsheviks theorized all those things too. they didn't come true because of what you have been talking about, material conditions.


Okay, this seems sarcastic. They didn't act identically, but remotely similarly. Do you deny this?secret police, suppression of free speech and assembly, extrajudicial executions, forced collectivization, I'm really not seeing where the big difference is.


When the fuck did I condemn the Bolsheviks?! Perhaps you should read my god damn posts. Nothing I said indicated any condemnation for the Bolsheviks.every tendency in the party was not at all libertarian and supported political power, though. didn't you say you oppose political power?


You said Lenin laid out a "democratic" and "bottom up" state. That's a bunch of great man pseudo-history. The workers did this before the Bolsheviks took power.I never said he specifically created all the soviets etc. but he was ideological guidance of the bolsheviks and the bolsheviks did come to power so I don't see whats wrong with referencing his ideology.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I know how we got here, but prefer not to point fingers...

Caj

:)

[gorillafuck]

no it's due to something I said. its not like this thread has become terrible though. this is fine.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

no it's due to something I said. its not like this thread has become terrible though. this is fine.

But it is insanely off-topic.

[gorillafuck]

But it is insanely off-topic.that's fine though, it's not like the really simple question asked could have gone on for a while.

[Caj]

and I'm talking about how that theory is useless when applied to real life revolutionary situations. Lenin and the bolsheviks theorized all those things too. they didn't come true because of what you have been talking about, material conditions.

Yes, but it seems like you're claiming that the actions of the anarchists stemmed from anarchism in some way. They didn't. They were the inevitable result of material conditions as you admit.


secret police, suppression of free speech and assembly, extrajudicial executions, forced collectivization, I'm really not seeing where the big difference is.

Yeah, I know, there wasn't a big difference. . . . Did I ever say there was? Lol

What are we arguing about again??


every tendency in the party was not at all libertarian and supported political power, though. didn't you say you oppose political power?

I never said anything of the sort. I believe the workng class should seize political power as they did in 1917.


I never said he specifically created all the soviets etc. but he was ideological guidance of the bolsheviks and the bolsheviks did come to power so I don't see whats wrong with referencing his ideology.

Okay. I just don't want to see the accomplishments of the Russian proletariat overshadowed by bourgeois-idealist hero worship, as often times is the case with Lenin.

[Caj]

I know how we got here, but prefer not to point fingers...

Caj

:)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I just make one little joke at the beginning of the thread, and all the Stalinists start attacking me! :crying:

:laugh:

EDIT: I like how off-topic this thread is. I think only like 3 people have responded to the OP's question.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, but it seems like you're claiming that the actions of the anarchists stemmed from anarchism in some way. They didn't. They were the inevitable result of material conditions as you admit.no, I didn't say that its due to anarchist ideology and have never contradicted your material conditions statements at all. the point is that history demonstrates that anarchists seek political power specifically for their ideology due to "material conditions" in the exact same way as other ideologies, which you claimed they did not do in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2403932&postcount=11) post.


Yeah, I know, there wasn't a big difference. . . . Did I ever say there was? Lol

What are we arguing about again??well here...

Okay, this seems sarcastic. They didn't act identically, but remotely similarly. Do you deny this?it's a bit more than "remotely similar".


I never said anything of the sort. I believe the workng class should seize political power as they did in 1917.they wanted their ideologies to have political power.

[Caj]

no, I didn't say that its due to anarchist ideology and have never contradicted your material conditions statements at all. the point is that history demonstrates that anarchists seek political power specifically for their ideology due to "material conditions" in the exact same way as other ideologies, which you claimed they did not do in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2403932&postcount=11) post.

You misinterpreted that post. I was talking about the theoretical bases for the tendencies. Marxism-Leninism is really the only tendency that rejects workers' control in theory.


well here...
it's a bit more than "remotely similar".

Whatever. Identical, remotely similar. The point is that there were similarities. I was under the impression that you were arguing that there weren't similarities, which led to confusion I think.


they wanted their ideologies to have political power.

Not sure what you mean by this. . . .

[Grenzer]

You misinterpreted that post. I was talking about the theoretical bases for the tendencies. Marxism-Leninism is really the only tendency that rejects workers' control in theory.

Careful, you're close to falling into a straw man trap here. Many of the bureaucracy loving elements of both the Stalinists and the Trotskyists will be quick to point out that Lenin used the phrase worker's control, which in Russian meant only a supervisory role; despite the fact that it's obvious that you mean something much more pervasive and systematic than a role of simple supervision. Just a little piece advice, since I know that crypto-stalinist MH is quick to pounce upon any use of "worker's control" to justify a massive bloated bureaucracy out of the control of the proletariat. Also as a precaution, I'd recommend avoiding "worker's self management" since that implies autonomy vis-à-vis market "socialism", which I'm sure you don't mean either.

[Caj]

Careful, you're close to falling into a straw man trap here. Many of the bureaucracy loving elements of both the Stalinists and the Trotskyists will be quick to point out that Lenin used the phrase worker's control, which in Russian meant only a supervisory role; despite the fact that it's obvious that you mean something much more pervasive and systematic than a role of simple supervision. Just a little piece advice, since I know that crypto-stalinist MH is quick to pounce upon any use of "worker's control" to justify a massive bloated bureaucracy out of the control of the proletariat. Also as a precaution, I'd recommend avoiding "worker's self management" since that implies autonomy vis-à-vis market "socialism", which I'm sure you don't mean either.

Workers' self-management doesn't necessarily imply a market system, does it? I thought it included both market "socialist" workers' cooperatives and non-market forms of workers' control such as soviets/councils. I would hope it would be obvious that I meant the latter.

Anyway, thanks for the precaution.

[Grenzer]

Workers' self-management doesn't necessarily imply a market system, does it? I thought it included both market "socialist" workers' cooperatives and non-market forms of workers' control such as soviets/councils. I would hope it would be obvious that I meant the latter.

Anyway, thanks for the precaution.

No problem.

I don't think it does really, but many people are willing to argue to the contrary. The argument goes is that in workers' self management, the workers would be accountable only to those in their workplace, rather than the working class as a whole. They could actually deprive others if needed resources if they wanted to. In other words, if a given factory manages entirely by itself how it's run and what's done with its product, then what you have is the beginnings of a market economy. I think it brings up a valid point, but what I think we should strive for is a balance between workplace democracy and accountability to the greater community as a whole. No one ever in modern times uses worker's control to mean a role of supervision, but opponents will argue that you are; I've seen MH and others do this many times.

[Rooster]

But didn't Lenin also say that Socialism is State Capitalism made to serve "the people"? It would be kind of weird if the lower phase of communism was actually capitalism, but then it would make sense in keeping with the idea that capitalism is the transitory, statist phase on the way to communism.

Marx says explicitly that it is not capitalism. From the Critique of the Gotha Program:


But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society.Note: "has just emerged... from capitalist society". Which in Marxist terms means the ending of all classes. There is no mention of a state being here.

Later on, in part 4, it's mentioned:


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Bostana]

1sONfxPCTU0

[Anarpest]

Wrong. Marx mentioned the "lower phase of communism" retaining the state. Well, I'm convinced. You use a compelling citation to make your point.


I guess so since no other tendency has any political power anywhere. I wonder if the capitalist parliamentarians used to argue with each other over how many kings had favoured their chosen systems.

[Proukunin]

We want the proletariat as a whole to hold power..Not one man or a few men who believe they can lead the way to Communism.

Sometimes I feel like M-L's just want some phony 'Socialist State' so that they can create another cult around their precious leader. Oh, and create cool propaganda posters.:laugh:


EDIT: I thought this was the next post to Caj's "We want the workers themselves to hold power".

Still relevant to what were talking about though.