Why leftist carry labels like ML, MLM, Stalinist, Trotskyist etc

[Anderson]

May be you have the following reasons:
- You want to show what you stand for
- This makes you comfortable in people of your kind
- This helps you cut short the arguments
etc etc

If I were a capitalist propagandist I would be very happy to see the state of the world revolutionary movement and which is also truly reflected at Revleft. Infact I would be proud at the success achieved.

Like a child born in rich family and poor family we need to realize that carrying different labels is also related to where we land up first when as a young person we first have the urge to contribute politically for a better society.

Also many of the labels are actually distortions induced by bourgeois ideology. We need to be open minded and debate and root out the obvious bourgeois leftist trends from our ranks and also have healthy debates with each other.

[Prometeo liberado]

We need to be open minded and debate and root out the obvious bourgeois leftist trends from our ranks and also have healthy debates with each other.
I would argue that this last sentence of yours is the very reason for such labels and tendancy wars. We don't argue for the sake of arguing.

[The Jay]

Identifying as one of those or other positions gives a quick overview of one's basic or specific views at a glance. It's a useful tool to use instead of explaining your position to everyone in depth.

How do we route out the bourgeois leftists if we don't debate?

[#FF0000]

May be you have the following reasons:
- You want to show what you stand for
- This makes you comfortable in people of your kind
- This helps you cut short the arguments
etc etc

If I were a capitalist propagandist I would be very happy to see the state of the world revolutionary movement and which is also truly reflected at Revleft. Infact I would be proud at the success achieved.

Like a child born in rich family and poor family we need to realize that carrying different labels is also related to where we land up first when as a young person we first have the urge to contribute politically for a better society.

Also many of the labels are actually distortions induced by bourgeois ideology. We need to be open minded and debate and root out the obvious bourgeois leftist trends from our ranks and also have healthy debates with each other.

so

should we all just start agreeing?

i mean sectarian shit is p. dumb but reflects wild differences in opinion on a lot of shit.

it's not just about 'labels'

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It is a matter of discussion, different opinions or tendencies of how to get to communism.

[Anderson]

I get the point about their usefulness in discussion.

What I tried to focus on is that do we become less healthy debaters by carrying a label?
Does it make us look at the other person's viewpoint fairly? and
Most Important - How are we sure that the other person with whatever label he/she is bearing has taken upon that label by a proper study?

For example few days back I saw a forum member observation on another member who had asked the basics of Marx and Engels teachings and he already had a label of Marxism - Leninism - Maoism

[The Jay]

I get the point about their usefulness in discussion.

What I tried to focus on is that do we become less healthy debaters by carrying a label?
Does it make us look at the other person's viewpoint fairly? and
Most Important - How are we sure that the other person with whatever label he/she is bearing has taken upon that label by a proper study?

For example few days back I saw a forum member observation on another member who had asked the basics of Marx and Engels teachings and he already had a label of Marxism - Leninism - Maoism

It does matter how much the person knows about the tendency that they claim to be. I think that no person should subscribe to a specific tendency without intense study, hence my vague tendency setting.

Labels of this sort can color our perceptions of another's words but that's the downside of not explaining your views explicitly and siding with a tendency.

[Ostrinski]

I think the sectarianism that revolves around how to organize is healthy and the sectarianism that centers around old dead Russian people is what bogs discussion down

[Threetune]

Identifying as one of those or other positions gives a quick overview of one's basic or specific views at a glance. It's a useful tool to use instead of explaining your position to everyone in depth.

How do we route out the bourgeois leftists if we don't debate?

Never mind the sterile ‘tendencies’, it’s the understanding of living changing contemporary conditions is what matters now.

[The Jay]

Never mind the sterile ‘tendencies’, it’s the understanding of living changing contemporary conditions is what matters now.

That sounds like simply advocating the application of historical materialism to the present situation. Isn't that something every Marxist should do already?

[Misocratist]

Identifying as one of those or other positions gives a quick overview of one's basic or specific views at a glance. It's a useful tool to use instead of explaining your position to everyone in depth.

How do we route out the bourgeois leftists if we don't debate?

I'd argue that such labels are a useful tool when organizing, but not when debating. It may be good to share a common identity, a common label when you share ideas with some people and want to put them into practice. But when it's time to discuss those ideas, labels have turned more than one decent leftist forum into a clusterfuck of strawmen: people debate labels instead of arguments.

e.g., seen more than once.

- Stalinist: "... for that reason, I do think historical materialism is a very powerful tool for the analysis of the evolution of societies."
- Trotskyist: "Oh, but you stalinists just want to send everybody to the gulag anyway, therefore your argument is invalid, regardless of whether or not I actually agree with you on this specific issue".
- Anarchist: "Meh, as long as there will be a state, there will be blood. I do imply with more or less subtlety that both of you guys are related to Hitler. Therefore... what were we talking about again?".
- Me: "Historical materialism. I also think it's a powerful tool, because..".
- Anarchist: "What? You agree with him on this specific issue, are you a stalinist too? As a council anarcha-transhumanist autonomist with bits of Gramsci, Luxemburg, diced carrots and dialectical yougurt, I maintain that... wait, what was the question again?"
- Me: "Historical materialism. Not stalinism or anarchism. Not you, not me. Historical materialism."

EDIT: also, sick and tired of requiring moderator approval for my posts, as they end up being published 45 minutes later, buried under the posts that have been published during that time, where nobody will ever read them.

[Ocean Seal]

What is one leftist in a room?
The Vanguard Party
What are two leftists in one room?
Three factions ready to split

[dodger]

I think the sectarianism that revolves around how to organize is healthy and the sectarianism that centers around old dead Russian people is what bogs discussion down

Fireworks, you're cooking Brospierre, hit us with some ideas or relate some practice you have been involved in . Positive or neggy, both valuable. Be interesting what you have to say.

[Threetune]

That sounds like simply advocating the application of historical materialism to the present situation. Isn't that something every Marxist should do already?

Yes comrade, if you prefer to put it that way.

[Threetune]

What is one leftist in a room?
The Vanguard Party
What are two leftists in one room?
Three factions ready to split

More likely a cynic who already has split. Or aught to.

[Positivist]

Labels are an individual's attempt to communicate their core body of views prior to discussions. The problem with labeling ourselves is that it restricts us from thinking outside of our decided tendency. I believe that we should not debate and study to adopt a tendency, but rather debate and study to develop our views. What I am suggesting is that all of our debating is worthless if we do not go into each discussion prepared to change our own beliefs. If everyone has already decided what they believe prior to debate then our discussions are no longer debates, and have rather degenerated into dogma fashion shows. That is why tendencies are dangerous. It's picking a horse in one race based on analysis, and then picking that same horse every other time without considering the other horses in later races.

[Threetune]

Labels are an individual's attempt to communicate their core body of views prior to discussions. The problem with labeling ourselves is that it restricts us from thinking outside of our decided tendency. I believe that we should not debate and study to adopt a tendency, but rather debate and study to develop our views. What I am suggesting is that all of our debating is worthless if we do not go into each discussion prepared to change our own beliefs. If everyone has already decided what they believe prior to debate then our discussions are no longer debates, and have rather degenerated into dogma fashion shows. That is why tendencies are dangerous. It's picking a horse in one race based on analysis, and then picking that same horse every other time without considering the other horses in later races.

Yes, “debate and study to develop our views” about the actual material world, the class struggle as it is happening now.

[Geiseric]

I don't like to label myself as a "Trotskyist," when I talk about politics but I have to explain how i'm not a Stalinist to people, so that's annoying. Thanks.

I just say "Socialist," or "Communist," usually. I mean if people want to see where my modern day technical "leftist," stances are it would be Trotskyist/Leninist, since divisions exist between us and other "Communists,"

[Tim Finnegan]

If I were a capitalist propagandist I would be very happy to see the state of the world revolutionary movement and which is also truly reflected at Revleft. Infact I would be proud at the success achieved.
And if I were a communist, I'd observe that the state of "the left" has only a limited bearing on the fortunes of the communist movement, which are determined on the concrete field of class struggle rather than in debates between intellectuals (and would-be intellectuals), and the chaos we witness in places like RevLeft expresses not the weakness of the "world revolutionary movement", but the irrelevance of self-appointed "revolutionaries" to the class struggle.

And, as luck would have it, I am a communist. So pretend that I said that.

[Rooster]

I'm fairly certain that if you append a tendency to yourself then you're probably missing something about marxism. I also really enjoy it when you get people who declare themselves to be a part of a tendency but have really read anything.

[hatzel]

These labels don't tell who we are, but who we're not. As soon as other dickheads say other dickheadish stuff, there we are with the distance-creating label, 'of course we have nothing to do with them, for we are...'

[Anderson]

How do we go about identifying the best available tendencies?

For a working class person which tendency is the best?:(

[Threetune]

How do we go about identifying the best available tendencies?

For a working class person which tendency is the best?:(

For any individual worker it is the tendency they most agree with, correct or not.
For the working class, it’s the one that can develop the necessary revolutionary theory for the Defeat of capitalism. And that is a constant unending struggle to build a mass party against all the influences of the capitalist class inside the revolutionary movement internationally.

Such a party does not exist and is only now being painfully re-formed out of the many tendencies. THOSE CONSIOUSLY STRUGGLING FOR THE BEST REVOLUTIONARY THEORY EVERYWHER ARE THE BEST TENDENCY.

[daft punk]

How do we go about identifying the best available tendencies?

For a working class person which tendency is the best?:(

There are 3 main tendencies

Stalinist

Trotskyist

left coms/anarchists


Trotskyists are sort of in the middle, they support what Russia was up to 1924. After 1924 they still supported the USSR, but opposed the policies of the government. After 1933 they said the Comintern itself was no longer any use and a new one was needed. Not all Trotskyist organisations are the same these days. Trotsky's main theory was Permanent Revolution which was what the Russian revolution was based on. This means revolution is likely to start in backward countries (like Russia). Before 1917 only Trotsky believed this. In April 1917 Lenin also came to this conclusion. So they organised the revolution.

Stalinists support the policies of Stalin, obviously, which started in 1924 after Lenin died. These include Socialism In One Country, Two Stage Theory/ Stagism, Popular Fronts. You can and definitely should google these terms. Note that a United Front is not a Popular Front. Also note that from 1928-34 Stalinist policy was different, and was basically Third Period policy. Stalin's main policy after 1934 was Stagism and Popular Fronts, ie to establish capitalism, not socialism, in the various countries he influenced outside the USSR. Some would say he didnt really want capitalism, but in my opinion the evidence is very strong that he did.

The left coms and anarchists sort of supported the revolution but had various criticisms of it. Some supported the Bolsheviks and the Red army some of the time, sometimes some opposed them. Sometimes they formed their own armies and mini-states. Sometimes they fought with the reds, sometimes against. The prime example of anarchism in action was Spain, 1936-7, before the fascist victory.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

There are 3 main tendencies

Stalinist

Trotskyist

left coms/anarchists


Trotskyists are sort of in the middle, they support what Russia was up to 1924. After 1924 they still supported the USSR, but opposed the policies of the government. After 1933 they said the Comintern itself was no longer any use and a new one was needed. Not all Trotskyist organisations are the same these days. Trotsky's main theory was Permanent Revolution which was what the Russian revolution was based on. This means revolution is likely to start in backward countries (like Russia). Before 1917 only Trotsky believed this. In April 1917 Lenin also came to this conclusion. So they organised the revolution.

Stalinists support the policies of Stalin, obviously, which started in 1924 after Lenin died. These include Socialism In One Country, Two Stage Theory/ Stagism, Popular Fronts. You can and definitely should google these terms. Note that a United Front is not a Popular Front. Also note that from 1928-34 Stalinist policy was different, and was basically Third Period policy. Stalin's main policy after 1934 was Stagism and Popular Fronts, ie to establish capitalism, not socialism, in the various countries he influenced outside the USSR. Some would say he didnt really want capitalism, but in my opinion the evidence is very strong that he did.

The left coms and anarchists sort of supported the revolution but had various criticisms of it. Some supported the Bolsheviks and the Red army some of the time, sometimes some opposed them. Sometimes they formed their own armies and mini-states. Sometimes they fought with the reds, sometimes against. The prime example of anarchism in action was Spain, 1936-7, before the fascist victory.

According to this history lesson; it´s our view of the russian revolution and the development of the soviet project that determine our politics exclusively.

[tachosomoza]

Non Doctrinaire or go home.

[ACAB]

Because getting laid is far less of a deal than being unique.

[Anderson]

For any individual worker it is the tendency they most agree with, correct or not.
For the working class, it’s the one that can develop the necessary revolutionary theory for the Defeat of capitalism. And that is a constant unending struggle to build a mass party against all the influences of the capitalist class inside the revolutionary movement internationally.

Such a party does not exist and is only now being painfully re-formed out of the many tendencies. THOSE CONSIOUSLY STRUGGLING FOR THE BEST REVOLUTIONARY THEORY EVERYWHER ARE THE BEST TENDENCY.

I agree with you.
Should the party be confined to one country or have international presence

[Threetune]

There are 3 main tendencies

Stalinist

Trotskyist

left coms/anarchists

Is Leninism getting rubbed out again?

[arilando]

How do we go about identifying the best available tendencies?

For a working class person which tendency is the best?:(
Anarchism.

[arilando]

There are 3 main tendencies

Stalinist

Trotskyist

left coms/anarchists


Trotskyists are sort of in the middle, they support what Russia was up to 1924. After 1924 they still supported the USSR, but opposed the policies of the government. After 1933 they said the Comintern itself was no longer any use and a new one was needed. Not all Trotskyist organisations are the same these days. Trotsky's main theory was Permanent Revolution which was what the Russian revolution was based on. This means revolution is likely to start in backward countries (like Russia). Before 1917 only Trotsky believed this. In April 1917 Lenin also came to this conclusion. So they organised the revolution.

Stalinists support the policies of Stalin, obviously, which started in 1924 after Lenin died. These include Socialism In One Country, Two Stage Theory/ Stagism, Popular Fronts. You can and definitely should google these terms. Note that a United Front is not a Popular Front. Also note that from 1928-34 Stalinist policy was different, and was basically Third Period policy. Stalin's main policy after 1934 was Stagism and Popular Fronts, ie to establish capitalism, not socialism, in the various countries he influenced outside the USSR. Some would say he didnt really want capitalism, but in my opinion the evidence is very strong that he did.

The left coms and anarchists sort of supported the revolution but had various criticisms of it. Some supported the Bolsheviks and the Red army some of the time, sometimes some opposed them. Sometimes they formed their own armies and mini-states. Sometimes they fought with the reds, sometimes against. The prime example of anarchism in action was Spain, 1936-7, before the fascist victory.
What about Bordiga left communists? They certaintly dont have anything in common with left coms and anarchists.

[Ostrinski]

There are 3 main tendencies

Stalinist

Trotskyist

left coms/anarchistsChrist, Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are much more similar than left communism and anarchism are.

I'd say the main tendencies are partyist, councilist, and coalitionist/frontist. Anything else is irrelevant from a practical standpoint.

[Omsk]

I won't have a problem with this discussion unless someone starts talking about...leftist-unity..

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Let's talk about leftist unity, guys.

[Threetune]

I agree with you.
Should the party be confined to one country or have international presence

As I understand history, communist parties/ internationals have never been ‘confined’ to one country so there’s no reason to start now. Is there?

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

“Proletarians of all countries, Unite!”
From 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' 1848. Chapter IV.Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

[daft punk]

According to this history lesson; it´s our view of the russian revolution and the development of the soviet project that determine our politics exclusively.

To a large extent yes. Russia was the greatest event in working class history, the greatest test of Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism. The events prove and shape the theory.

What else are you gonna base your politics on apart from real life events?

[daft punk]

Is Leninism getting rubbed out again?

Trotskyists would argue that Trotskyism = Leniism

Stalinists would argue that Stalinism = Leninism

[ACAB]

Non Doctrinaire or go home.

goin in hard there son!

[daft punk]

What about Bordiga left communists? They certaintly dont have anything in common with left coms and anarchists.


Whooo?




Christ, Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are much more similar than left communism and anarchism are.

I dont think so. Trotskyism and Stalinism are complete opposites. Why do you think Stalin killed the Trotskyists?

As for left com/anarchism, I dunno, maybe left com is half way between Trotskyism and anarchism.




I'd say the main tendencies are partyist, councilist, and coalitionist/frontist. Anything else is irrelevant from a practical standpoint.

No idea what this means, never heard of these phrases before, they mean nothing to me.

[tachosomoza]

goin in hard there son!

Seriously. I've got too little time to set around and trip off a bunch of old bearded men. I believe workers should have control of the means of production along with political power, and an eventual stateless classless society. Anything else is nitpicking.

[daft punk]

Seriously. I've got too little time to set around and trip off a bunch of old bearded men. I believe workers should have control of the means of production along with political power, and an eventual stateless classless society. Anything else is nitpicking.

That's some pretty in-depth theory and analysis you have there. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before?

[ACAB]

Seriously. I've got too little time to set around and trip off a bunch of old bearded men. I believe workers should have control of the means of production along with political power, and an eventual stateless classless society. Anything else is nitpicking.

You are my faveBrah!

[tachosomoza]

That's some pretty in-depth theory and analysis you have there. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before?

I think it has something to do with me being lazy too.

[ACAB]

That's some pretty in-depth theory and analysis you have there. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before?

How deep is yours, lets reach communism, a stateless, classless society where workers control the means of production by erecting a Bureaucratic nation state that has classes and central planning, where workers have no power over the factories and workplaces they themselves produce shit in.

[daft punk]

How deep is yours, lets reach communism, a stateless, classless society where workers control the means of production by erecting a Bureaucratic nation state that has classes and central planning, where workers have no power over the factories and workplaces they themselves produce shit in.


Lenin and Trotsky fought hard against bureaucratism. No Marxist would think a backward country can go to a stateless classless society overnight or on it's own. Classes are never gonna vanish overnight. In case you weren't aware the Bolsheviks fought a civil war against the capitalist class. The workers lost some control in the factories, true, that is the kind of thing that happens in a civil war.

My analysis is straightforward - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, as best I understand it. I'm not an expert but I know the basics. I know enough to be confident in them. I'm willing to listen to other arguments, if they are put reasonably, but so far have heard nothing convincing form other political trends on here to make me change my mind. I have thought about it since I got involved 28 years ago, always keep an open mind.

[Art Vandelay]

Lenin and Trotsky fought hard against bureaucratism. No Marxist would think a backward country can go to a stateless classless society overnight or on it's own. Classes are never gonna vanish overnight. In case you weren't aware the Bolsheviks fought a civil war against the capitalist class. The workers lost some control in the factories, true, that is the kind of thing that happens in a civil war.

My analysis is straightforward - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, as best I understand it. I'm not an expert but I know the basics. I know enough to be confident in them. I'm willing to listen to other arguments, if they are put reasonably, but so far have heard nothing convincing form other political trends on here to make me change my mind. I have thought about it since I got involved 28 years ago, always keep an open mind.

Your mistake is believing revleft in anyway represents the actual left or even reality in anyway.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

To a large extent yes. Russia was the greatest event in working class history, the greatest test of Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism. The events prove and shape the theory.

What else are you gonna base your politics on apart from real life events?

There is of course nothing much to base yourself on than real life events and situations. My point is that a lot of stuff happened outside of russia at the time as well and a lot of stuff has happened since the russian revolution in different parts of the world. Real life events and situations aren´t just the russian expirience.

And finally, to my knowledge there were no stalinisms or trotskyisms existing before the russian revolution.

[daft punk]

Your mistake is believing revleft in anyway represents the actual left or even reality in anyway.

I have been a Marxist for 28 years, active on and off. Our party was the biggest in Britain, on the telly most nights at it's peak. I discovered revleft 2 months ago. You think I think revleft represents the actual left or reality?

[Art Vandelay]

I have been a Marxist for 28 years, active on and off. Our party was the biggest in Britain, on the telly most nights at it's peak. I discovered revleft 2 months ago. You think I think revleft represents the actual left or reality?

Wasn't sure but I try to dispell that notion whenever I see it pop up. I do not doubt your credentials mate, you are a dedicated revolutionary.

[daft punk]

There is of course nothing much to base yourself on than real life events and situations. My point is that a lot of stuff happened outside of russia at the time as well and a lot of stuff has happened since the russian revolution in different parts of the world. Real life events and situations aren´t just the russian expirience.

And finally, to my knowledge there were no stalinisms or trotskyisms existing before the russian revolution.


Ok, let me start with your last point. Actually there was, sorta. Trotsky invented Permanent Revolution in 1906. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks were basically stagist right up to 1917.

In April 1917 Lenin came to the same conclusions as Trotsky. He told the Bolsheviks and nobody supported him, some slagged him off. Lenin and Trotsky wanted the Provisional government over thrown. The Bolsheviks had been supporting the PG. Lenin had enough clout to get his way and people like Stalin didnt have the bottle to argue.

With this settled, Trotsky joined, and they had a revolution.

Without Lenin and Trotsky agreeing on this abandoning of stagism, the rev wouldnt have happened.

After Stalin got control, stagism became central Stalinist policy. It influenced events even after Stalin died. However he did not use it like the Bolsheviks had done before 1917, trying to interpret the world, he used it as a tool to suppress socialist revolutions world wide.

For instance in Indonesia in 1965 a million died. Stalinist stagism played a role in that happening.

The world was told that Russia was communist, trying to spread communism, so we needed nuclear weapons.

Actually Stalin was trying to establish capitalism in countries outside the USSR as he himself clearly stated:

Stalin to Mao 1948:

"It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie."

This was after the cold war started.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

@ Daft Punk. I meant as separate and unified tendencies.
On the permanent revolution theory, I think it´s important to note that the theory was a conclusion he drew from the events in Russia in 1905, but was not his "invention". Marx and Engels also talked about how in some countries the bourgoisie was too weak to carry out a revolution and than the proletariat would have to step in and carry out both bourgeois and proletarian social goals with it´s revolution.
Rosa Luxembourg also came to similar conclusion as did many others.

[daft punk]

@ Daft Punk. I meant as separate and unified tendencies.
On the permanent revolution theory, I think it´s important to note that the theory was a conclusion he drew from the events in Russia in 1905, but was not his "invention". Marx and Engels also talked about how in some countries the bourgoisie was too weak to carry out a revolution and than the proletariat would have to step in and carry out both bourgeois and proletarian social goals with it´s revolution.
Rosa Luxembourg also came to similar conclusion as did many others.
yeah, agreed

[Martin Blank]

The workers lost some control in the factories, true, that is the kind of thing that happens in a civil war.

If the Civil War was the reason for the liquidation of the Factory-Shop Committees, then why weren't they reorganized and restored when the Civil War ended in 1920?

[Tim Finnegan]

Non Doctrinaire or go home.
There's a difference between being non-doctrinaire and being unable to locate yourself within a particular theoretical or organisation tradition. It's only when tendency ceases to be descriptive and becomes prescriptive- from "I think XYZ, so I'm a Trotskyist" to "I'm a Trotskyist, so I think XYZ"- that it becomes problematic.

[Geiseric]

@Cthulu: After the Civil War, the government was a workers council/soviet government, so why would factory shop commitees be needed? If anything their job would have been done by the new workers state apparatus, which obviously wouldn't be good if the state apparatus was run by opportunists and careerists, which are what the purges during lenin were to prevent. But the factory shop comitees and unions jobs were done by the soviet government. i haven't read much on this particular issue but that's what I assume happened. Was that move unnecessary?

[daft punk]

If the Civil War was the reason for the liquidation of the Factory-Shop Committees, then why weren't they reorganized and restored when the Civil War ended in 1920?
Because there was a famine and industry was destroyed and things were desperate. There were big debates in 1921 around the role of trade unions in a workers state, and the end result was after going nowhere for a year they implemented the NEP as a temporary retreat. The trade unions got more independence at that time as far as I know.

It's an interesting question I could do with reading more on. Here is an anarchist publication on the subject
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

Naturally this is gonna be one-sided but it's maybe worth a look. It's interesting, it claims that the Bolsheviks just used Factory Committees as a tool for the revolution, but had no intention of implementing workers control afterwards. I doubt this is true but off the top of my head I cant think of where to look for proof.

It says that some Bolsheviks said that Factory Committees sprang up because there were few unions, but later the Bolsheviks saw the unions as more useful because they had national organisations.

You have to remember that Russia was isolated and backward. Socialism was impossible at the time. Lenin believed it would take 2 or 3 generations, and could only succeed with the help of several advanced countries. This material base, or lack of it, is fundamental.

The article quotes Lenin from 1921:


In an article in Pravda on the Party crisis, Lenin writes: "Now we add to our platform the following: we must combat the ideological confusion of those unsound elements of the opposition who go to the lengths of repudiating all 'militarisation of economy', of repudiating not only the 'method of appointing' which has been the prevailing method up to now, but all appointments. In the last analysis this means repudiating the leading role of the Party in relation to the non-Party masses. We must combat the syndicalist deviation which will kill the Party if it is not completely cured of it".
A little later Lenin was to write that "the syndicalist deviation leads to the fall of the dictatorship of the proletariat"Well that last bit was said in the trade union debates, ie when war communism still existed. This is one of the more interesting areas of discussion re the Russian revolution, so if you wanna go into more depth feel free.

[Tim Finnegan]

@Cthulu: After the Civil War, the government was a workers council/soviet government, so why would factory shop commitees be needed?
The Bolshevik state represented the perpetuation of the state-as-mediator, which is to say, a perpetuation of the state as something distinct from the working class and mediating between its individual members. Only by taking political power directly into their hands can the working class truly claim to be the ruling class, and that means that government has to begin at the most immediate level- in the factory, in the office, in the apartment block- rather than at the level of the municipality, and directly, through personal assemblies, rather than indirectly, rather than through professional mediators. What would such a government be, even in its ideal form, but a highly decentralised social democracy? Preferable to anything we see today, quite possibly, but not the authentic dictatorship of the working class; c'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le communisme.

[Martin Blank]

@Cthulhu: After the Civil War, the government was a workers council/soviet government, so why would factory shop committees be needed? If anything their job would have been done by the new workers state apparatus, which obviously wouldn't be good if the state apparatus was run by opportunists and careerists, which are what the purges during Lenin were to prevent. But the factory shop committees and unions jobs were done by the soviet government. i haven't read much on this particular issue but that's what I assume happened. Was that move unnecessary?

At the time of the October Revolution, the Factory-Shop Committees was one of two bases for bodies like the Piter Soviet (the other being district and sub-district soviets -- i.e., neighborhood committees). While the soviets existed to administer state services, the workers believed the Factory-Shop Committees were meant to directly administer the factories and shops, and to maintain production. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, saw their trade unions (which were party-affiliated, never independent) as the means by which their definition of "workers' control" would be implemented. However, it has to be pointed out that the Bolsheviks actually didn't believe in workers' control -- at least, not as we think about it today. Lenin makes this argument in The State and Revolution; in his view, the extent of "workers' control" was for the (Bolshevik-controlled) trade unions to carry out the implementation of state-management decisions. In other words, "workers' control" meant party-state-union control; the workers themselves had no control in the "workers' state". All political and economic power was concentrated in the hands of the petty-bourgeois intellectuals at the top of the RCP(b).


Because there was a famine and industry was destroyed and things were desperate. There were big debates in 1921 around the role of trade unions in a workers state, and the end result was after going nowhere for a year they implemented the NEP as a temporary retreat. The trade unions got more independence at that time as far as I know.

I have to admit, I cannot accept the "famine and desperation" argument any more. If you think about it logically, would it not make more sense for the CPC/CLD to give more power to the Factory-Shop Committees, so that the central government could concentrate on the Civil War and repelling the 14 imperialist armies? I would think that the most competent and skilled -- and reliable! -- in rebuilding industry would be the workers who have been in those factories and shops, not "former" tsarist functionaries and pre-revolution managers rehabilitated and placed in their former roles as "specialists" (which meant, given the number of these functionaries and managers restored to their previous position, a wholesale reconstruction of the tsarist state apparatus under a red banner).

As for the 1920-21 discussion on the trade unions, I think that it's not really relevant to the issue of the Factory-Shop Committees, since they had been effectively liquidated into the trade unions by the end of 1918 and ceased to exist shortly thereafter. Honestly, there never should have been an issue about the independence of the working class, whether organized as trade unions or Factory-Shop Committees. The 1920-21 argument was rightly criticized by the Workers' Group of the RCP(b) as representative of the class-based substitutionism that had come to dominate the party after the October Revolution.


It's an interesting question I could do with reading more on. Here is an anarchist publication on the subject
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

Naturally this is gonna be one-sided but it's maybe worth a look. It's interesting, it claims that the Bolsheviks just used Factory Committees as a tool for the revolution, but had no intention of implementing workers control afterwards. I doubt this is true but off the top of my head I cant think of where to look for proof.

It says that some Bolsheviks said that Factory Committees sprang up because there were few unions, but later the Bolsheviks saw the unions as more useful because they had national organisations.

Workers will join or create organizations that best suit where they are at a certain point in the class struggle. I can't recall off-hand who said this first, but I think it's quite relevant here. If the workers of Piter had wanted to build unions in the middle of 1917, they certainly could have done so (as many other workers did at the time across Russia). But instead they organized Factory-Shop Committees ... and Soviets. This tells me that the Russian proletariat was moving past the trade union stage, in terms of its consciousness. Thus, for the Bolsheviks to argue for the dissolution of the Factory-Shop Committees, in favor of their party-controlled trade union federation, was a reactionary move.


You have to remember that Russia was isolated and backward. Socialism was impossible at the time. Lenin believed it would take 2 or 3 generations, and could only succeed with the help of several advanced countries. This material base, or lack of it, is fundamental.

I understand what you're saying, but, again, it is not really relevant ... unless you are going to argue that the Soviet republic was not a proletarian dictatorship, which would be the only reason I can see for workers themselves being locked out of "their" state.


The article quotes Lenin from 1921:


In an article in Pravda on the Party crisis, Lenin writes: "Now we add to our platform the following: we must combat the ideological confusion of those unsound elements of the opposition who go to the lengths of repudiating all 'militarisation of economy', of repudiating not only the 'method of appointing' which has been the prevailing method up to now, but all appointments. In the last analysis this means repudiating the leading role of the Party in relation to the non-Party masses. We must combat the syndicalist deviation which will kill the Party if it is not completely cured of it".

A little later Lenin was to write that "the syndicalist deviation leads to the fall of the dictatorship of the proletariat"

Well that last bit was said in the trade union debates, ie, when war communism still existed. This is one of the more interesting areas of discussion re the Russian revolution, so if you wanna go into more depth feel free.

I certainly would. I think it's an important issue, since it gets to the heart of a lot of questions facing the proletarian movement in its effort to fulfill its goals.

To that end, I want to quote from the Manifesto of the Workers' Group of the RCP(b), written in 1922. I think this passage points out many of the problems within the Bolshevik Party and Soviet government. I would highly recommend reading this document in full when you have an opportunity. The ICC has most of the Manifesto on their website.


If we want to improve the position of Soviet Russia in the world, or restore our industry, or expand the material basis of our socialist revolution by mechanizing agriculture, or face the dangerous effects of a New Economic Policy, inevitably it comes back to the working class which alone is capable of doing everything. The less it is strong, the stronger it must organize itself.

And the good boys who occupy the offices cannot resolve such grand tasks.

Unfortunately the majority of the leaders of the RCP doesn’t think in the same way. To all questions of workers’ democracy, Lenin, in a speech made to the Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, responded thus: “To every union which poses, in general, the question of whether the unions should participate in production I would say: stop such chattering (applause), rather answer practically and tell me (if you occupy a responsible post, if you have the authority, if you are a militant of the Communist Party or a union): have you organized production well, in how many years, how many people do you have under you, a thousand, tens of thousands? Give me a list of those to whom you have confided an economic work that you have brought to a conclusion, instead of you attacking twenty things at once and not finishing any of them because of lack of time. Among us, with our soviet morals, we don’t always conclude things well, one talks of success over a number of years; we are afraid of learning in comparison with the merchant who pockets a 100 percent profit and more, you prefer to write a fine resolution on raw materials and are proud of the title of Communist Party or union representative of the proletariat. I ask your pardon. What do you call the proletariat? It is the class that works in industry. But where is this great industry? What is this proletariat then? What is your industry? Why is it paralyzed? Because there are no longer any raw materials. Have you been able to procure any of them? No. You write an enactment resolution to collect them, and you are in the soup; and the people will say that that is absurd; thus you resemble the geese who, in antiquity, saved Rome,” and who, to continue the speech of Lenin (according to the moral of the well known fable of Krylov) must be guided to market with a big stick in order to be sold.

Suppose that the point of view of the former Workers’ Opposition on the role and tasks of trade unions is wrong. That this view expresses not the position of the working class in power, but that of a professional ministry. These comrades want to take back the management of the economy by snatching it from the hands of soviet officials without involving the working class in that management through proletarian democracy and the organization of councils of workers’ deputies intended as the main nuclei of state power. They simply call for the proletarianization of these bureaucratic nests. And they are wrong.

We cannot share Lenin’s words about proletarian democracy and the participation of the proletariat in the popular economy. The greatest discovery made by comrade Lenin is that we no longer have a proletariat. We rejoice with you, comrade Lenin! You are thus the leader of a proletariat which doesn’t even exist! You are the leader of the government of a proletarian dictatorship without a proletariat! You are the leader of the Communist Party but not of the proletariat!

Contrary to comrade Lenin, his colleague on the Central Committee and the Political Bureau, Kamenev, has quite another opinion. He sees the proletariat everywhere. He said: “1) The balance sheet of the conquest of October is that the organized working class as a whole has at its disposal the immense riches of all domestic industry, transport, timber, mining, let alone political power. 2) Socialized industry is the principal possession of the proletariat,” etc., etc. One can cite many other examples. Kamenev sees the proletariat in the functionaries who, since Moscow, have set themselves up through bureaucratic channels and he himself is, according to his own opinion, much more proletarian than no matter what worker. When talking about the proletariat, he doesn’t say: “them,” but “we, the proletariat....” Too many proletarians of the Kamenev type participate in the management of the popular economy; that’s why he comes on like a proletarian with strange speeches about proletarian democracy and the participation of the proletariat in economic management! “Please,” says Kamenev, “what are you talking about? Are we not the proletariat, a proletariat organized as a compact unity, as a class?”

Comrade Lenin considers all discussion on the participation of the proletariat in the management of the popular economy as useless chatter because there is no proletariat; Kamenev is of the same opinion, but because the proletariat “as a compact unity, as a class” already governs the country and the economy since all the bureaucrats are considered by him as proletarians. They, naturally, are in agreement and, already on some points, they particularly understand each other well because since the October Revolution Kamenev has entered into a contract not to take a position against comrade Lenin and not to contradict him. They agree on the fact that the proletariat exists — naturally not only the one seen by Kamenev — but also on the fact that its low level of preparation, its material condition, its political ignorance dictates “that the geese are kept far away from the economy with a big stick.” And in reality that is what has happened.

Comrade Lenin has here applied the fable in a rather improper fashion. The geese of Krylov cried that their ancestors saved Rome (their ancestors, comrade Lenin) whereas the working class doesn’t talk of its ancestors but of itself, because it (the working class, comrade Lenin) has accomplished the social revolution and from this fact it wants to control the country and the economy itself. But comrade Lenin has taken the working class for Krylov’s geese and waving his stick, he says to it: “Leave your ancestors in peace! You, on the other hand, what have you done?” What can the proletariat respond to comrade Lenin?

You can calmly threaten us with a stick, we will however say loud and clear that the coherent and unhesitating realization of proletarian democracy is today a necessity that the Russian proletarian class feels to its very marrow; because it is a force. Come what may, but the devil will not always be at the door of the poor worker.

[gorillafuck]

I think the sectarianism that revolves around how to organize is healthy and the sectarianism that centers around old dead Russian people is what bogs discussion downdifferent ideologies views on "old dead russian people" can be indicative, and usually is indicative, of what organization, tactics, and politics they support in the modern day.


Seriously. I've got too little time to set around and trip off a bunch of old bearded men. I believe workers should have control of the means of production along with political power, and an eventual stateless classless society. Anything else is nitpicking.this seems like willful ignorance and a dismissal of the intricacies of world politics.

[escapingNihilism]

to echo a post earlier in the thread, I do think a capitalist would prefer that we all go out into the world and call ourselves Stalinists, Trotskyists, communists, etc. to everyone we try and meet and organize. because the harsh reality is, at least in the US, it serves as an immediate turn-off to people with whom we may share common ground. so it's fine when posting here -- it's even kinda fun, I get it. but once pounding the pavement it is necessary to put some of the shit aside.

[Geiseric]

What does "Workers Control," really mean though? In practice what is the difference between what a Factory Shop Commitee would have done and what the Soviet Government would have done?

[Martin Blank]

What does "Workers Control" really mean, though? In practice, what is the difference between what a Factory Shop Committee would have done and what the Soviet Government would have done?

Put simply, the difference is the level of direct participation of the workers themselves. Under the Bolshevik model, the workers in a factory had no control; all decisions were made by ministry officials and appointed managers. The trade unions were there merely to "keep account of labor and products", and that's all. Lenin explained this further in Chapter 5, Section 4 of The State and Revolution:


Given these economic preconditions, it is quite possible, after the overthrow of the capitalists and the bureaucrats, to proceed immediately, overnight, to replace them in the control over production and distribution, in the work of keeping account of labor and products, by the armed workers, by the whole of the armed population.... The accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations -- which any literate person can perform -- of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts.

As for who would make the decisions on production and distribution, which the workers would then "keep account" of, that was also answered by Lenin earlier in the pamphlet (Chapter 3, Section 3, to be specific):


We want the socialist revolution with people as they are now, with people who cannot dispense with subordination, control, and "foremen and accountants".

This is precisely the system the Bolshevik-led Soviet government put in place: a system of subordination for the working class, control by the state ministries, and management by either former owners or trained "socialist" managers.

In contrast, control by the Factory-Shop Committees would have meant the extension of proletarian democracy into the the economy. It would have went far beyond the Bolsheviks' view of "workers' control" as accounting and inventory control. Workers' control of production would be an integral part in workers' control of society itself; it would not simply be reform of the capitalist methods of control and production, which is what the Bolsheviks implemented, but a "radical rupture with tradition" that builds workers' power in areas previously under the control of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie.

The Factory-Shop Committee would be the main assembly of workers in a specific workplace or department of a workplace, meeting regularly for the purposes of review, discussion and approval of decisions made by specific working groups in between meetings. The Committee would have several of these groups, each with a specific task to address: organization of production, new technologies, supply chain coordination, energy needs, product distribution, etc. These working groups would have the ability to invite technicians and other experts to consult on certain projects. The Committee and its working groups would also be in charge of "supervising the state of the machinery, of advising on and overcoming various deficiencies in the arrangement of the factory or plant, of determining the coefficients of exploitation in each section, of deciding on the optimum number of shops, and of workers in each shop, of investigating the depreciation of machines and of buildings, of determining job allocations (from the post of administrator down) and of taking charge of the financial relations of the factory."

In short, the Factory-Shop Committee would be the fulcrum on which the economic transition from the capitalist to communist mode of production turns.

But these Committees would not operate in isolation from each other, or from the rest of the Soviet republic. Before and during the early years of the Soviet system, Factory-Shop Committees elected delegates to district and municipal Soviets, and coordinated closely with them on issues pertaining to energy needs and local product distribution. Delegates from the Committees would also meet with each other, on both a geographical and industrial basis, from the local to the regional to the national (and, if other revolutions have happened, international) level, to coordinate production and distribution, and develop an economic plan that coordinates the whole of the economy.

Congresses of Soviets and Congresses of Factory-Shop Committees would also coordinate with each other at all levels on the implementation of economic plans and integrity of supply chains, as well as on the functioning of public services (sanitation, public utilities, etc.) and certain programs coordinated by Soviets (e.g., housing construction/reconstruction).

As for the trade unions, they would not be ignored or dismissed, but transformed. The union apparatus would take on the role of the Rabkrin (Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate), overseeing quality control and inventory accounting. The union bodies would work closely with the Factory-Shop Committees on their tasks, including questions of machinery upkeep and depreciation, and optimal balance among the workforce. In the earliest stages of the Soviet republic, the unions would also have overseen living conditions for workers and worked with district and city Soviets to improve them.

I think the differences in practice are pretty obvious. Where the Bolshevik model empowers everyone but the working class, the Factory-Shop Committee system empowers mainly the working class.

Hope this answers your question.

[escapingNihilism]

What does "Workers Control," really mean though? In practice what is the difference between what a Factory Shop Commitee would have done and what the Soviet Government would have done?

I recently came across a reader from the early 70s titled Workers Control. it's a collection of essays: perhaps you could find one of them called 'Workers Control is More than Just That' by Andre Gorz, it may answer your question.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I use labels because "Maoist" is easier than "ant-capitalist-communal democracy-feminist-egalitarian-cultural revolutionary-anti-anti-ideologist" and no matter what anyone says, people are allowed to "chose" their own ideologies. One does not have to be dogmatic in their label. To most of my anti-revisionist Maoist friends I'm sure they don't see me as a real Maoist because I refuse to identify as a ML-M. But that is my right and my choice. I always tell everyone "I'm a really shitty Leninist" but I am a good proletarian revolutionary because I fight for the people and their betterment.:cool:

[Shakey_Jake33]

I broadly refer to myself as either Marxist, Socialist or Communist with no qualifiers. Quite frankly, I consider the debate between the different tendancies a little irrelevent because I believe it to be all academic - the real revolution will be significantly more organic.

The debates between the various different interpretations of Marxist-Leninism and the broad spectrum of interpretations of Communism are interesting and useful from a historical perspective - it is important to know what the debate has been before, learn from the mistakes an know where to take it in the future. But beyond an educational context, I question the relevance. The real people's revolution will surely be more organic than this as people themselves. I suspect that even the distinction between Communism, Anarchism, Syndicalism etc. and the broad spectrum of leftist thought will blur and recalibrate as the revolution develops. Some kind of communist-esque means of production would surely be required (and thus, will happen) simply because the fall of capitalism would imply a gross mismanagement of resources and cooperation will be required. However, this will happen regardless of whatever tendency disputes happened in the past. It's all very well sitting on an internet forum and debating the merits of a vanguard party (for example), but it's all academic - either one will develop, or one will not. Or something very similar, if not quite the same, will develop. This idea that we can forcibly direct the people's revolution baffles me. The importance is education and understanding to ensure the same mistakes are not made again.

For this reason, I find the debates between all the different socialist 'parties' very tiresome. As if one loosely-connected chain of parties will be able to direct the people's revolution (and hell, should they?).

[Anderson]

I broadly refer to myself as either Marxist, Socialist or Communist with no qualifiers. Quite frankly, I consider the debate between the different tendancies a little irrelevent because I believe it to be all academic - the real revolution will be significantly more organic.

The debates between the various different interpretations of Marxist-Leninism and the broad spectrum of interpretations of Communism are interesting and useful from a historical perspective - it is important to know what the debate has been before, learn from the mistakes an know where to take it in the future. But beyond an educational context, I question the relevance. The real people's revolution will surely be more organic than this as people themselves. I suspect that even the distinction between Communism, Anarchism, Syndicalism etc. and the broad spectrum of leftist thought will blur and recalibrate as the revolution develops. Some kind of communist-esque means of production would surely be required (and thus, will happen) simply because the fall of capitalism would imply a gross mismanagement of resources and cooperation will be required. However, this will happen regardless of whatever tendency disputes happened in the past. It's all very well sitting on an internet forum and debating the merits of a vanguard party (for example), but it's all academic - either one will develop, or one will not. Or something very similar, if not quite the same, will develop. This idea that we can forcibly direct the people's revolution baffles me. The importance is education and understanding to ensure the same mistakes are not made again.

For this reason, I find the debates between all the different socialist 'parties' very tiresome. As if one loosely-connected chain of parties will be able to direct the people's revolution (and hell, should they?).

I seriously doubt anything meaningful can be achieved by leaving the revolution on the hope of spontaneous movement. As a Marxist we know that in class divided society the state is the apparatus of class rule. And the new state cannot be built all of a sudden.
There has to be a organized revolutionary movement which can produces a successful revolution and replaces the old state.

Labels are a reflection of ideological confusion and bourgeois influence on communist movement.

[The Hong Se Sun]

One word keeps me from having to say a paragraph so it also helps me be lazy:thumbup1:

[Misocratist]

One word keeps me from having to say a paragraph so it also helps me be lazy:thumbup1:

Well... aren't forums about in-depth discussions? One word isn't an argument. Seen all too often:

John: " I don't think intensifying class struggle during socialism would wipe out what is left of bourgeois culture, because..."
Jack: " I'm a maoist, therefore I don't agree with you, therefore you're wrong. QED."
John: "... wtf?"

People who don't know you don't care about how you call yourself. While it might useful when you need to organize, it's irrelevent to the discussion of ideas.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I thought this thread was about IRL, yeah on the interwebs I can explain my ideas. It doesn't bother me. Really I'm full of shit because I always take time to explain my specific type of revolutionary proletarian ideology. People like "jack" above are terrible Maoist and terrible revolutionaries in general. Name calling and not explaining your ideas to people goes against everything I believe. I love discussions, disagreements and criticisms of my points because it gives me a chance to grow both as a person and as a revolutionary.

[OHumanista]

- You want to show what you stand for
- This makes you comfortable in people of your kind

This, now please people. It's about time we stop worrying with labels, everyone has one and it is by no means such a HUGE problem to the left. Here on this forum yes, on the real world no it ins't. You know why? Because when a revolution happens, those who support it will be on one side and those that are against it will be on the other. And that's the only division that matters IRL.

[China studen]

The Trotsky molecular accomplices of imperialism. They almost do more harm than good to the revolutionary cause.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The Trotsky molecular accomplices of imperialism. They almost do more harm than good to the revolutionary cause.

How is your contempt for trotskyism relevant to this discussion?

[Anderson]

The Trotsky molecular accomplices of imperialism. They almost do more harm than good to the revolutionary cause.

What do you mean by this statement?:confused: