Leftists expect too much

[Elysian]

Leftists expect too much from leftist parties. Consider the thread where you guys were mocking the communist party of Britain. Fine, they aren't perfect but would you rather have nationalists, fascists, and conservatives march in the street and create mayhem?

Point is, even an imperfect communist party is better - at least they won't be as harmful as right wing nuts or fascists.

[Railyon]

Demand the impossible. Nothing less.

[Deicide]

nationalists, fascists, and conservatives

CPGB-ML is on par with those guys.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Yeah, communism is an all or nothing affair. We don't want reforms or concessions. We want revolutionary change, by any means necessary.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Leftists expect too much from leftist parties. Consider the thread where you guys were mocking the communist party of Britain. Fine, they aren't perfect but would you rather have nationalists, fascists, and conservatives march in the street and create mayhem?

Point is, even an imperfect communist party is better - at least they won't be as harmful as right wing nuts or fascists.

CPGB-ML is pretty much a nationalistic and conservative organization.

False communist parties like this do also do harm. They make it look like all communists want to hold vigils for Kim Jong-Il and support the North Korean regime and therefore turn the working class off from a leftist position.

[chefdave]

It's inevitable given the internal contradictions of socialist thought. The idea that we can just hand up all power and wealth to an omnipotent elite and then expect them to benevolently work away on our behalf is so flawed a 5 year old could see through it. Once the revolution has ended and power has been centralised every single Marxist is going to have their own opinions on 'what happens next'. This is why lefties claim with straight face that experiments like the USSR and Mao's China weren't credible examples of what socialism could be if was implemented properly. Lol. :D:D

[Nox]

The people in this picture are absolute fucking idiots, making a total joke out of the word 'communism'. I'm struggling to get my head around how they take themselves seriously, let alone how other 'communists' take them seriously...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/May_Day_in_London.jpg

[Misanthrope]

Point is, even an imperfect communist party is better - at least they won't be as harmful as right wing nuts or fascists.

why? Just because they claim to be communist? I'm not going to throw my support behind a party just because they claim to be communist.

[dodger]

Forgive us our foibles Elysian. For we know not what we do. Pricking balloons is infantile.Bursting red ones, probably counter-revolutionary. However vain or ostentatious display of dignity or importance, lofty style, the dogs bollocks, pomposity, conceit, affectation,posing---the pin. A bit of Chutzpah we tolerate.

Proletarian pretension Has us in fits, out comes the pin.....

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It's inevitable given the internal contradictions of socialist thought. The idea that we can just hand up all power and wealth to an omnipotent elite and then expect them to benevolently work away on our behalf is so flawed a 5 year old could see through it. Once the revolution has ended and power has been centralised every single Marxist is going to have their own opinions on 'what happens next'. This is why lefties claim with straight face that experiments like the USSR and Mao's China weren't credible examples of what socialism could be if was implemented properly. Lol. :D:D

...yeah, besides the fact that actual Marxism and socialism is completely opposed to giving power to a omnipotent elite and most leftists don't support the efforts of the USSR and China....:rolleyes:

[chefdave]

...yeah, besides the fact that actual Marxism and socialism is completely opposed to giving power to a omnipotent elite and most leftists don't support the efforts of the USSR and China....:rolleyes:

Marxism without an all powerful state to bully the capitalist class into submission is like a vodka and coke without the vodka, you're not trying to tell me that you innocently support the organic development of voluntary communes without the backing of state coercion are you? Come on, we all know that commies can't wait to monopolise the statist levers of power for their own gratification :D

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Leftists expect too much from leftist parties. Consider the thread where you guys were mocking the communist party of Britain. Fine, they aren't perfect but would you rather have nationalists, fascists, and conservatives march in the street and create mayhem?

Point is, even an imperfect communist party is better - at least they won't be as harmful as right wing nuts or fascists.

Experience tells otherwise. A lot of "left wing" parties are not only impotent but very harmful to working class interests. We would be better off without them!

[Deicide]

It's inevitable given the internal contradictions of socialist thought. The idea that we can just hand up all power and wealth to an omnipotent elite and then expect them to benevolently work away on our behalf is so flawed a 5 year old could see through it. Once the revolution has ended and power has been centralised every single Marxist is going to have their own opinions on 'what happens next'. This is why lefties claim with straight face that experiments like the USSR and Mao's China weren't credible examples of what socialism could be if was implemented properly. Lol. :D:D

This guy is only interested in spamming strawmans. Delete him already.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I rather not join the Communist Party USA, the strongest party in my region. I might as well become a Democrat.

I want to look for the best party for me and when I find it, I want to better that party even further. I'm not just going to throw my support behind any party just because it's there.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Communist parties have had lost their bite in most of the world. No longer are they a threat to the establishment. They are jokes, they have become involved in bourgeois politics and are now only communist in name.

This was the perfect way to alienate the working class from communism. They basically let the "communists" make fools of themselves and it works out in favor of the bourgeois.

The best case scenario would be if they outlawed communist parties in countries again. This would radicalize them as it would force them to push their politics on another level.

[hatzel]

I don't expect anywhere near enough, actually...

[Krano]

Communist parties are completely useless in bourgeois politics, you can't vote Socialism into power. The perfect example of this idea is Venezuela where the bourgeoisie still remain despite Venezuela claiming to be a Socialist country.

[#FF0000]

The idea that we can just hand up all power and wealth to an omnipotent elite and then expect them to benevolently work away on our behalf is so flawed a 5 year old could see through it.

good thing no one believes this!

you are batting 000, guy.

[Railyon]

good thing no one believes this!

Except the Randites and free marketeers.

[Left Leanings]

Marxism without an all powerful state to bully the capitalist class into submission is like a vodka and coke without the vodka, you're not trying to tell me that you innocently support the organic development of voluntary communes without the backing of state coercion are you? Come on, we all know that commies can't wait to monopolise the statist levers of power for their own gratification :D

Nope.

Not everyone in this life, is as selfish and cynical as you.

[chefdave]

Nope.

Not everyone in this life, is as selfish and cynical as you.


If you opposed state intervention you'd be a libertarian, by picking socialism I can only conclude that you believe it's the state's job to organise the economy.

[milkmiku]

Yeah, communism is an all or nothing affair. We don't want reforms or concessions. We want revolutionary change, by any means necessary.


Would picking apart the system not be within "any means"? Face it, as it is now capitalism is too far entrenched in society today. It has to be weakened by various methods before any kind of revolution to be successful. "all or nothing" will result in nothing, if current parties are not up to par or totally against, then an alternative must be created or the parties must be infiltrated and changed.

I'm curious, which parties adhere most closely to the principles? Are there any?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

If you opposed state intervention you'd be a libertarian, by picking socialism I can only conclude that you believe it's the state's job to organise the economy.

Wrong. Sorry, we believe that it is the workers who should democratically organize the economy, not the state. Anyone who has seriously looked into socialism and it's ideas without the cold-war blinders would know this.

[Left Leanings]

If you opposed state intervention you'd be a libertarian, by picking socialism I can only conclude that you believe it's the state's job to organise the economy.


Wrong. Sorry, we believe that it is the workers who should democratically organize the economy, not the state. Anyone who has seriously looked into socialism and it's ideas without the cold-war blinders would know this.

Comrade, he knows this full well. His purpose here is to troll - and take the piss. I for one, am not going to waste anymore time on him.

[chefdave]

Wrong. Sorry, we believe that it is the workers who should democratically organize the economy, not the state. Anyone who has seriously looked into socialism and it's ideas without the cold-war blinders would know this.

I don't understand what you're talking about. The economy would fall apart if we had run every single decision by a Workers' Committee, we'd spend more time voting on stuff than actually producing the goods we require to live reasonably comfetable lives.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I don't understand what you're talking about. The economy would fall apart if we had run every single decision by a Workers' Committee, we'd spend more time voting on stuff than actually producing the goods we require to live reasonably comfetable lives.

Really?

http://www.indypendent.org/2009/08/13/worker-run-businesses-flourish-argentina

[#FF0000]

If you opposed state intervention you'd be a libertarian, by picking socialism I can only conclude that you believe it's the state's job to organise the economy.

you don't know our politics stop embarrassing yourself please

[Rafiq]

Marxism without an all powerful state to bully the capitalist class into submission is like a vodka and coke without the vodka, you're not trying to tell me that you innocently support the organic development of voluntary communes without the backing of state coercion are you? Come on, we all know that commies can't wait to monopolise the statist levers of power for their own gratification :D

The state serves to crush the class enemy. Anyway, what is a "commune"? Communism derives from the world Common, not "Commune".

It is a dictatorship of the proletariat. We don't need scum like you in our "commune". All we need is to crush you if you get in our way.

We will overthrow all remnants of bourgeois society no matter how much blood need be spilled. No one needs your labor, you're a good for nothing petty bourgeois.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Ostrinski]

If you think that asking our parties not to worship Kim Jong-il is asking too much then you need to re-evaluate your standards.

[Rafiq]

The point of communism is not a blueprint, a glorious new society that is an ends. Communism is a weapon of the proletarian class, a weapon that will not only destroy the bourgeiosie (liquidate them), it serves to emancipate themselves from being proletarians, to abolish themselves.

It is a process with no ends, like the flowing of water. Communists stand not for small, petty bourgeios "slow and peaceful" communes, we stand for explosive destruction of bouegeios society and rapid rebuilding (perhaps).

In all, we stand for mordor, not shire

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

If you opposed state intervention you'd be a libertarian, by picking socialism I can only conclude that you believe it's the state's job to organise the economy.

We seek the organization of the systematic destruction of what you refer to as "the economy" on behalf of "the state".

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

It's inevitable given the internal contradictions of socialist thought. The idea that we can just hand up all power and wealth to an omnipotent elite and then expect them to benevolently work away on our behalf is so flawed a 5 year old could see through it. Once the revolution has ended and power has been centralised every single Marxist is going to have their own opinions on 'what happens next'. This is why lefties claim with straight face that experiments like the USSR and Mao's China weren't credible examples of what socialism could be if was implemented properly. Lol. :D:D

The USSR and Mao's China weren't failures because "power was centralized". They were failures because you cannot have a lasting proletarian dictatorship without, you know, an actual proletariat. And if you could, you're going to have to be isolated, assuming said revolution doesn't spread. Which won't work out.

But no, continue with the "HUMAN NATURE CORRUPTION POWER PROPERTAY TYRANNY WAA WAA SOCIALISM ALWAYS WILL BE STALIN EVEN THOUGH VIRTUALLY ALL SOCIALIST NATIONS WERE IN ALMOST IDENTICAL CONDITIONS WITCH MARXANDENGELS ASSERTED CAN'T SUPPORT PROLETARIAN STATE BUT MY DUMB ASS CAN'T ARTICULATE THAT BECAUSE IT ISN'T AS SIMPLE AND CATCHY AS SAYING WAAAAAA POWER CORRUPTS".

also, what the fuck is "wealth". Only labor can create wealth. So what, you think our goal is to make an "elite" (what the fuck?) live like paradise? It's called PROLETARIAN dictatorship for a reason, fucking moron. There is no "elite". The "elite" you describe would be instruments of the proletarian class, just as the current state "elite" is an instrument of the bourgeios class... Okay? It's not hard to understand, you worthless fuck.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[DinodudeEpic]

I don't understand what you're talking about. The economy would fall apart if we had run every single decision by a Workers' Committee, we'd spend more time voting on stuff than actually producing the goods we require to live reasonably comfetable lives.

Federalism, my friend, cooperative federalism.

Basically, a large-scale cooperative would be a federation of democratic workplaces that occasionally meet in mass meetings. Plus, there would be plenty of small-scale cooperatives. (Which would be favor due to them not being bogged down like the larger coops.)

Let's not also forget about self-employed individuals.

Socialism would actually be more productive. Less jobs being shipped to China, more manufacturing jobs, and rational democratic decision making.

For Rafiq: I agree that gradualist communes don't work. But, a democratic and quick revolution is needed, and it can be peaceful. (But, militant at the same time.) Forming cooperatives, campaigning for political positions, constitutional amendments, protests, and in general a mass movement is needed to bring about socialism and direct democracy. And if the state won't let us do any of these things, then violent revolution may it be!

[ВАЛТЕР]

Would picking apart the system not be within "any means"? Face it, as it is now capitalism is too far entrenched in society today. It has to be weakened by various methods before any kind of revolution to be successful. "all or nothing" will result in nothing, if current parties are not up to par or totally against, then an alternative must be created or the parties must be infiltrated and changed.

I'm curious, which parties adhere most closely to the principles? Are there any?

Working with the system is counterrevolutionary. Capitalism will conform to most threats unless they are radical and aggressive. No amount of policy changing will help us in the long run. Smash the system radically and violently. Capitalism has to have its spine broken and left trampled. There is no room of liberal reforms or "tactical voting" or other bourgeois political bullshit.

As for which parties adhere most closely to the principles, this can be debated back and forth depending on who you ask, however, I'd have to say that the KKE in Greece is the most radical and effective at this point in time. It has strong ties with the trade unions especially PAME which can be seen as the most radical trade union in Greece. They are the most organized and active when it comes to agitating the working class.

[milkmiku]

Working with the system is counterrevolutionary. Capitalism will conform to most threats unless they are radical and aggressive. No amount of policy changing will help us in the long run. Smash the system radically and violently. Capitalism has to have its spine broken and left trampled. There is no room of liberal reforms or "tactical voting" or other bourgeois political bullshit.

As for which parties adhere most closely to the principles, this can be debated back and forth depending on who you ask, however, I'd have to say that the KKE in Greece is the most radical and effective at this point in time. It has strong ties with the trade unions especially PAME which can be seen as the most radical trade union in Greece. They are the most organized and active when it comes to agitating the working class.


I'm not necessarily saying work with the system, but work towards destroying specific parts of it through policy change. Use the system against itself. I truly believe that unless the core pillars of this current capitalistic society are weakened, no revolution can happen. As it stands right now, It is far too powerful with to many ways to survive any kind of action.

The system is to big to be smashed, it must be eroded first. Millions upon millions of people would gleefully fight for capitalism, whether they acknowledged that is what they fight for or not. As long as the finical overloards hold the power to create "capital" out of nothing, then there will always be people willing to protect them.


Those people must be shown that you can exist without that system.

[Azraella]

Marxism without an all powerful state to bully the capitalist class into submission is like a vodka and coke without the vodka, you're not trying to tell me that you innocently support the organic development of voluntary communes without the backing of state coercion are you? Come on, we all know that commies can't wait to monopolise the statist levers of power for their own gratification :D

1. Strawman and/or hasty generalization(because it takes all sorts)

2. Even so, not all Marxists are authoritarian(look at libertarian Marxism like Luxembourgism) and anarchists aren't Marxists(though some use Marxist reasoning)

3. And finally, my rejection of capitalism comes from my rejection of state.

[Ostrinski]

Man, standards for libertarianism must be getting lower and lower if a vanguardist statist like Luxemburg can be considered one.

[Bostana]

The people in this picture are absolute fucking idiots,

Because they're protesting their oppressive Government and against Bourgeois Class Rule?

[Ostrinski]

Because they're protesting their oppressive Government and against Bourgeois Class Rule?No probably because they make communism seem like marginal cultism and not working class politics

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Because they're protesting their oppressive Government and against Bourgeois Class Rule?

No, because they support Kim Jong-Il, hold vigils for him, support North Korea, etc. etc.

[Railyon]

anarchists aren't Marxists

I think that's been false ever since the first International.

Being a Marxist is the hipster thing to do as an anarchist.

[Prometeo liberado]

Demand the impossible. Nothing less.

You forget the second part of that quote:
But expect the possible. Nothing more.

The former without the latter is a recipe for failure. Or a lie.

[Brosip Tito]

1. Strawman and/or hasty generalization(because it takes all sorts)

2. Even so, not all Marxists are authoritarian(look at libertarian Marxism like Luxembourgism) and anarchists aren't Marxists(though some use Marxist reasoning)

3. And finally, my rejection of capitalism comes from my rejection of state.
Luxemburg was no libertarian Marxist. She was damned near a Leninist, with a few theoretical/procedural differences.

Although she promoted the idea of spontaneity, she agreed that the Revolutionary Socialists (marxists -- at that time called Social Democrats) were to act as the vanguard of the working class. Not to order it around, but to guide it and to awaken the class conscious.

She was not for Lenin's vanguard of elitist centralization, but she was for a vanguard nonetheless.

As was said, she was also one who promoted the taking of the bourgeois state in the hands of the working class, a "statist" if you will:

"...socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat."

"The social democrats are the most enlightened, most class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat. They cannot and dare not wait, in a fatalist fashion, with folded arms for the advent of the “revolutionary situation,” to wait for that which in every spontaneous peoples’ movement, falls from the clouds. On the contrary, they must now, as always, hasten the development of things and endeavour to accelerate events. This they cannot do, however, by suddenly issuing the “slogan” for a mass strike at random at any odd moment, but first and foremost, by making clear to the widest layers of the proletariat the inevitable advent of this revolutionary period, the inner social factors making for it and the political consequences of it. If the widest proletarian layer should be won for a political mass action of the social democrats, and if, vice versa, the social democrats should seize and maintain the real leadership of a mass movement – should they become, in a political sense, the rulers of the whole movement, then they must, with the utmost clearness, consistency and resoluteness, inform the German proletariat of their tactics and aims in the period of coming struggle."

[hatzel]

You forget the second part of that quote:
But expect the possible. Nothing more.

The former without the latter is a recipe for failure. Or a lie.

I thought the quote was 'impossible is nothing' or am I just totally incorporated into commodity culture here? :confused:

Actually yeah that should be my new rallying cry: 'nothing is possible; impossible is nothing.' I'll put it on a sign or something and then go protesting. It'll be cool because people will think I'm a bit of a dickhead but at the same time I'll actually be making a pretty accurate statement about my politics...as will they...

[Azraella]

Man, standards for libertarianism must be getting lower and lower if a vanguardist statist like Luxemburg can be considered one.


Luxemburg supported the Russian Revolution she was actually very critical of Lenin and Trotsky(source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm). And I actually object to plenty of aspects of Luxemburgism but it's technically considered a form of libertarian Marxism. What can I say? Many people are hypocrites.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Man, standards for libertarianism must be getting lower and lower if a vanguardist statist like Luxemburg can be considered one.
"It should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique -- dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy." - Rosa Luxemburg

While it's correct that she wouldn't have viewed herself as libertarian, it's also a stretch to call her a vanguardist even if she gave critical support to the Bolsheviks.

[Ostrinski]

Statism is inherently authoritarian. Order Reigns put it better than I could.

[Ostrinski]

"It should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique -- dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy." - Rosa LuxemburgThat is not incompatible with vanguardism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And I actually object to plenty of aspects of Luxemburgism but it's technically considered a form of libertarian Marxism.
Rosa is certainly an influence on those of us who consider ourselves libertarian Marxists.

[Ostrinski]

Marxism is a departure from and tenscendence of the authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy, so it's pretty meaningless, I mean I'd consider myself an authoritarian and draw plenty of influence from Luxemburg as well.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That is not incompatible with vanguardism.
I guess that depends on how one defines a vanguard.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Marxism is a departure from and tenscendence of the authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy
And yet we have Marxists on this board who support a dictatorship of the vanguard party within a state, which I would call authoritarian, while others support the self-rule of the working class without a state, which I would call libertarian.

[Grenzer]

Libertarianism is for liberals. Revolutionary totalitarianism is where it's at.

Luxemburg wrote some good shit, but i think she focused too much on spontaneity(not something that should be confused with libertarianism; it's a strategy). Accumulation of Capital was pretty brilliant though.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Revolutionary totalitarianism is where it's at.
The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

[Ostrinski]

Would you then, by definition, be an anarchist? I mean there are plenty of anarchists on this board who accept some/many parts of the Marxist methodology but are still anarchists.

What I meant was that Marxism as a science departs from authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, regardless of what personal opinions individual Marxists may have on the issue.

[Ostrinski]

The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.So you think revolutions fail because of the way that they are organized?

[hatzel]

Sooooo here's some frivolously on-topic jam for yooooous: my demands far exceed my expectations. My expectations of communist parties are sub-zero, my demands nonexistent. Still I expect too much...

:(

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Leftists expect too much from leftist parties. Consider the thread where you guys were mocking the communist party of Britain. Fine, they aren't perfect but would you rather have nationalists, fascists, and conservatives march in the street and create mayhem?


Only backing parties which are genuinely pro-worker and not just a collective of idiots jacking off to Lenin's mummy and doing nothing but whining from their armchairs is expecting to much; you're right.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Would you then, by definition, be an anarchist? I mean there are plenty of anarchists on this board who accept some/many parts of the Marxist methodology but are still anarchists.
I see myself as a libertarian Marxist rather than as an anarchist who accepts some parts of Marxism.

Then again, I started out as a DeLeonist two decades ago, so my Marxism has always been outside the Marxist mainstream.


What I meant was that Marxism as a science departs from authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, regardless of what personal opinions individual Marxists may have on the issue.
Well, yes, Marxism as a science doesn't concern itself with authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. They're irrelevant to it. Marxism is about seeing through and critically assessing the economic power relations of our society. In encouraging speculation about alternatives, though. it allows individual Marxists to have very different opinions about revolution and post-revolutionary society.

[Brosip Tito]

Luxemburg supported the Russian Revolution she was actually very critical of Lenin and Trotsky(source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm). And I actually object to plenty of aspects of Luxemburgism but it's technically considered a form of libertarian Marxism. What can I say? Many people are hypocrites.Luxemburg supported the Russian revolution:

"The party of Lenin was the only one which grasped the mandate and duty of a truly revolutionary party and which, by the slogan – “All power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry” – insured the continued development of the revolution.
Thereby the Bolsheviks solved the famous problem of “winning a majority of the people,” which problem has ever weighed on the German Social-Democracy like a nightmare. As bred-in-the-bone disciples of parliamentary cretinism,[3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch01.htm#n3)these German Social-Democrats have sought to apply to revolutions the home-made wisdom of the parliamentary nursery: in order to carry anything, you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to a revolution: first let’s become a “majority.” The true dialectic of revolutions, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority – that’s the way the road runs.
Only a party which knows how to lead, that is, to advance things, wins support in stormy times. The determination with which, at the decisive moment, Lenin and his comrades offered the only solution which could advance things (“all power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry”), transformed them almost overnight from a persecuted, slandered, outlawed minority whose leader had to hid like Marat in cellars, into the absolute master of the situation.
Moreover, the Bolsheviks immediately set as the aim of this seizure of power a complete, far-reaching revolutionary program; not the safeguarding of bourgeois democracy, but a dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of realizing socialism. Thereby they won for themselves the imperishable historic distinction of having for the first time proclaimed the final aim of socialism as the direct program of practical politics.
Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honor of international socialism." - Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution, Chapter 1.
Luxemburg was not a near-sighted person. She saw the Bolshevik revolution in a positive light, even though she reserved criticism of the Bolsheviks policies on certain issues.


That is not incompatible with vanguardism.Certainly not. Not in the Luxemburg, nor the Leninist sense.


And yet we have Marxists on this board who support a dictatorship of the vanguard party within a state, which I would call authoritarian, while others support the self-rule of the working class without a state, which I would call libertarian.Rosa Luxemburg supported the former, so long as the political power was in the hands of the proletariat, not just the party.


Libertarianism is for liberals. Revolutionary totalitarianism is where it's at.

Luxemburg wrote some good shit, but i think she focused too much on spontaneity(not something that should be confused with libertarianism; it's a strategy). Accumulation of Capital was pretty brilliant though.
I think this:

http://libcom.org/library/candle-burning-both-ends-rosa-luxemburg-critique-political-economy

may be interesting to you!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Rosa Luxemburg supported the former, so long as the political power was in the hands of the proletariat, not just the party.
She supported a revolutionary party and a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is different than a dictatorship of a vanguard party. At any rate, Rosa was murdered a little more than a year after the October Revolution, so unfortunately we don't have her reflections on Bolshevism as time passed.

[Brosip Tito]

She supported a revolutionary party and a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is different than a dictatorship of a vanguard party. At any rate, Rosa was murdered a little more than a year after the October Revolution, so unfortunately we don't have her reflections on Bolshevism as time passed.
As I have stressed, her vanguard, was not the Leninist model.

The revolutionary party was not separate of the masses as was the Leninist model.

The revolutionary party as the governing force, was not divorced from the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as you suggest. She seen it as one part of a wider picture. The revolutionary party (the governing party in the DOTP stage of the revolution) was an extension of the proletariat. Under the control of the masses, not separate.

"...socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat." -R. Luxemburg

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As I have stressed, her vanguard, was not the Leninist model. The revolutionary party was not separate of the masses as was the Leninist model.
Which was actually my point. I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

[Railyon]

You forget the second part of that quote:
But expect the possible. Nothing more.

The former without the latter is a recipe for failure. Or a lie.

Should be obvious I was just blatantly sloganeering in response to the OP, eh? :lol:

I don't really understand the anarchist <> marxist dichotomy so many people on this board uphold, in my opinion the only departure a solid anarchist communist has from marxism is the question of how the dotp is to be organized and whether a state is actually necessary, or if such a "workers' state" deserves to be called a state in the first place, making the term obsolete and misleading (usually all rolled into one question)

If that makes them not marxist, the same applies to a hell of a lot of contemporary marxist subtendencies who take the exact opposite path.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So you think revolutions fail because of the way that they are organized?
If how a revolution is organized is incapable of delivering the self-liberation and self-rule of the working class, then it would be a failure to me.

[Brosip Tito]

Which was actually my point. I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.
I did. Your comment registered in my head as "she didn't support a vanguard". Obviosuly you didn't say that, oops!