Negativity towards Marxist-Leninists

[Nikolay]

I neither support Marxist-Leninists, or oppose them (I don't know much at all about them). But I am awfully curious why there's so much negativity towards them. Is it because of how they governed the Soviet Union, or have they completely abandoned Marx's core theories? :confused:

Shouldn't we be united not divided in our drive to communism?

PS. I think we should keep this civil. I don't want anyone getting in trouble.

[Robespierres Neck]

Because people misunderstand scientific socialism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Because people misunderstand scientific socialism.

:rolleyes:

You hit the nail on the head, all criticisms of Marxist-Leninism or it's associated regimes are merely misunderstandings of "scientific Socialism," you're right.

[wunks]

anarchists and marxist-leninists fought and killed eachother in the past and according to the list of groups those are the two biggest tendency groups on this website so it makes sense for them not to get along well.

[Grenzer]

I neither support Marxist-Leninists, or oppose them (I don't know much at all about them). But I am awfully curious why there's so much negativity towards them. Is it because of how they governed the Soviet Union, or have they completely abandoned Marx's core theories? :confused:

Shouldn't we be united not divided in our drive to communism?

PS. I think we should keep this civil. I don't want anyone getting in trouble.

Well the primary issue is that most people don't believe that the Marxist-Leninists(known by most as Stalinists) created socialism in the Soviet Union. Usually the view varies between Marxism-Leninism creating a bureaucratic parody of socialism which was out of the control of the workers, or what is more common these days is the view that the Soviet Union and its satellites were merely state capitalist or just another capitalist state with superficial and pseudo-revolutionary slogans and appearances.

Once you see it from this context, it's not hard to imagine why most people are opposed to Marxist-Leninists: They don't see them as communists at all, but rather as counter-revolutionaries or social-democrats(depending on who you ask). So the real questions ends up being why would communists want to unite with people who(in their opinion) strive for capitalism as opposed to socialism?

To a newcomer, I can understand that it might be pretty confusing that so many different groups all supposedly fighting for the same goal can be opposed to each other; but as you learn more, you will realize that there are some very good reasons as to why these divides exist.

[Sputnik_1]

Saying that marxist-leninists are communist is like claiming that Hitler was merely a charming patriot. In both cases they see things in a very distorted way. In both cases it is hard not to oppose such a "vision".

[black magick hustla]

because they belong to the museum

[Comrade Samuel]

Saying that marxist-leninists are communist is like claiming that Hitler was merely a charming patriot. In both cases they see things in a very distorted way. In both cases it is hard not to oppose such a "vision".

I think that it's a little too simplistic to think of it that way. We are in fact communists and it's not distorted in any way to agree with the theories of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha along side multiple other revolutionaries and it certainly doesent deserve makeing ridiculace analogies compairimg us to Hitlerites. Perhaps some of the misunderstanding about anti- revisionist Marx-Leninism are due to the ideology at one time being able to challenge the most powerful capitalist countries in the world and presenting a very serious threat to their way of life. It would be foolish of corse to blame all the concerns srrounding Marx-Leninism on western propaganda, bad things have in fact happened in countries led by Marx-leninists but still neither in the severity nor context that capitalists or many people here would like you to belive. Revisionists too have played their part in staining the name of Marx-Leninism but they too cannot be blamed entirely.

but to return to your orginal post OP: I have great respect for people here who have the guts to disagree with me however when things deteriate to the point of stereotyping, name calling and out right lying sometimes I find it necessary to defend my beliefs. The negativity here roots from several things one of which being ability for people spit out witty one liners rather than actualy debate the topic at hand. (and perhaps it's worth saying this goes for all tendencies and that we should really do something about it)

[Movimento Sem Terra]

When they submit soviets to bolshevik party end " communism " Soviets lead the two revolutions that lead bolsheviks to power and the they got backstabbed by Lenine and his thugs.

[Rusty Shackleford]

because they belong to the museum
funny thing, i work at a museum

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This thread really has nowhere to go but down in a sectarian hell-storm of nonsense.

To the OP: The short and sweet answer is because Rev-Left is filled with many different tendencies which conflict with one another on ideological outlook.Currently I would say R-L has more Left Communists and Anarchists so that is why there are more attacks on them (but such would be different pending on what forum you went to and R-L itself has its ups and downs).

To the rest: I'll keep this thread open some time more but I have a feeling I am going to regret it.

[scarletghoul]

because its easier to hate on the leading revolutionary ideology in the world than it is to put aside liberal prejudices in the search for truth

[Peoples' War]

The reason there is negativity toward Marxism-Leninism, comes from the massive amounts of bourgeois propaganda on one hand. And we have ultra-lefts and trots who take a stance of complete unreality and anti-communism on the other.

Just because they think they know better than the Bolsheviks in the USSR, or Albanian under Hoxha, or Romania under Ceausescu.

You don't, you weren't there, you are only applying your revisionist ideas to the situations.

[Azraella]

Well I'd say it's true of any political ideology really. It can really devolve into "us versus them" for about any ideological difference.

I don't really hate on Marxist-Leninists but I dislike their methods to achieve socialism. To be honest, I probably hate on democratic socialists/social democrats more than I hate on other socialists outside of my tendency. Marxism and anarchism are like ice-cream flavors to me and I like both. I like a scoop of chocolate and vanilla in my bowl of ice-cream and that's what forms my ideology.

[JAM]

I neither support Marxist-Leninists, or oppose them (I don't know much at all about them). But I am awfully curious why there's so much negativity towards them. Is it because of how they governed the Soviet Union, or have they completely abandoned Marx's core theories? :confused:

Shouldn't we be united not divided in our drive to communism?

PS. I think we should keep this civil. I don't want anyone getting in trouble.

To address your question properly it's required to make two distintions: firstly the opposition between Anarchists and Marxists in general, secondly the opposition between ML's and other currents within Marxism as Left Communism for instance.

The first one is very commonly known: while the anarchists believe that we can achieve communism without passing through phases or stages, dismantling immediately the state, the Marxists advocate that to achieve communism we must pass through some stages (the DOTP, Socialism) before reaching the last phase which is communism.

The second is much more complex than the first. In my opinion, the main divergence here lies in the interpretation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. While Marxist-Leninists believe that USSR represented the DOTP, the Left-communists and other anti-bolshevik Marxists currents saw it as a distortion of Marx conception of DOTP which is supposed to be a workers democracy and not the dictatorship of one party. To them the Commune of Paris represented the DOTP (backed by Engels who consider the Commune as an example of DOTP). To Left Communists the Russian revolution was socialist until the soviets were submitted to the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party.

To Marxists the DOTP is the first stage after the socialist revolution which makes impossible any unity here since both conceptions of DOTP aren't reconcilable.

[jookyle]

Because people still think this is 1927 and feel the need to take sides.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Because it's easy to hate on something that has actually been there for a prolonged period of time and which thus was allowed the opportunity to fail. Contrary to ideologies which have never failed cause they have never been.

[Tim Finnegan]

It should also be remembered that upwards of 90% of the MLs we get around here are middle-class teenagers who get their politics from Wikipedia, which slants things even further against them.


The first one is very commonly known: while the anarchists believe that we can achieve communism without passing through phases or stages, dismantling immediately the state, the Marxists advocate that to achieve communism we must pass through some stages (the DOTP, Socialism) before reaching the last phase which is communism.
The socialism/communism distinction is a Kautskyist innovation. Not all Marxists uphold it.

[Rafiq]

Because people misunderstand scientific socialism.

Including Marxist Leninists.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Brosa Luxemburg]

EDIT: Sorry, wrong post place. Ignore this. Kinda drunk.

[JAM]

The socialism/communism distinction is a Kautskyist innovation. Not all Marxists uphold it.

It wasn't Karl Marx who made the distinction between the "lower stage communism" and the "upper stage communism"? I was referring to socialism as the former.

[El Oso Rojo]

It should also be remembered that upwards of 90% of the MLs we get around here are middle-class teenagers who get their politics from Wikipedia, which slants things even further against them.


The socialism/communism distinction is a Kautskyist innovation. Not all Marxists uphold it.

How do you know if most people of the ML tendency are middle class?

[The Intransigent Faction]

"Marxism"-Leninism is far more Machiavellian than Marxist. It takes a lot right out of Machiavelli's playbook.

In Leninism a new ruling clique arises that claims it will more or less "guide" the masses to class consciousness/communism, and loosen its grip and ultimately dissolve upon the elimination of "counter-revolutionaries" as a threat to its power. The problem is, as with ruling cliques throughout history, there is a vested interest in perpetuating the idea that a threat continues to exist in order to justify their position of relative privilege. In time, even fellow revolutionaries will be "discovered" to be subversive groups. As Machiavelli admitted was a risk in the case of his "Prince" seeking to create the foundations for a republic, the revolutionary "vanguard" loses sight of any aspirations for a society controlled by the democratic masses, and comes to seek power for power's sake.

In short the problem is that, whatever its promises of communism 'down the road', it is a totalitarian perversion of Marxism that lacks the core necessity of spontaneous action by the working class itself, unguided by the hands of statist "representatives".

DISCLAIMER: I don't really feel any negativity towards Marxist-Leninists on RevLeft as people, and I hope others here feel the same way. It's Marxism-Leninism as a political theory and its practice by state-capitalist regimes that is/has been the problem. Just wanted to make that clear since some people take these kinds of comments personally.

[Tim Finnegan]

It wasn't Karl Marx who made the distinction between the "lower stage communism" and the "upper stage communism"? I was referring to socialism as the former.
There are some incidents in which Marx sketches an imprecise distinction between a "lower" and "upper" stage, yes, but it was never a point on which he placed any theoretical weight. It was merely a question of organisation, and being a question of organisation in post-capitalist society, it wasn't something he felt particularly inclined to speculate. The formal distinction between "socialism" and "communism" as discrete and distinct modes of production is something that we only see emerging in the era of the Second International, an expression of the organisational structures of European social democracy, which could not comprehend in anything but the most distant, abstract terms the idea of a world without it.

[Q]

The socialism/communism distinction is a Kautskyist innovation. Not all Marxists uphold it.

Interesting. Most people attribute it to Lenin. But it could well have been Kautsky of course. Do you have any (preferably primary) sources on that?

[Fawkes]

cause leninists have fucked over workers countless times





the main division among the left is between those who want to form a centralized "workers state" and those who want to destroy the state and practice autonomous organization based on free association. there is absolutely no reconciliation between these two factions, a century of blood is proof as to why

[Tim Finnegan]

Interesting. Most people attribute it to Lenin. But it could well have been Kautsky of course. Do you have any (preferably primary) sources on that?
Not to hand, I'm afraid. It should certainly be said that Lenin modified Kautsky's conception considerably, specifically in collapsing the dictatorship of the proletariat into "socialism", so I'm not meaning to equate the two, but that's where the divergence emerges. (I think it may also have been Lenin who gave us the labels "socialism" and "communism", Kautsky simply describing them as "lower-" and "upper-stage" socialism/communism, but I'm not certain.)

[Ocean Seal]

There are good reasons, and then there are the reasons that the majority of revlefters have. But really the main differences between ML's and Trots and some left comms are what they would have done circa 1921-1929. Or what they would do when they seize state power, which they are obviously so close to doing.

[JAM]

There are some incidents in which Marx sketches an imprecise distinction between a "lower" and "upper" stage, yes, but it was never a point on which he placed any theoretical weight. It was merely a question of organisation, and being a question of organisation in post-capitalist society, it wasn't something he felt particularly inclined to speculate. The formal distinction between "socialism" and "communism" as discrete and distinct modes of production is something that we only see emerging in the era of the Second International, an expression of the organisational structures of European social democracy, which could not comprehend in anything but the most distant, abstract terms the idea of a world without it.

I don't know what you consider a theoretical weight but Marx has indeed distinguished two phases of communism in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme":


"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.


In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"


Anyway, my point was simply to show that Marxist don't believe in the immediate abolition of the state but through a phased process unlike the anarchists.

[Zealot]

The Soviet Union, until the death of Comrade Stalin, was a successful implementation of Socialism. Marxism-Leninism is the triumphant ideology and the only one to lead revolution after revolution in the countries where the chains of imperialism were at its weakest.

No other group understands the fundamental character of the relation between practice-theory-practice as we do, nor do they have a comprehensive understanding of the materialist conception of history or the dialectical movement of matter. Thus, Anarchists, Left-Coms and Trotskyists are almost non-existent in the countries where revolutions are on the brink. The closest they have come is by riding in on the coattails of Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries and trying to sabotage our revolutions. They do not consider us Communists even though, by and large, Marxism-Leninism is the only scientific theory that revolutionaries have been willing to give their life fighting for in the struggle for Socialism. Anarchists, Left-Coms and Trotskyists think that revolutions are started by handing out pamphlets or smashing the windows at their local McDonalds restaurant.

Have we abandoned Marx's core theories? No, we uphold them in the thick of revisionism and periods of the darkest reaction.

[wunks]

the main division among the left is between those who want to form a centralized "workers state" and those who want to destroy the state and practice autonomous organization based on free association. there is absolutely no reconciliation between these two factions, a century of blood is proof as to whyI'd say the actual main division is those who support working class politics and working class control, not some fake libertarian ideals that say anything with a degree of centralization is inherently not an organ of working class power.:rolleyes:

Kroptkin supported Russia in WWI. yet he was an advocate of decentralization. Bordiga rejected nationalism but was not an advocate of decentralization. showing the centralization-decentralization dichotomy is useless.

[Omsk]

Revleft =/= outside world.

The problem with RevLeft is that a lot of 'intellectual critics' think that they can 'criticize' something after they read one book or even worse a thread about the subject they want to 'criticize'.

[black magick hustla]

because its easier to hate on the leading revolutionary ideology in the world than it is to put aside liberal prejudices in the search for truth

i vote democrat im bigger than u

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't know what you consider a theoretical weight but Marx has indeed distinguished two phases of communism in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme":


"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.


In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"


Anyway, my point was simply to show that Marxist don't believe in the immediate abolition of the state but through a phased process unlike the anarchists.
There's nothing in Marx's text to suggest that these represent two distinct modes of production, though, merely that there will be qualitative developments within communist society. The form that development takes is conditioned, and Marx fully understood this, by the state of society at the point of proletarian revolution, so the details of his comments can only be taken to describe the form he expects development to take in a particular era to a particular era, and not, as in Lenin's theory, a predetermined evolution path.

[Manic Impressive]

OP might find this interesting it gave me a good laugh this morning
http://www.iww.org/en/history/library/iww/Chicago-Replies-to-Moscow

[Movimento Sem Terra]

Why USSR made a deal with Fascist Germany and deported Jews to Germany ? Why NKVD collaborate with Gestapo in deportation of jews ? Why they March together with nazis in the Poland Parade victory ?

[Rafiq]

There are some incidents in which Marx sketches an imprecise distinction between a "lower" and "upper" stage, yes, but it was never a point on which he placed any theoretical weight. It was merely a question of organisation, and being a question of organisation in post-capitalist society, it wasn't something he felt particularly inclined to speculate. The formal distinction between "socialism" and "communism" as discrete and distinct modes of production is something that we only see emerging in the era of the Second International, an expression of the organisational structures of European social democracy, which could not comprehend in anything but the most distant, abstract terms the idea of a world without it.

The point is that Socialism and Communism as a movement are interchangable. That's what Marx meant. He never devised a grand theory of how things would play out after the proletarian revolution.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[o well this is ok I guess]

Because they're boring.
Everything they write is about as interesting as the vehicle section of classified ads.

[JAM]

There's nothing in Marx's text to suggest that these represent two distinct modes of production, though, merely that there will be qualitative developments within communist society. The form that development takes is conditioned, and Marx fully understood this, by the state of society at the point of proletarian revolution, so the details of his comments can only be taken to describe the form he expects development to take in a particular era to a particular era, and not, as in Lenin's theory, a predetermined evolution path.

It appears very clear that the two phases represents two different stages of the process:

Lower stage of Communism: To each according to his work.

Upper stage of Communism: To each according to his needs.

Marx made a clear distinction between this two stages as you can read in his "Critique of the Gotha Program". Otherwise, it wouldn't be needed to differentiate it as Marx himself bothered to do. He didn't develop the idea extensively but wrote enough to make it clear that these two phases represent different moments of the revolutionary process.

[Art Vandelay]

It appears very clear that the two phases represents two different stages of the process:

Lower stage of Communism: To each according to his work.

Upper stage of Communism: To each according to his needs.

Marx made a clear distinction between this two stages as you can read in his "Critique of the Gotha Program". Otherwise, it wouldn't be needed to differentiate it as Marx himself bothered to do. He didn't develop the idea extensively but wrote enough to make it clear that these two phases represent different moments of the revolutionary process.

Indeed, but what our comrade is trying to say is that while they represent 2 separate and qualitative stages in the development of communism; they do not represent 2 different modes of production. Let alone Lenin's bastardization of the theory of socialism being state capitalism in the interests of the workers.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Soviet Union, until the death of Comrade Stalin, was a successful implementation of Socialism.
This right here sums up the answer to OP's question pretty well.


The point is that Socialism and Communism as a movement are interchangable. That's what Marx meant. He never devised a grand theory of how things would play out after the proletarian revolution.

Though, that's not the only way that Marx used the term "communism" (as others have pointed out, the Critique of the Gotha Programme clearly shows that he didn't use the term to denote the actual movement that abolishes the present state of affairs exclusively - but also to denote a mode of production, a social formation different from capitalism; so, both movement and a type of society).

[marl]

Let alone Lenin's bastardization of the theory of socialism being state capitalism in the interests of the workers.

Yes, but that's not so much the issue, as such an idea emerged under the backwardness of Russia. The issue is the fact that people want to replicate such an idea - or at least Stalin's bastardization of Lenin's bastardization.


You have the Kronstadt rebellion, in which Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin, crushed.

Ought oh.

[Art Vandelay]

The Soviet Union, until the death of Comrade Stalin, was a successful implementation of Socialism. Marxism-Leninism is the triumphant ideology and the only one to lead revolution after revolution in the countries where the chains of imperialism were at its weakest.

No other group understands the fundamental character of the relation between practice-theory-practice as we do, nor do they have a comprehensive understanding of the materialist conception of history or the dialectical movement of matter. Thus, Anarchists, Left-Coms and Trotskyists are almost non-existent in the countries where revolutions are on the brink. The closest they have come is by riding in on the coattails of Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries and trying to sabotage our revolutions. They do not consider us Communists even though, by and large, Marxism-Leninism is the only scientific theory that revolutionaries have been willing to give their life fighting for in the struggle for Socialism. Anarchists, Left-Coms and Trotskyists think that revolutions are started by handing out pamphlets or smashing the windows at their local McDonalds restaurant.

Have we abandoned Marx's core theories? No, we uphold them in the thick of revisionism and periods of the darkest reaction.

Quit writing like your a journalist for 1930's pravda.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Quit writing like your a journalist for 1930's pravda. This is probably the most important thing ever said on Revleft.

[Rafiq]

Though, that's not the only way that Marx used the term "communism" (as others have pointed out, the Critique of the Gotha Programme clearly shows that he didn't use the term to denote the actual movement that abolishes the present state of affairs exclusively - but also to denote a mode of production, a social formation different from capitalism; so, both movement and a type of society).

The comrades over at Marxists.org, when creating a study guide for Critique of the Gotha programme, noticed how this was contradictory to his notion of Communism back when he wrote the German Ideology. And perhaps, an exception, as Marx had stayed consistent with this notion (From the German ideology) until his death. One of the reasons, actually, why he didn't divulge into Communism (With the exception of Gotha Programme) was for the same reason I don't (The thread I made a while back explains). Personally, one of the reasons I believe he did so in Critique of the Gotha Programme was just a brief, underlying explanation, in response to the ludicrous accusations deployed against him in regards to Communism, and of course, the controversy with Anarchists. I don't deem it as a grand theory of a future society in any way, if anything, perhaps, an obscure form of the Devil's advocate.

[JAM]

Indeed, but what our comrade is trying to say is that while they represent 2 separate and qualitative stages in the development of communism; they do not represent 2 different modes of production. Let alone Lenin's bastardization of the theory of socialism being state capitalism in the interests of the workers.

Perhaps I might have been misunderstood by Tim Finnegan. I wasn't trying to defend Lenin's position or anything like it. I just wanted to point out that Marxists view the socialist revolutionary process as a phased one unlike the anarchists and I gave examples of those stages like the DOTP. It wasn't my intention to enter in an ideological arguing since I don't even share Lenin's interpretation of it.

[El Oso Rojo]

Why USSR made a deal with Fascist Germany and deported Jews to Germany ? Why NKVD collaborate with Gestapo in deportation of jews ? Why they March together with nazis in the Poland Parade victory ?

Where this comes from?

[Movimento Sem Terra]

According to the initial agreement, the procedure included German and Soviet troops marching before their commanding officers followed by changing the flag, accompanied by national anthems of Germany and the USSR. However, the Soviet commanding officer, Kombrig Semyon Krivoshein, writes in his memoirs that he did not allow Soviet troops to pass alongside the German forces, because he was afraid that Soviet troops, weary after a long march to Brest, would look inferior in comparison with the Germans, who stayed in the city for several days. Instead, he suggested that the Soviet columns would enter the city separately and salute the leaving Germans whenever they meet. The parade began at 16:00, and the Victory Arches were erected which the Soviet troops decorated with swastikas and red stars, and through which German troops marched. The Soviets fielded the 4th Battalion of 29th Light Tank Brigade, which was the first unit of the Red Army to roll into the city. The Soviet and German generals paid homage to each other's armies and their respective victories over Polish forces. Several historic works published in the 1980s-1990s discuss joint military parades of the Red Army and German Wehrmacht in other cities of occupied Poland. For example, Russian historian Mikhail Semiryaga writes in his 1992 work Secrets of Stalin's diplomacy: "Joint parades with militaries of both countries as participants took place In Grodno, Brest, Pinsk and several other cities. youtube .com/ watch?v=Tm2Z8I_xqX0 en. wikipedia. org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk

[Valdyr]

Well, the fact that the thread devolved quickly into arguing pretty much answers the OPs question.

[Taboo Tongue]

Because they're following feudal ideas of liberation.

I'm over-throwing the bourgeoisie, not the aristocracy

I've never met---nor will I ever meet a real Peasant\Serf! Ideas relating to them are irrelevant to me.

[Raúl Duke]

Eh, I'm not negative to all M-Ls just on the basis that they're a M-L, it's more a matter of attitude.

Some M-Ls here are pretty cool and raise good points.

Mostly I dislike the ones that still think discussing Stalin and Trotsky is worth a damn, that defending the USSR, Cuba, et.al is a big deal, that give stock replies and dogma that sound like I'm within the Comintern or the Politburo of the failed past, etc.

I like the Leninists who can see that there's a 'problem' rather than put their head in the sand. The Leninists who are aware that the USSR, et.al are irredeemable failures, that they're facing a PR problem, etc and instead of giving stock answers ("degenerate worker state this, revisionists that, whatever") are asking themselves the same question Lenin asked "What is to be done?" The Marxist-Leninists who are looking to re-invent themselves so to succeed in this 21st century.


Thus, Anarchists, Left-Coms and Trotskyists are almost non-existent in the countries where revolutions are on the brink.

See, here's an example. What planet does this person live on?
What about Greece, which is on the brink?
No anarchists there?

Thankfully, not ever M-L is like this but damn some of them are quite insufferable, writing like they live in the 1930s and filled with dogma.
"Marxism-Leninism is a triumphant ideology" give me a fucking break. Reality doesn't conform to this at all. At least the sincere M-L leftists are trying to find a way rather than believing nonsense and repeating the same shit.

[Questionable]

OP might find this interesting it gave me a good laugh this morning
http://www.iww.org/en/history/library/iww/Chicago-Replies-to-Moscow

Even I found that funny.

USSR: "Excuse me, but we're missing a few copies if your paper. Could you send them over? Thanks."
Chicago: "WELL, FUCKERS, GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR MURDERING THE BRAVE FREEDOM FIGHTERS At KRONSTADT, HUH? BUNCH OF FILTHY EVIL MURDERERS, RUINING EVERYTHING. GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH !"

[wunks]

It should also be remembered that upwards of 90% of the MLs we get around here are middle-class teenagers who get their politics from Wikipedia, which slants things even further against them.one thing that annoys me is when people try to attribute personal attributes to an opposing ideology when in reality it most likely applies to every ideology equally. I mean, have you really deluded yourself into thinking that ML's are middle class teenagers whereas trots or anarchists or whatever ideology you are of is downtrodden working class strugglers?

[Omsk]

Eh, I'm not negative to all M-Ls just on the basis that they're a M-L, it's more a matter of attitude.

Some M-Ls here are pretty cool and raise good points.

Mostly I dislike the ones that still think discussing Stalin and Trotsky is worth a damn, that defending the USSR, Cuba, et.al is a big deal, that give stock replies and dogma that sound like I'm within the Comintern or the Politburo of the failed past, etc.

I like the Leninists who can see that there's a 'problem' rather than put their head in the sand. The Leninists who are aware that the USSR, et.al are irredeemable failures, that they're facing a PR problem, etc and instead of giving stock answers ("degenerate worker state this, revisionists that, whatever") are asking themselves the same question Lenin asked "What is to be done?" The Marxist-Leninists who are looking to re-invent themselves so to succeed in this 21st century.

Quote:
Thus, Anarchists, Left-Coms and Trotskyists are almost non-existent in the countries where revolutions are on the brink.
See, here's an example. What planet does this person live on?
What about Greece, which is on the brink?
No anarchists there?

Thankfully, not ever M-L is like this but damn some of them are quite insufferable, writing like they live in the 1930s and filled with dogma.
"Marxism-Leninism is a triumphant ideology" give me a fucking break. Reality doesn't conform to this at all. At least the sincere M-L leftists are trying to find a way rather than believing nonsense and repeating the same shit.


No.

I'd like to see these Marxist-Leninists who are 'critical' toward Joseph Vissarionovich.

[Nikolay]

Well, the fact that the thread devolved quickly into arguing pretty much answers the OPs question.

lol. Sadly it has...

[Igor]

OP might find this interesting it gave me a good laugh this morning
http://www.iww.org/en/history/library/iww/Chicago-Replies-to-Moscow

What the fuck is going on in here? :D I'd love to have seen Mr. Ivanov's face after reading this. The guy over at IWW was really having a bad day.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

one thing that annoys me is when people try to attribute personal attributes to an opposing ideology when in reality it most likely applies to every ideology equally. I mean, have you really deluded yourself into thinking that ML's are middle class teenagers whereas trots or anarchists or whatever ideology you are of is downtrodden working class strugglers?

This may be true, but a lot of what the ML's are peddling here does seem to come from a younger demographic, if one looks at their way of writing and arguing.
Take for example what the Red Godfather wrote a few posts back.

[Igor]

I don't have a problem with M-Ls. I do have a problem with people who are dicks and have a bloated sense of self-importance. All that sticks out a lot more if all of you guys have matching Stalin avatars and you talk like you have just warped here from 1932 and even take your insults from century old pamphlets.

Just my guess.

[Art Vandelay]

No.

I'd like to see these Marxist-Leninists who are 'critical' toward Joseph Vissarionovich.

What does your post even mean? Raul types out a long intelligent post and you respond with no. Also who the fuck refers to people by their first and middle name?

[Igor]

What does your post even mean? Raul types out a long intelligent post and you respond with no. Also who the fuck refers to people by their first and middle name?

Russians do, actually, it's a patronym though not a middle name. But still, even referring to people you don't actually know with their first name is pretty odd and doesn't really help Omsk if they want to make people think their relationship to Stalin isn't creepy and cultish.

Also his name was Iosif, not Joseph.

[Art Vandelay]

Russians do, actually, it's a patronym though not a middle name. But still, even referring to people you don't actually know with their first name is pretty odd and doesn't really help Omsk if they want to make people think their relationship to Stalin isn't creepy and cultish.

Also his name was Iosif, not Joseph.

I stand corrected but still, another shit post from Omsk devoid of content. Its safe to say that Omsk falls into the one category of the M-L's that Raul described and some posters like jbeard for instance fall into another.

[wunks]

This may be true, but a lot of what the ML's are peddling here does seem to come from a younger demographic, if one looks at their way of writing and arguing.
Take for example what the Red Godfather wrote a few posts back.I've noticed that, but I've noticed it equally among anarchists. I haven't noticed it as much among trots and left-coms but that's probably because there are less of them on here as a whole.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I've noticed that, but I've noticed it equally among anarchists. I haven't noticed it as much among trots and left-coms but that's probably because there are less of them on here as a whole.

Of course every tendency is guilty of this, but one has to admit that it does seem to be more prevalent among the ML's. If that's because they are in a majority on this site is hard to say. When one is ina minority, one must choose words carefully

I would maybe argue that this kind of rhetoric isn't as common among Leftcoms and Trots because these tendencies are a bit more theoretically inclined, but this will undoubtedly be met by disagreement.

[Questionable]

Of course every tendency is guilty of this, but one has to admit that it does seem to be more prevalent among the ML's. If that's because they are in a majority on this site is hard to say. When one is ina minority, one must choose words carefully

I would maybe argue that this kind of rhetoric isn't as common among Leftcoms and Trots because these tendencies are a bit more theoretically inclined, but this will undoubtedly be met by disagreement.

Keep in mind that several of the more knowledgeable Marxist-Leninists never post in the main forum anymore because they're flamed and trolled constantly, or they don't come here at all. So I'd say we're under-represented on most parts of Revleft.

[Raúl Duke]

What does your post even mean? Raul types out a long intelligent post and you respond with no. Also who the fuck refers to people by their first and middle name?

I'm quite flattered that that post was considered 'intelligent.'
It's just merely my opinion on the matter and to show that not everyone here has a strong negativity towards Marxist-Leninists in general. The short-version is that I don't have a knee-jerk "hate" of Marxist-Leninists on the virtue that they're Leninists, like a few of our anarchist posters, particularly the newer ones, may have.

But I do dislike the dogmatic "Pravda" kinds and/or the delusional "ML is a triumphant ideology" types, particularly those who can't seem to avoid turning things quickly into a nonsensical sectarian squabbles in legitimate threads by insulting or grossly mischaracterizing, sometimes in bad faith, other leftists that aren't part of their ideological camp. (although I have seen a few anarchists, etc also turn legitimate threads into sectarian squabbles via stupid "all you guise are evil!1!" one-liner or so posts as well, to be fair; which annoys me). They make me quite sad and disillusioned.

[Omsk]

I stand corrected but still, another shit post from Omsk devoid of content. Its safe to say that Omsk falls into the one category of the M-L's that Raul described and some posters like jbeard for instance fall into another.


Oh, so my posts are devoid of content, and you are the judge? If it was not sad it would be laughable.

People like you are what made me stop posting, people who can't debate and take things personally.

And how can i comment on Raul's post seriously after what he wrote?

[Magón]

And how can i comment on Raul's post seriously after what he wrote?

Because that was a damn good thoughtful post on you ML's. If you don't see what he wrote as serious, then you just fall under as another one of those dogmatic ML's who contributes nothing more than 20th Century irrelevancy.

[Omsk]

What a group of ignoramuses you all are. The history of the arguably most important workers struggles is, irrelevant to you? Than i would rather enjoy my 'irrelevancy' than your 'relevancy'.

[Magón]

That's fine, ignorance is bliss in your case. But while you're complaining and defending something in the past you can't change, I'll be here in the present, 21st Century, in the conditions I'm in, doing what I can do get things done now, rather than what I can't change in the past.

The past is the past. It has it's place, like simply learning from it and taking what we can from what we learn, but frankly it's irrelevant to people nowadays wanting to change today, not yesterday. While you spew the past century's polemics and conditions, I'll spew today's polemics and conditions to people it actually effects.

[Fawkes]

What a group of ignoramuses you all are. The history of the arguably most important workers struggles is, irrelevant to you? Than i would rather enjoy my 'irrelevancy' than your 'relevancy'.

No, the lessons learned from studying the history of the Soviet Union are very relevant to us.

Lesson #1:
States exist to sustain themselves. Any attempts at efforts that would "whither" it away were met with brutal opposition (Kronstadt, Spain).

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The Russian Revolution and Civil War was a workers struggle.

After Lenin died the workers in the USSR would have been (almost) just as well of living in a capitalist country

[Manic Impressive]

Even I found that funny.

USSR: "Excuse me, but we're missing a few copies if your paper. Could you send them over? Thanks."
Chicago: "WELL, FUCKERS, GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR MURDERING THE BRAVE FREEDOM FIGHTERS At KRONSTADT, HUH? BUNCH OF FILTHY EVIL MURDERERS, RUINING EVERYTHING. GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH !"


What the fuck is going on in here? :D I'd love to have seen Mr. Ivanov's face after reading this. The guy over at IWW was really having a bad day.
IWW trolling since 1905 :D

I have political differences with the IWW but despite that they have won my respect a thousand times over and I fail to see how any socialist could feel differently. Much :wub: to the Wobblys

[Fawkes]

OP might find this interesting it gave me a good laugh this morning
http://www.iww.org/en/history/library/iww/Chicago-Replies-to-Moscow

3BRw_ihZRJI




I'd say the actual main division is those who support working class politics and working class control

That's precisely what I said.... Only difference is that it should read "working class" politics



Kroptkin supported Russia in WWI. yet he was an advocate of decentralization. Bordiga rejected nationalism but was not an advocate of decentralization. showing the centralization-decentralization dichotomy is useless.

Here's the thing: I don't base my outlook on the writings of two dead individuals.







Though I think I already adequately answered the OP in my first post, I'll reiterate by saying that the reason there is so much negativity towards Marxist-Leninists is because of the hundreds of thousands of workers who were murdered in the name of MLism. "Workers" States have destroyed countless revolutions in the most brutal and bloodiest manners possible. They've fucked us over worse than any capitalist ever could.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well, I have seen enough.

Thread Closed.