Torn Between Marxism-Leninism and Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Pillowpants]

I only started caring about politics when I was 14.

I started out as an Ayn Rand type Libertarian having been disillusioned with the
two major parties.

It didn't take me long to reject that and become a social democrat, then a democratic socialist. At present in the US, I hold out no hope for reformism.

Communism in the Marxist sense is the ultimate goal that I and no doubt most everyone here strives for. But I'm torn between Marxism-Leninism and Anarcho-Syndicalism in which approach is more likely to bring about that end goal.

With a bit of hesitation, I'd say I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist. But Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are all attractive to me at the moment. I'm not committed either way and I'm trying to keep an open mind.

I've done some reading on each of these schools but plan to read more from Chomsky, Goldman, and Kropotkin. Conversely I welcome M-Ls to suggest literature to me as I am less familiar with this ideology.

Anarchists try to reinforce and M-Ls try to convince me otherwise.

[The Douche]

1) We can't make that call for you, and no amount of our arguing on here should be able to effect your decision.

2) There is no real need for you to "pick a team" at the current point.


Finally, you can't just come in and ask syndicalists (of which there really aren't that many on here) to argue with M-Ls. Thats not how we do things here, I did, however, approve your post so that individuals could reccomend some texts to you and answer your questions.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Pick a team.
Pick mine.

Works I suggest are:
Lenin- Karl Marx
Lenin- Three Sources and Three Component parts of Marxism
Stalin-Foundations of Leninism
Stalin- Concerning Questions of Leninism
Lenin- What is to be done?
Lenin- State and Revolution
Enver Hoxha- Imperialism and the Revolution

These are of course the basics, I have not suggested Marx, to focus on the Leninism part.
But, for introductions to Marxism:
M&e- Communist Manifesto
Engels- Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

If you're interested in Marxism-Leninism, you might want to take a look at the forum in my signature. There the questions about marxism-leninism won't be answered with much hostility, although it is of course good to see discussion about the things here as well.
Most MLs will respond to questions, so if you have question you can also PM me or other active MLs.

There really is no need to pick a tendency, I suggest you look at all currents in Marxism and if you think that you're comfortable by calling yourself one of those, good for you.
If you see good things in all of them, there is nobody that will force you to pick sides.

[Grenzer]

What's so important about a label? It's not a football game, so you don't really have to find a definitive label. Just explore things at your own pace, and if you happen to find that your views coincide with a specific tendency, then great; if not, then there's nothing wrong with that either.

[Zealot]

As a Marxist-Leninist, I would recommend the following three works by Lenin as essential:

The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/): This writing is about the Marxist theory of the state, the state under bourgeois democracy and the future state under the dictatorship of the proletariat. He also analyses the state in terms of class struggle obviously, noting that the state is essentially a "tool for class oppression" which is, currently, in the hands of the bourgeoisie who are oppressing the proletariat. When the proletariat smashes the bourgeois state, a new state will be created to suppress the bourgeoisie.

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/): Describes how monopolies are formed from the competitive stage of capitalism, finance capitalism and the inevitable imperialism that follows to generate higher profits.

What is to Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/): A definitive statement about the vanguard party Marxists seek to create.

Obviously, I don't expect you to read through everything that people are going to recommend here. However, if you have any questions or comments feel free to send me a message.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Imperialism doesn't really describe how monopolies are formed, it just asserts that they are.

What Is To Be Done is not a definitive work, it was written in the context of the contemporary situation, and later is contradicted by other Lenin writings because the situation changed.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I am most definitely not an ML and I am highly critical of the Stalinist tradition but I would also highly recommend the works Red Godfather mentioned. They are available free on the Marxist Internet Archive. Understanding these works may require some historical background and you may get much more out of these if you read them with a study group.At least that was true for me.

In choosing a tendency I would suggest studying the historical record.Read about the Spanish Civil War. Homage To Catalonia by George Orwell is excellent.

Read about the Chinese Revolution before Mao.What happened to the Chinese worker's movement in 1927 and why?

Read about the Carnation Revolution in Portugal.

Look up Santiago Carillo.

These are not just ancient history but are very relevant to the struggles we are in today and the epic struggles we are bound to face in the very near future.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

How did you get stuck between those two, they are polar opposites?

But as others have said there is no need to select a label right away, just resign yourself to learning and education; a label will come later.

[Manic Impressive]

How did you get stuck between those two, they are polar opposites?

The only reason I can think of is perhaps the system of workers councils being used in the soviet union before centralization. Other than that I agree entirely it is bemusing.

Perhaps the OP should look into Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/index.htm)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Damn stalinists are already imposing their authoritarian thoughts on others!

I sugest you read on both sides, then decide.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Damn stalinists are already imposing their authoritarian thoughts on others!

I sugest you read on both sides, then decide.

Stop calling everything you don't like authoritarian.
You could of course “impose” things for him to read, instead of saying some buzz-words.

[Zealot]

Imperialism doesn't really describe how monopolies are formed, it just asserts that they are.

What Is To Be Done is not a definitive work, it was written in the context of the contemporary situation, and later is contradicted by other Lenin writings because the situation changed.

You obviously haven't read Lenin's works then. It really doesn't take a genius to figure out how they are made anyway. The competitive nature of capitalism necessarily means that monopolies will be created somewhere down the line as the big absorbs the small, outdoes its competition, etc. Please take your bourgeois evangelism elsewhere as I don't think this thread is intended for another one of our debates.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Quite the contrary, even Lenin's pamphlet was based on a large book by Hilferding on the subject of monopolization. If it was so obvious, then these works wouldn't be necessary.

And it is definitely relevant to the topic of this thread to put these works into their proper context for the OP to consider.

Recognizing all of this isn't "bourgeois evangelism" which is just name calling.

[Zealot]

Quite the contrary, even Lenin's pamphlet was based on a large book by Hilferding on the subject of monopolization.

Well noooo, you don't say...... Lenin himself mentions that in the pamphlet.


If it was so obvious, then these works wouldn't be necessary.

They put things into perspective but even when I wasn't a Marxist it was quite clear to me that monopolies were a fact.


Recognizing all of this isn't "bourgeois evangelism" which is just name calling.

Taken as a whole, judging from debates I've had with you elsewhere, I can only conclude that you are a bourgeois evangelist trying to preach your gospel all over this forum.

[Prof. Oblivion]

In this case, since you have admitted you were wrong, it appears you are the one that haven't read Lenin's works.

[jookyle]

Okay, here's the thing, simply picking a tendency or what not isn't really how to go about this whole thing. What you need to do is read as much as you can and participate in discussion as much as possible. Through discussion, you'll see how you've absorbed the material and what you've been agreeing with by what comes out in the argument. Picking a side and defending it just cause it's your side is terribly reactionary and unproductive. Through reading and discussion you'll find your place, dialectics works. Through the discussions, the arguments, the contradictions, etc. you'll come to a conclusion.

[Zealot]

In this case, since you have admitted you were wrong, it appears you are the one that haven't read Lenin's works.

I didn't admit being wrong about anything.

[Tjis]

It's important to realize that both marxism-leninism and anarcho-syndicalism, as ideologies, found their origin in a mass movement. It is not the case that people like Lenin wrote a bunch of books, and then a mass movement formed around their ideology. Rather, people like Lenin worked within a mass movement, crystallizing and refining the demands of proletarians in an attempt to give direction to this movement so as to bring about a revolution.

But presently, the mass movements that gave rise to these ideologies are gone, and all that is left are a bunch of books for the left-wing fringe to bicker about, completely unnoticed by the rest of the world. So why choose between them? Rather, read these works, learn about the historical context in which they were written, and try to infer organizational lessons which might be of use in organizing popular discontent in the present day.

[The Jay]

I just picked up a good book on Syndicalism. Black Flame by van der Walt and Schmidt is the name of it. Check it out.

[Let's Get Free]

Anarchism: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating the abolition of all state power, and a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.


Marxism-Leninism: a communist ideology, officially based upon the theories of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, that promotes the development and creation of an international communist society through the leadership of a vanguard party presiding over a revolutionary socialist state that represents a dictatorship of the proletariat.



Since both Marxism-Leninism and anarchism agree that a stateless society is the end goal, I'll talk about the methods each use to attain a stateless society. Marxism-Leninism has a very different way to attain this end then does anarchism. While anarchist do not separate means from ends (and are thus against State methods aimed at reaching anarchist ends), Marxism-Leninism specifically advocates a seizure and control of the government in order to bring about anarchist communism. Marxist-Leninists argue for a "proletarian state" as a "transitional period" between socialism(the lower stage of communism) and communism(a classless, stateless society.)

As an anarchist, I would argue that the "proletarian state" would be established above and beyond society, and however revolutionary its rhetoric, would be self-perpetuating. It would tend to become an end in itself, to preserve the very material and social conditions it had been created to remove. For such a state power to "whither away," to promote its own dissolution, would require that the leaders of the bureaucracy be people of superhuman moral qualities.

[l'Enfermé]

Seriously? You're torn between MLism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, and not, say, between Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism? :confused:

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Seriously? You're torn between MLism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, and not, say, between Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism? :confused:

I was wondering the same thing.

I think that the OP thought that Leninism and Marxism-Leninism are the same thing when they aren't. (This isn't a bash on M-L's, but an acknowledgement that some people don't realize that M-L isn't just agreeing with Lenin).

Marxism-Leninism is also what some, such as myself, call "Stalinism". M-L's agree with the concepts such as "socialism in one country" and an acceptance that society under Stalin represented a socialist society or a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Ostrinski]

Forget them both.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

IMO the failure of both indicate that neither is a sufficient ideological program in an absolute sense. On the other hand, both have unique components of their critique which should be considered seriously. Instead of tying yourself down to a single ideology, why not remain independent? I'm sympathetic to Marxism, but other than that I don't have strong ideological commitments. Lenin said some good things on the state, Kropotkin made some good arguments about ethics and an alternative leftist metaphysics, various Maoists have offered interesting structural critiques in the past few decades, and even reformist Marxists historically can have good ideological contributions. Just because we read XYZ texts and take them seriously, it doesn't mean we need to turn them into absolute ideological commitments.


The main distinction is in the role of the state, and a strong anarchist movement would help to keep a state-based socialist movement in line by critiquing overreach by the State and bureaucratic officials. On the other hand, state-based leftist movements offer a more immediate lever of power for radicals and this should not be forgotten either.

[Caj]

I'm torn between Marxism-Leninism and Anarcho-Syndicalism in which approach is more likely to bring about that end goal.

With a bit of hesitation, I'd say I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist. But Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are all attractive to me at the moment. I'm not committed either way and I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Just in case you didn't know, Marxism-Leninism is not merely "Marxism + Leninism" (in fact, it's neither of these, in my opinion). Marxism-Leninism means Stalinism. I'm not sure if you knew this, so I'll suggest both M-L (Stalinist) and Trotskyist literature (not that these are the only two trends of Leninism, but they are certainly the most well-known).


I've done some reading on each of these schools but plan to read more from Chomsky, Goldman, and Kropotkin. Conversely I welcome M-Ls to suggest literature to me as I am less familiar with this ideology.

Stay away from Chomsky when it comes to radical leftist politics. His writings on US foreign policy, mass media, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and linguistics are good, but when it comes to radical leftism Chomsky is just another clueless liberal.

Kropotkin is good. Goldman is mediocre, in my opinion, but still worth reading. Here's some other anarchist and libertarian book recommendations:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2498168&postcount=11

As for Leninism (both Trot and M-L), you should check out the following:

State and Revolution -- Lenin
Imperialism: The Latest [or "Highest"] Stage of Capitalism -- Lenin
Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder -- Lenin
What Is to Be Done? -- Lenin

The above are Lenin's most well-known works. You could also just check out the Lenin Anthology edited by Robert C. Tucker, which includes State and Revolution and Left-Wing Communism in their entirety along with abridged versions of Imperialism, What Is to Be Done?, and many other shorter writings.

As for Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism), Stalin's Foundations of Leninism is essential.

And as for Trotskyism, I recommend the following:

Transitional Program -- Trotsky
Permanent Revolution -- Trotsky
Results and Prospects -- Trotsky
The Revolution Betrayed -- Trotsky
A History of the Russian Revolution -- Trotsky (not exactly "Trotskyist," but it is still one of Trotsky's best and most widely known works)

Also, you can find almost all of the above writings for free at marxists.org, so, if you're comfortable reading from a computer screen, you wouldn't need to actually buy any of these works.


How did you get stuck between those two, they are polar opposites?


Other than that I agree entirely it is bemusing.


Seriously? You're torn between MLism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, and not, say, between Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism? :confused:

I think (s)he might just be new to the revolutionary left. When I first began to consider myself a communist, I was torn between anarchism and Trotskyism and thought that those were the only tendencies besides Stalinism. :lol:

[Zealot]

Marxism-Leninism specifically advocates a seizure and control of the government in order to bring about anarchist communism. Marxist-Leninists argue for a "proletarian state" as a "transitional period" between socialism(the lower stage of communism) and communism(a classless, stateless society.)

For the most part your post was okay, but here I have to correct you. We don't want to simply seize the state; we want to completely smash it and build a new one. They are two very different things.

As for "Stalinism" and Marxism-Leninism: yes, in general we do uphold Stalin and the Soviet Union he presided over. But for the most part we don't call ourselves Stalinists since Stalin didn't actually contribute all that much to Marxist-Leninist theory, which is based primarily upon the contributions made by Marx, Engels, and Lenin (and Mao if you follow Mao Zedong thought).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Go with Marxism.

[Questionable]

Anarcho-Stalinism

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I think (s)he might just be new to the revolutionary left. When I first began to consider myself a communist, I was torn between anarchism and Trotskyism and thought that those were the only tendencies besides Stalinism. :lol:


This board has other tendencies besides Trotsky and Stalin?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Anarcho-Syndicalism and Marx-Leninism? Torn between? I'm not trying to be offensive, but you sound quite ominously nationalistic.

I'd send you some of the works by Mr. Rocker, but it pains me to say that one of his descendants has most prudently taken almost every single one of his texts off the shelves and claimed them as his own (the bastard is an insult to both his family history and the movement they supported).

Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism is one of the only writings that escaped his genetic future's 'privatisation purge'. So you could read that for a start.

[Crux]

I only started caring about politics when I was 14.

I started out as an Ayn Rand type Libertarian having been disillusioned with the
two major parties.

It didn't take me long to reject that and become a social democrat, then a democratic socialist. At present in the US, I hold out no hope for reformism.

Communism in the Marxist sense is the ultimate goal that I and no doubt most everyone here strives for. But I'm torn between Marxism-Leninism and Anarcho-Syndicalism in which approach is more likely to bring about that end goal.

With a bit of hesitation, I'd say I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist. But Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are all attractive to me at the moment. I'm not committed either way and I'm trying to keep an open mind.

I've done some reading on each of these schools but plan to read more from Chomsky, Goldman, and Kropotkin. Conversely I welcome M-Ls to suggest literature to me as I am less familiar with this ideology.

Anarchists try to reinforce and M-Ls try to convince me otherwise.
A Necessary Discussion with Our Syndicalist Comrades (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/unions/1-discussion.htm)

[cantwealljustgetalong]

to be honest with you comrade, the only way I could really distinguish between theories is to struggle with others and see whose theories have better tools to deal with problems. I was a social anarchist before and during occupy, but after I saw how some of the anarchist principles worked out locally, I reconsidered my position.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I was just like you, so I decided to just not use a label. They all have their prose and cons, and I think the revolution will just happen which ever way is best for us.

[Yuppie Grinder]

May I suggest you choose Marxism instead of either of those?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I was just like you, so I decided to just not use a label. They all have their prose and cons, and I think the revolution will just happen which ever way is best for us.

revolutions do not "just happen", especially not "which ever way is best for us"
that is not the way the real world works, dude

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

revolutions do not "just happen", especially not "which ever way is best for us"
that is not the way the real world works, dude

I made it sound more simplified than I really think.

[Geiseric]

Read history first, and understand economics somewhat before you honestly make your decision about what organization to join. I have a friend who would of joined a group, I think PSL or something, but then he learned that they were part of a historic split from a 4th international fraction which supported the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. That turned him off from them.

Anyways, history of the marxist (and fake marxist) movement is what you really should concern yourself with before you decide which groups are right. And read primary sources as well, those are the best.

Hint: These terms are meaningless at this point. All that matters is rebuilding the workers movement, and establishing independent working class politics.

[RedHal]

look into the Progressive Labor Party, they are the closest thing to the contradictory anarcho-stalinism, since they uphold the historical USSR upto Stalin, but after the revolution they want to jump straight to Communism with no transitional stage.:cool:

[#FF0000]

How are you torn between two huuuuuuge bodies of thought like that?

What specific political ideas are you having trouble with?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But I'm torn between Marxism-Leninism and Anarcho-Syndicalism in which approach is more likely to bring about that end goal.
Those are two very different things. So, which vision of a socialist society makes the most sense to you? A left-libertarian one or a vanguardist one?

[citizen of industry]

I'm in the same predicement. I'm a unionist and a marxist. Around anarchists, I feel like a bolshevik. Around bolsheviks I feel more like a syndicalist. Bolshevik theory makes a lot of sense to me, but the organizations themselves don't give me any confidence and seem to be obsessed about the right political line on every issue whereas with unions I can fight employers, organize workers and still discuss and study theory and hold my own opinions.

[jookyle]

I don't really see why it's such a surprise to anyone. There was a point where I was in a similar situation. It comes down to what a person would want in a perfect situation and what's more realistic. The problem comes from wanting anarchism, but believing the marxist-leninist(or whatever tendency you want to place in) of being a more realistic way to reaching the greater goal. That's where the conflict comes from, do you promote your idealist desire in the hopes it can happen or promote what you perceive as being more realistic?

[citizen of industry]

I don't really see why it's such a surprise to anyone. There was a point where I was in a similar situation. It comes down to what a person would want in a perfect situation and what's more realistic. The problem comes from wanting anarchism, but believing the marxist-leninist(or whatever tendency you want to place in) of being a more realistic way to reaching the greater goal. That's where the conflict comes from, do you promote your idealist desire in the hopes it can happen or promote what you perceive as being more realistic?

For me it's more like I want to "do" something. The union enables me to insert myself in the production/circulation process and mess it all up and hurt profits. The party is made up of propagandists introducing theory into the labor movement. I agree with the theory, but as a worker and father with only so much time, the former is more appealing to me, and I can still introduce the same theory into the labor movement. Sometimes I think theory goes overboard, like heated debates over century old novels or even debates on what the labor movement is doing in other countries when the party has no influence in those countries. At the end of the day, "When lost, march towards the sound of the guns," i.e; I can fight capitalism with the union today, but can't fight capitalism with the party until tomorrow. So syndicalism is attractive.

[Manic Impressive]

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/287719_3328466414676_1299333314_o.jpg

[citizen of industry]

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/287719_3328466414676_1299333314_o.jpg

Those who preach about waiting don't have empty stomachs or mouths to feed.

[Manic Impressive]

Those who preach about waiting don't have empty stomachs or mouths to feed.
I went without food two days last week. You don't know what you're talking about.

[helot]

Funny thing is if your plan is to wait for socialism you're going to be waiting forever. The whole point is engaging in actual struggle. If you're not doing that your politics are pointless and nothing more than talking points.

[Omsk]

For now, i am too weak to type and argue with all of these revisionist-traitor-faux leftists which joined the forum, nor do i wish to waste too much time here, but i must say this to the person who started this discussion: Read, and don't listen to them. If you have any questions, ask me , or any other ML in our forum group.

Immer bereit.


I went without food two days last week. You don't know what you're talking about.

Impressive, i had bomb explosions above my head.

See how pointless and absurd such "scare stories" are?

[Ostrinski]

For now, i am too weak to type and argue with all of these revisionist-traitor-faux leftists which joined the forum, nor do i wish to waste too much time here, but i must say this to the person who started this discussion: Read, and don't listen to them. If you have any questions, ask me , or any other ML in our forum group.Then leave. If you see everyone here as traitors to your little fantasy world then get out. It isn't like anyone on this board takes you very seriously or gives one tenth of a fuck about what you say. So get out. Leave and don't ever come back.

[l'Enfermé]

^^ Comrade, don't provoke the wrath of the Champions of Mighty Stalin or they will smite us revisionist-traitors.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Comrade OMSK, perhaps it is time to take a breather from the forum and allow your anger to dissipate? Least you provoke administrative action. If you have a certain bone to pick I am an open ear and would gladly listen to whatever you are going through.

[Omsk]

GodlessUtopian, the message above was not directed at you.

I didn't react in the best way, but i guess that things have changed.

I have deleted the messages which can be considered offensive.

[Robespierres Neck]

Read this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm

[citizen of industry]

Read this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm

Or you could read Lenin instead, and not Stalin's interpretation.

[Omsk]

I'm glad I took my time before responding to this as it wouldn't have been pretty.

It could as you say be made up. Or you could have just taunted someone who is struggling to get enough to eat.

If someone had said in a thread that they had been raped, would you have responded by calling it an absurd scare story?

If someone had said in a thread that they had been racially abused at work, would you have responded by calling it an absurd scare story?

The fact is I'm unemployed and my welfare has been cut off and as a result I've been missing some meals.

I think to flame someone about what is a very stressful situation is fucking sick. I hope you are ashamed of yourself and I hope the admins take action against you for flaming.

All that does not change the fact that your response was off-mark. Such stories are not for discussions like these. And i was not flaming. (Notice how you automatically assumed my own "scare story" is a lie.) If you are in a problematical situation, (From your first post, it was not clear how bad the situation is.) i wish you all the best.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

As a weird antistate (post-?)Marxist insurrecto, let me offer you the best of both worlds, all linked for your convenience:

(http://www.bloom0101.org/call.pdf)The Reproduction of Everyday Life (http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/perlman/sp001702/repro.html)
Introduction To The Apocalypse (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/12/02/apocalypse_read.pdf)
The Call
(http://www.bloom0101.org/call.pdf)Work Community Politics War (http://www.prole.info/wcpw/intro_3.html)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Stop calling everything you don't like authoritarian.
You could of course “impose” things for him to read, instead of saying some buzz-words.

Marxist-leninism is authoritarian, we could have a huge discussion on why that is the case, but in the end it would lead to nothing.

How am I suposed to sugest anything for the OP to read, if the thread is already flooded with MLs, and their book sugestions.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Stop derailing this thread with your petty flamewar.

Smoke weed and read Dauvé.

[jookyle]

Marxist-leninism is authoritarian, we could have a huge discussion on why that is the case, but in the end it would lead to nothing.

How am I suposed to sugest anything for the OP to read, if the thread is already flooded with MLs, and their book sugestions.

Aside from council communism, I can't think of a communist tendency, ML or not, that is not authoritarian. And I've even seen people argue that there are still authoritarian elements in council communism; being against Bolshevik like organization doesn't magically equate to an unauthoritarian system.

[cyu]

http://lau.vsb.bc.ca/studentp/lilliansammy/files/apple.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_of_Discord)
Why go with any existing ideology? Why not come up with your own? Marx and Proudhon certainly didn't spend all day trying to find someone else's team.

The war that capitalists have brought to us will take many weapons to win. Sometimes it will take pitchforks, sometimes sniper rifles. Sometimes you need lawyers to fight them on their own turf, sometimes you take it to the fields and shop floors. If you're great with artillery and want to stick with that throughout the war, more power to you. If you prefer to always go where you believe your contributions are most needed each week or month, godspeed.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

^Listen to Godspeed You! Black Emperor
Lift Your Skinny Fists like Antennas to Heaven is probably Das Kapital for hipsters.

[redstarradical]

I've seen many political projects fail because some political group assumes that they are the workers' vanguard - when in all historical situations the real vanguard comes from the action of workers. Democratic Centralism is a really bad idea and has been the major factor as to why the many socialist experiments have largely failed to inspire the spread of socialist/anti-capitalism/anarchism. They are all centralist, all focused on one brand, that of the party, and fail to leave anything open for the natural disagreements that occur due to highly different experiences. Democratic Centralism fails to integrate an intersectionalist viewpoint into left politics by purposefully excluding the much needed discussion that should be naturally occurring.

[leaveuskidsalone]

I'm in a somewhat similar situation, I was formerly a hardcore Marxist-Leninist, then I took about a 2 year break from politics and went traveling. When I went traveling I squatted a lot and when I was in these squats I met a lot of anarchists (real anarchists I mean, not fashion punks that paint "A" everywhere and call themselves as such) and they've got me re-interested in politics, definitely in a more anarchist view.

Not that I'm trying to "choose" a side, I'm happy just calling myself a radical left winger, or an Anarcho-Leninist :P