Should future revolutions move away from the Bolshevik/Marxist-Leninist model?

[Let's Get Free]

Thus far, Marxist Leninist revolutions in the various countries over the past century have ended the ‘feudal relations of production’, and replaced it with ‘capitalist relations of production’. Simply put, the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban etc revolutions have created modern capitalist nation states, not communism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchist revolutions?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Damn, you've got a point. I don't think anyone on this board has said anything similar before.

While we're on the subject, do you guys think Stalin was bad for communism?

The fuck is wrong with you? This guy has been here for two months and just cos he says something you don't agree with, you get all like this?

To the OP: I think you're decidedly over-simplifying the issue when you describe the 20th century revolutions as being capitalist ones, ending feudalism. Many of these societies (particularly in the East) were decidedly agrarian-based, but i'm not sure that it was the revolutions themselves which ushered in capitalism. It's a tough one. In some cases - such as the Cuban revolution - the revolution had a decidedly more coup-ish character; the revolution itself didn't really alter the social-class composition of society, rather what happened before and came after. In other words, some of these revolutions were political revolutions which were not the main causes of transformational developments in the mode of production.

[Ostrinski]

How could those revolutions have done anything different, though?

But yes I do believe we should move away from Marxism-Leninism, although it has no future anyway. Anarchism and Trotskyism seem to be the more relevant tendencies now.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think another point relating to the question is also that, due to material conditions, it's an inevitability that future revolutions will follow a different path. This doesn't (necessarily) correlate with criticism of the 20th century revolutions, due to the material conditions argument.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Thus far, Marxist Leninist revolutions in the various countries over the past century have ended the ‘feudal relations of production’, and replaced it with ‘capitalist relations of production’. Simply put, the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban etc revolutions have created modern capitalist nation states, not communism.

Yeah, we should try more Leninist-Marxist revolutions next time....

But seriously: Marxist Proletarian Revolutions are the future. Once the Capitalist/Imperialist nation states are overthrown, revolutions in the underdeveloped nations will naturally be able to lead to Communism. When the advanced countries become Socialist, the rest of the world will be driven in.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Yeah, we should try more Leninist-Marxist revolutions next time....

But seriously: Marxist Proletarian Revolutions are the future. Once the Capitalist/Imperialist nation states are overthrown, revolutions in the underdeveloped nations will naturally be able to lead to Communism. When the advanced countries become Socialist, the rest of the world will be driven in.

So what do we do to stop the crisis in the meantime?

[Ostrinski]

So what do we do to stop the crisis in the meantime?I do not know much about economics but I'm suspicious of any person or organization that claims that the economic crisis in this world can be ameliorated. If the German banks, the financial creditors, and the governments in Iberia, Greece, etc. who's hands are forced by the former are intent on ramming austerity down the throats of the working people then it is going to be very difficult and quite perhaps even impossible to stop them.

[hetz]

What exactly do you mean by capitalist relations of production?



Simply put, the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban etc revolutions have created modern capitalist nation states, not communism.
These revolutions created revolutionary states of such and such nature, but these have since had their respective counterrevolutions of such and such kind.
Did the Paris Commune create the Third Republic's Parisian deparment?
The failure of socialism in the countries you mentioned are a known fact, but the revolutions gave us first of all important experiences and insights and lessons, which is why we still discuss them today.

[DDR]

Anarchism and Trotskyism seem to be the more relevant tendencies now.

Where? And I mean about the trots, anarchs have always been in the front of political struggles, but trots? Where they are a relevant tendency?

[Ostrinski]

Where? And I mean about the trots, anarchs have always been in the front of political struggles, but trots? Where they are a relevant tendency?Well, the radical left in general is pretty small but Trotskyists seem to be the only other tendency besides the anarchists with any presence. Marxist-Leninists are there to be sure, but there do seem to be many more Trotskyists, in the US and western Europe at least.

[Let's Get Free]

What exactly do you mean by capitalist relations of production?

Capitalism is a system based on generalized wage labor, commodity production, capital accumulation and so on all of which features existed throughout the history of the so called socialist nations.


These revolutions created revolutionary states of such and such nature, but these have since had their respective counterrevolutions of such and such kind.
Did the Paris Commune create the Third Republic's Parisian deparment?
The failure of socialism in the countries you mentioned are a known fact, but the revolutions gave us first of all important experiences and insights and lessons, which is why we still discuss them today.

It was a capitalist revolution because it firmly established capitalist relations of production or, to be more precise excised precapitalist social forces and relations of production enabling capitalism to develop more freely.

[hetz]

Capitalism is a system based on generalized wage labor, commodity production, capital accumulation and so on all of which features existed throughout the history of the so called socialist nations.
I see.
Didn't all of that exist in 12th century France too? Except generalized wage labor, what's that anyway?


It was a capitalist revolution because it firmly established capitalist relations of production or, to be more precise excised precapitalist social forces and relations of production enabling capitalism to develop more freely. Are you talking about the Russian revolution?
Why was a revolution necessary to firmly establish capitalist relations of production? Russian capitalism has started "establishing" itself everywhere without the need for some Bolsheviks.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

If there is a revolution, people won't be rallying behind the ideas of some European dude from the early nineteenth century; they'll be

I don't even see how you can call the 'Marxist-Leninist' model a form of socialism in the first place - I've seen nothing but obscurantism, apologism, double-standards and emotionalised repudiation from it. It's not a passage to revolution, and neither is Trotskyism or 'anarchism' (what kind of bloody Anarchism? Rejection of all authority is far too vague to be applied in reality unless one has a clear definition of what authority means). w; the crap about Blocs of Class Collaberation can stay rotting in the historybooks of the last century. We're supposed to be flexible! Materialists shouldn't latch on to things that cannot be used in the now! They should be thinking about ways to fit new passages to revolution into the current world climate, not chaining themselves to rigid concepts and waiting five-hundred years for them to ever be applicable, damnit!

Sorry for the rant - I'm no 'Pan Leftist', nor do I think that every 'tendency' has it right, but instead of sticking to a narrow set of ideals, we should be focussing more on making our goals clear and heading towards them in the best way currently possible.

[Astarte]

Thus far, Marxist Leninist revolutions in the various countries over the past century have ended the ‘feudal relations of production’, and replaced it with ‘capitalist relations of production’. Simply put, the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban etc revolutions have created modern capitalist nation states, not communism.

Indeed, extremely simply put, absolutely no question there...

[Sea]

How could those revolutions have done anything different, though?

But yes I do believe we should move away from Marxism-Leninism, although it has no future anyway. Anarchism and Trotskyism seem to be the more relevant tendencies now.By Trotskyism do you mean Marxism-Leninism served in a fancy glass with a lime twist and a side order of anti-Stalinism or do you mean Trotskyism? I've known a few "trots" who in all reality are just anti-Stalin MLs.

[Red Enemy]

It truly depends on the situation. There is not Tsarist Russia, this isn't the early 1900s.

The method "worked" at the time, but we must adapt to when and where. Material conditions are much different.

I do support a democratic centralist communist workers party, and believe this a necessary point of organization both prior to and during a revolutionary situation.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:

Now that I've cleaned up all the off-topic posts, I don't want to see any more. Questionable, if I see you call somebody else a troll or make a worthless one-liner like that again, anywhere on the forum, I'm going to infract you. If you think somebody is a troll PM a moderator, but don't post about it, because it's off-topic, and mini-modding isn't cool.

Everybody else who responded to Questionable's posts, let's try to keep things on topic please.

This post constitutes a warning to Questionable.

[Ostrinski]

By Trotskyism do you mean Marxism-Leninism served in a fancy glass with a lime twist and a side order of anti-Stalinism or do you mean Trotskyism? I've known a few "trots" who in all reality are just anti-Stalin MLs.By Trotskyists I meant people who refer to themselves as Trotskyist or who are part of organizations that refer to themselves as Trotskyist.

[Geiseric]

Well the bolshevik model is the only thing that worked. It isn't their fault the russian economy was in the worst state in history due to the civil war, making the tsarist bureaucracy a necessity to keep things from falling apart, unless you think they should of held back the revolution due to the "inability of the working class to create socialism," in which case you'd of been a menshevik and ultimately a counter revolutionary.

It's no secret that the first revolutions are happening as we speak in north africa and in the eurozone. The bourgeois will be unable to hold back the momentum the egyptian, tunisian, algerian, greek, italian, and spanish working class is building up. It's up to us in the cores of capitalism to support these efforts, and to build up the anti war movement, and to take a leading role in labor and national struggles so the U.S. military and NATO as a whole is unable to crush the inevitable world revolutions.

[blake 3:17]

The biggest crisis, which isn't at all implicit (and maybe contradictory) to Marxism, are the ecological questions. I don't think Marxism can simply be made a tad greener. We need a real brake on productivism.

Earlier Marxists had no reason to consider issues like light pollution. Socialists today need to.

[Geiseric]

Yeah that's definately true, socialists adopting environmentalism would also include a huge section of youth who see environmental organizations as the only channel for activism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Anarchism and Trotskyism seem to be the more relevant tendencies now.

And don't forget Maoism! Blowing shit up in India since 2000. W00!1!


'scuse me, but I didn't want to feel left out :P

[Zealot]

And use what model? Anarchist adventurism? No thanks. The Bolshevik model has consistently proven to work, adapted to specific conditions, and Marxism-Leninism has been the only relevant model in the past and now.

[Let's Get Free]

And use what model? Anarchist adventurism?

A deliberately inaccurate interpretation of anarchism alleges that the anarchist concept means the adventurism and absence of all organization. This is entirely false: it is not a matter of "organization" or "nonorganization," but of two different principles of organization. Anarchists say there must be organization. However, the new organization must be established freely, socially, and, above all, from below.


No thanks. The Bolshevik model has consistently proven to work, adapted to specific conditions, and Marxism-Leninism has been the only relevant model in the past and now.

The Bolshevik model is not well-suited to the self-liberation of the working class, and the future revolutions must reject it as a model. The most practical form of organization for the task of worker self-emancipation is that envisioned by Marx and practiced by the syndicalists--the organization of One Big Union of All the Workers. Marx never considered that the revolutionary organization would be made up of a small group of professional revolutionary zealots. Instead, he envisioned the organization developing as a result of day to day struggles with the capitalists.

[Geiseric]

Sorry but Marx never talked about the IWW, or the concepts it followed. That was De Leon, who is commendable in his own right, but James Cannon, a founder and IWW organizer, who later founded the CP-USA and SWP, conceided later on that by the 40's the IWW was hardly existent in any meaningful way, and a proletarian party had to be formed for the long run. Of course communists should take the leading role in labor struggles, but a party that leads in every aspect of class struggle is what's necessary, or else the working class opportunists and petit bourgeois progressives will co opt any working class conscious movements. Also Leninism isn't an inclusive idea at all, you just think it is because it only includes people who believe in parties and mass organizing, whereas you don't.

[TheOther]

The problem of trotskists is that they think that they can change the world by pure theories, they are dreamers, idealists. And like you said I've never seen a trotskist and an anarchist revolution succeed. So far the only leftist revolutions succeeding are the Bolivarian Revolution, Ecuador, Cuba and Bolivia, along with other nations of Latin American. A supporter of the Socialist Equality Party and of the World Socialist Website http://www.wsws.org told me that he wished that Hugo Chavez would die of cancer.



Where? And I mean about the trots, anarchs have always been in the front of political struggles, but trots? Where they are a relevant tendency?

[robbo203]

Well the bolshevik model is the only thing that worked. It isn't their fault the russian economy was in the worst state in history due to the civil war, making the tsarist bureaucracy a necessity to keep things from falling apart, unless you think they should of held back the revolution due to the "inability of the working class to create socialism," in which case you'd of been a menshevik and ultimately a counter revolutionary.

In what sense did the "Bolshevik model" work? Work to create what? State capitalism was the outcome and, if what you are saying is that the Bolshevik model worked to create state capitalism then I , for one, wouldn't disagree. But as far as the socialism is concerned, state capitalism is a complete and utter dead end. It leads to nowhere but ..state capitalism. Or no, correction - it leads to other forms of capitalism since there are good technical reasons for supposing that the old command economy model of state capitalism was too unwieldly to accommodate economic diversificaion and modernisation and was bound to disappear in the end. From a capitalist point of view, Stalinist style state capitalism "worked" for a while when the Soviet Union was building up its primary sector and constructing vast infrastructural projects - albeit at huge cost to the Russian workers. This command economy model is no longer suitable to modern capitalism - which is why the Russian ruling class opted for corporate capitalism instead - though another form of state capitalism (read Ian Bremmer on this) epitomised by the current Chinese model may be a differn#ent matter. Chinese state capitalism is unabashedly based on a capitalist business model and lacks the pseudo-ideological wrappings of the old Soviet model


I dont think in any case it is useful to talk of the Bolshevik model being applied, strictly speaking, in the case of the Russian revolutiuon. At the time of the revolution the Bolsheviks had little control over developments, they only consolidated that control subsequently culiminating ultimately in a state capitalist one-party dictatorship ruthlessly crushing all opposition to this dictatorship over the proletariat


It is not the "inability" as such of the working class to create socialism that is the issue but the plain fact that there was no mass movement for genuine socialism at that time - neither in Russia or anywhere else in the world. Anyone who denies this plain fact, simply has no idea what they are talking about - or more to the point , has no idea of what genuine socialism is about. You cannot have socialism without a majority wanting and understanding it and this, above all, is why the Russian revolution was doomed to have only one outcome - state capitalism




It's no secret that the first revolutions are happening as we speak in north africa and in the eurozone. The bourgeois will be unable to hold back the momentum the egyptian, tunisian, algerian, greek, italian, and spanish working class is building up. It's up to us in the cores of capitalism to support these efforts, and to build up the anti war movement, and to take a leading role in labor and national struggles so the U.S. military and NATO as a whole is unable to crush the inevitable world revolutions.

While developments in North Africa and the Eurozone countries are to be welcomed, we should not read into them something that simply does not exist. These are not socialist revolutions aimed at toppling capitalism and if anyone is so gullible as to believe that then they are in for a huge disapppointment. Rather they might well make the conditions more amenable for socialist ideas to take hold and for a socialist movement to operate in. Greater political democracy is unquestionably a good thing for socialists but it does not in itself signify a movement towards socialism.

Socialists are unfortunately a tiny minority everywhere and we should not delude ourselves on this point or underestimate the magnitude of the task we face. Doing so will only bring in its train future disappointment and so encourage the spread of cynicism and apathy - those formidable foes of the socialist movement - along with capitalist ideology itself in all its bewildering complexity

[Ostrinski]

And don't forget Maoism! Blowing shit up in India since 2000. W00!1!


'scuse me, but I didn't want to feel left out :PYes, well, I have my reservations as to how effectively we can blow up our way into socialism.

[robbo203]

Yes, well, I have my reservations as to how effectively we can blow up our way into socialism.

You can't go far wrong if you take as your basic working principle that the ends and the means must always be in harmony

You cannot bring about a free and democratic society by means that are unfree and undemocratic. Violence not only brutalises but reproduces the very structure of thinking that social hierarchy and hence class society depends

[Flying Purple People Eater]

You can't go far wrong if you take as your basic working principle that the ends and the means must always be in harmony

You cannot bring about a free and democratic society by means that are unfree and undemocratic. Violence not only brutalises but reproduces the very structure of thinking that social hierarchy and hence class society depends

Yet, miraculously, to have a democratic movement you would have to incorporate the ruling class that we are trying to overthrow, yes?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

What exactly do you mean by capitalist relations of production?


These revolutions created revolutionary states of such and such nature, but these have since had their respective counterrevolutions of such and such kind.
Did the Paris Commune create the Third Republic's Parisian deparment?
The failure of socialism in the countries you mentioned are a known fact, but the revolutions gave us first of all important experiences and insights and lessons, which is why we still discuss them today.

The more reason why we should not go that way! It's been discussed and excavated.

On the topic of what model to use: Anarcho-communism.

Nuff said.

[robbo203]

Yet, miraculously, to have a democratic movement you would have to incorporate the ruling class that we are trying to overthrow, yes?

Well since the ruling class are a tiny minority I guess they would be outvoted every time;)

But seriously I suppose the odd capitalist might join in too - like Herr Engels of Manchester

[GoddessCleoLover]

Well since the ruling class are a tiny minority I guess they would be outvoted every time;)

But seriously I suppose the odd capitalist might join in too - like Herr Engels of Manchester

I agree with many of your ideas, but would not you agree there must be a serious rupture with bourgeois society and a transformative social, economic, and political change?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I do not know much about economics but I'm suspicious of any person or organization that claims that the economic crisis in this world can be ameliorated. If the German banks, the financial creditors, and the governments in Iberia, Greece, etc. who's hands are forced by the former are intent on ramming austerity down the throats of the working people then it is going to be very difficult and quite perhaps even impossible to stop them.

So you say we should just shut up and do nothing?

People are in misery, I will not let it go on! The crisis has taken away everything and you say we should just submit to the will of the troika? If I had ever had any doubts about marxism you have taken them all away with what you have just said.

[Futility Personified]

Well, Marxist Leninist movements have done nothing but provide a poor alternative to American supremacy. The environmental angle is interesting though. Socialism is a sustainable economy, and it is now effectively consensus that the environment is going to shit. Sustainable economics, sustainable environment, sustainable future? I can imagine lots of people being down with that.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The Bolshevik model has consistently proven to work

Tell me, how did the bolshevik model work? If I remember that part of history correctly I also remember that the people of russia were still in misery after the revolution and the only thing the bolsheviks did was create a new, even more authoritarian regime, which in practice worked much like the fascist regimes of Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
Lenin betrayed the ideals he claimed to defend, he was a politician, nothing more, politicians lie to get to power.
The bolshevik model never worked, and it never will. It never brought liberation of the working class, it never created dictatorship of the proletariat. It created dictatorship of the party, nothing more. It was only a change of management, from one dictatorship to the next. If you think putting a party in power to opress and murder any who do not agree with its ideology is the way to reach a more free society, then you are no better than the fascists.

Calling anarchism adventurous is something I can understand. Anarchism is more complicated to understand, it requires more reflection than stalinism. Stalinism just requires reading the texts and accepting, anarchism requires reading the texts, reflecting about them, finding solutions, "how can it work?", "Is it compatible with human nature?", you need to answer many questions, and then you must dispell away the fear, the fear of freedom. Fear of freedom is what makes some turn away from anarchism, they think, because anarchism does not have as much theory as marxism, it does not work. Those people have turned away from anarchism either out of fear or out of not being able to understand it. Anarchism is much more complicated than marxism, because it does not contain nearly as much theory, but this also makes anarchists much less dogmatic.
Your ideas that a revolution that is to free the working class must be directed from above, by a party, are ridiculous. Anarchists do not discriminate, we see all as equal, all are equals, because all are human. Anarchists will not discriminate you if you are bourgeois, we see you as human, as a person, and as someone who desires freedom. Anarchists are left-wing libertarians, we are the true libertarians, we are those who seek freedom for all, not just for some. We are the ones who care the most about freedom, we are the ones who will always see you as equal, we are the one who will protect your freedom, no matter who you are, we are anarchists.
Marxists would rather wait for many years until they see the world ready for revolution than to act now and bring liberation to the people, even if it ends up costing their lives. That is why anarchism is becoming much more relevant today than marxism, we want to act now, you want to act when you think is right, we want liberation for humanity, you want liberation for certain individuals. Maybe you do not want to admit it but marxism is outdated, much time has passed from the time when it was created, and since the theory does not change, marxism has been the same for many decades. Anarchism is not so strict, it constantly evolves because it is only based on a few ideal: freedom, equality, fraternity; the same ideals the liberals used, but we take them much further, we take them to the extreme. Anarchism is based on the idea that all should be free, no matter who they are, man, woman, black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, etc, and that all these should be equal. For everyone to be free, the state must be abolish, for everyone to be equal, money must be abolished. Those are the basic ideas of anarchism.

Anarchism is adventurous, but we also adress the problems of today, we want liberation now, not many years in the future when the world is all socialist. Anarchists may be left-wing, but we are nothing like you.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Well, Marxist Leninist movements have done nothing but provide a poor alternative to American supremacy. The environmental angle is interesting though. Socialism is a sustainable economy, and it is now effectively consensus that the environment is going to shit. Sustainable economics, sustainable environment, sustainable future? I can imagine lots of people being down with that.

We have to be careful about how closely we tie-up with the greens. At the end of the day their ideology is reformist and anti-working class. We ought to work with them in mass movements with being swallowed up by their petit-bourgeois ideology.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

We have to be careful about how closely we tie-up with the greens. At the end of the day their ideology is reformist and anti-working class. We ought to work with them in mass movements with being swallowed up by their petit-bourgeois ideology.

We must adress the problems of our time, and as such we must adress the problem of polution and climate change. We should take things from the ecologist movement and combine them with ours, anarchism does that with many ideologies, like femenism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

We must adress the problems of our time, and as such we must adress the problem of polution and climate change. We should take things from the ecologist movement and combine them with ours, anarchism does that with many ideologies, like femenism.

True as far as it goes. Both feminism and ecologism have aspects that are valuable to constructing a mass movement. OTOH they also have component parts that could lead us down blind allies of reformism. I personally witnessed back in the 70s how some leftists ill-used the construct of socialist feminism and ended up burning themselves out on a funeral pyre of pet-tbourgeois reformism. My surmise is that these days most of these folks hold positions in the bureaucracy where they administer cuts in services to the poor and disabled. Some of them might even own their own businesses.:rolleyes:

[robbo203]

I agree with many of your ideas, but would not you agree there must be a serious rupture with bourgeois society and a transformative social, economic, and political change?

Absolutely. But the rupture must be a democratic , bottom up and, above all, conscious process. You cannot fundamentally change the nature of the society you live "behind the backs" of the very people who will operate the new society you propose to usher in. They have to be involved from the get go. The so called vanguard - the (empirical) minority of class conscious socialists today - must of necessity have been superceded by a socialist majority democratically organising for socialism. Otherwise there can be no socialism. Period.

[Geiseric]

I'd love to argue with the left communists and anarchists about the hooplah theory of "state capitalism," but I have yet to hear an alternative, nor a realistic view on how soviet history worked from any advocate of that theory, so i'm not going to. That theory is built on mis quoting people, the same way Stalinism has a grounding, adopting "stagism," from Lenin's menshevik days. I hear alot of phrase mongering like "bottom up," when it's directed against who they don't like, when in real life, anarchists are sometimes least democratic people when they're in an actual struggle, doing whatever they want, including aggrivating police, vandalism that doesn't benefit class consciousness, and the entire "blac bloc direct action," BS that they like to fetishize, instead of actual organizing.

[Let's Get Free]

State capitalism isn't "hooplah." Actually, among the first to describe Russia as state capitalist was Lenin himself.

[l'Enfermé]

Prophesying about the nature of "future revolutions" is a complete waste of time in the absence of a working-class socialist movement. We're not fortune-tellers.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Prophesying about the nature of "future revolutions" is a complete waste of time in the absence of a working-class socialist movement. We're not fortune-tellers.

Nor do we seem to be revolutionairies, but we try to be anyway!

[Geiseric]

No state capitalism is hooplah, all you have to back it up is quotes from lenin. There was no capitalism, de facto nor de jure, in the fSU. They had to change the laws in the 80's through 90's so capitalism could be re established.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No state capitalism is hooplah, all you have to back it up is quotes from lenin. There was no capitalism, de facto nor de jure, in the fSU. They had to change the laws in the 80's through 90's so capitalism could be re established.Capitalists change laws in capitalist states to go from Keynesian policies to neoliberal ones. When counter-revolutions happen, typically they involve the repression of the revolutionary class by another in order to establish a ruling class' hegemony over society. They tend to look more like 1930s Spain or Russia. Hell, the Southern elites in the US had more of a counter-revolution after reconstruction than the USSR at the end when most of the old elite became the new elite.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Capitalists change laws in capitalist states to go from Keynesian policies to neoliberal ones. When counter-revolutions happen, typically they involve the repression of the revolutionary class by another in order to establish a ruling class' hegemony over society. They tend to look more like 1930s Spain or Russia. Hell, the Southern elites in the US had more of a counter-revolution after reconstruction than the USSR at the end when most of the old elite became the new elite.

Perhaps not the "redeemers" but overall your point is spot on. Gorbachev lost his office but from the second tier downward Soviet officials rather easily eased their way into the new Russian elite. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Hell, former KGB operative Putin's grandfather was on the Stalin's personal Kremlin staff. Continuity extends even to the family level.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I would say both the Third and Fourth International have run their course. This is not to dismiss the political movements they spawned entirely out of hand -- all have a worthy contribution to make, but I think we have to get away from the Comintern model, repeated by the Fourth International, that there must be an absolute unity of theory, embodied by one political party and that must be obstinately defended to the exclusion of all others, the grassroots flexibility of the Trotskyism ('united fronts', 'building a mass movement') notwithstanding.

I propose something different. What if we take some lessons from the original International Workingmens' Association (the First International). For all its parochial, sexist handicaps, it drew together "proletarians" many different tendencies; socialist, communist and anarchist. If oppressed groups and workers' associations (Marxists, socialists, anarchists, ecosocialists, anti-racists, feminists) were to come together today in such a manner, I think then and only then will we begin develop a clear strategy to end capitalism.

Just to be clear, I'm not speaking a vague progressive bloc along the lines of he World Social Forum, less still of the World Economic Forum. All tendencies would share a intention to replace capitalism and to defeat imperialism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would say both the Third and Fourth International have run their course. This is not to dismiss the political movements they spawned entirely out of hand -- all have a worthy contribution to make, but I think we have to get away from the Comintern model, repeated by the Fourth International, that there must be an absolute unity of theory, embodied by one political party and that must be obstinately defended to the exclusion of all others, the grassroots flexibility of the Trotskyism ('united fronts', 'building a mass movement') notwithstanding.

I propose something different. What if we take some lessons from the original International Workingmens' Association (the First International). For all its parochial, sexist handicaps, it drew together "proletarians" many different tendencies; socialist, communist and anarchist. If oppressed groups and workers' associations (Marxists, socialists, anarchists, ecosocialists, anti-racists, feminists) were to come together today in such a manner, I think then and only then will we begin develop a clear strategy to end capitalism.

Just to be clear, I'm not speaking a vague progressive bloc along the lines of he World Social Forum, less still of the World Economic Forum. All tendencies would share a intention to replace capitalism and to defeat imperialism.

The concept has a certain appeal, but on balance given the failures of all four Internationals perhaps we ought to begin our efforts on a national level. At least in the USA we have enough problems trying to reinvigorate our Left that going International would seem to me untimely at present. Perhaps in the future, though.

[Nicholas Popov]

Thus far, Marxist Leninist revolutions in the various countries over the past century have ended the ‘feudal relations of production’, and replaced it with ‘capitalist relations of production’. Simply put, the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban etc revolutions have created modern capitalist nation states, not communism.

In reality, the transfer of "factories to the workers" would mean loss of control over those and others, and of the monopoly on power in the upshot: the economic independence generates the political! This is the second and main reason why 'communist' bonzes were so afraid of 'revival of private property', including the collective. This slogan is no more than the 'decoy duck' and unfeasible under the one-party monopoly conditions.

A entire civilization including technics, culture and social order, was thought up sometime and by someone. Freethinkers and truly revolutionary ideas give to it a steady movement forward. Meanwhile, much of what is passed off as 'revolution' is nothing more than a change of signboard and 'icons'...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSif7mqfWvlONEtM3QYYL3Ktq5hGd6Hx oHeUcOtYOUEU24MB6gu

The "Russian October Revolution", Comandante Che, the Arab revolutions - they have all been surrounded by a golden aura of epic heroism and people's hopes; however an outdated governance paradigm dooms true freedom fighters to failure before they even start, and yet again everything turns full circle. But why? Was it 'people's liberation revolutions'? And was it actually revolutions?

Real Democratic Revolution and Freedom are here: A multipolar democratic system. (http://modelgovernment.org/en/multipolar-democratic-political-system.html)

[reb]

To claim that the "bolshevik model" actually contributed to the revolution, as any sort of guiding force, in Russia is historical revisionism. The "bolshevik model" had actually to be dropped by the Bolsheviks as they were compelled by the proletariat to follow them or be brushed to the wayside. The Russian revolution also had nothing to do with "marxism-leninism" which was the ideology of the soviet state, many years after 1917. All places that claim to have a "marxist-leninist" revolution are contorting the marxist understanding of the world revolution in favor of a bourgeois definition, typical of "marxism-leninism"'s or rather, stalinism's, social democratic roots. The "revolutions" they had either amount to a placement of a soviet puppet with the backing of the red army or some guerrilla band who also gained support of the soviet state. Neither of these scenarios involved the proletariat. Which is even funnier when you apply it to Albania which had no proletariat but still managed to go into a "post-capitalist society", according to their bourgeois and pseudo-marxist standards. Anyone proclaiming the glories of stalinism as a revolutionary model is living in la-la-land.

[La Guaneña]

Well, the revolutionary centre seems to be hovering over Latin America right now. Venezuela and Colombia have advanced working class movements, with all of the due setbacks.

It's just good to point out that all of the potential revolutionary poles of our current world (latam, greece and cyprus, spain and southern asia) have "traditional, dogmatic and orthodox" M-L organizations ahead of them. I guess the dogmatic dudes have been more able to surf the movements and contradictions of capital, huh?

[Prof. Oblivion]

State capitalism isn't "hooplah." Actually, among the first to describe Russia as state capitalist was Lenin himself.

Yes but Lenin didn't have the same meaning at all when he used the phrase so that isn't even really relevant.