Predominant tendency here on RevLeft: a poll

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

As an extention to this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/which-tendency-most-t177205/index.html?t=177205) I wanted to see which tendency holds the most followers here on RevLeft.

CommingUpForAir, your idea is briljant and i wanted some facts.
Thanks a lot.


ps. please specify when chosen "Other"

[Luís Henrique]

Other: non-substitutionist Marxism.

Luís Henrique

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Other: non-substitutionist Marxism.

Luís Henrique

Thanks for your reply.
Can you tell me what this non-substitutionism adds to Marxism?

[Q]

"Kautskyism" is a slur, not a tendency. The tendency is called Orthodox Marxism.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Why do you have stalinism and marxism-leninism?

[Manic Impressive]

"Kautskyism" is a slur, not a tendency. The tendency is called Orthodox Marxism.
You're right of course but then again all Trotskyists, Stalinists and Luxembourgists are all Orthodox Marxists along with most other movements that were spawned from the second international perhaps social democrats would be better?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Maoism are the same thing. Both do not need to be up there.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Oh drats...I'm raised a Katholic. What the hell do i know about Protestants, Dutch Reformed, Mormonism and the likes.
They all believe in Christ, nut i don't know the subtle diffrences.

I'm an Anarcho-communist. What do i know about the diffrences between Kautskyism or Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism. And on the topic of Orthodox Marxism: this is actually the first time i've heard about it.

Isn't Orthodox Marxism the same as Marxism? (can anybody be more Orthodox Marxist than Marx himself???)

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Maoism are the same thing. Both do not need to be up there.

Then what is Maoism actually? Is it Marxism-Leninism? I can see the difference between Communism and Anarcho-communism, but why does Marxism-Leninism even exists if Stalinism doesn't?

[Q]

You're right of course but then again all Trotskyists, Stalinists and Luxembourgists are all Orthodox Marxists along with most other movements that were spawned from the second international perhaps social democrats would be better?
Orthodox Marxism, that is, Marxism as a theoretical system was started by Kautsky and others in the revolutionary center of the Second International. Trotskyists and Stalinists deny these origins and argue that it all (or mostly) started with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. This mythology, which spawned its own political heritage, is a political deviation from Orthodox Marxism.


Isn't Orthodox Marxism the same as Marxism? (can anybody be more Orthodox Marxist than Marx himself???)

The body of work of Marx and Engels is more accurately referred to as classical Marxism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Then what is Maoism actually? Is it Marxism-Leninism? I can see the difference between Communism and Anarcho-communism, but why does Marxism-Leninism even exists if Stalinism doesn't?

Maoism is simply the shorthand version of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM). It is a development of Marxism-Leninism which evolves beyond what some might call Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism (Re: Hoxha & Stalin). MLM upholds Stalin and the Soviet Union, while remaining highly critical, while incorporating Mao Tse-tung's theories; in this sense it is an evolution and is the factor which pushed it past the theories of Stalin and Lenin.

"Stalinism" is simply a slur for Marxism-Leninism. It is not an actual tendency. No organized group ever referred to themselves as Stalinist. Left-Coms, Anarchists, and Trotskyist employed it to denigrate Marxist-Leninist because of their support of Stalin.

[piet11111]

Politically i am all over the place perhaps some others have a better idea where i would fit in.

[Quail]

I voted anarcho-communism, but I often call myself a libertarian communist IRL.

[The Idler]

No surprises here - impossibilism.
Incidentally I think Orthodox Marxism is a deviation from Classical Marxism.
And it would probably have been worth offering Unorthodox Trotskyism for the sheer numbers.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Having both Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism is redundant. Also, why do you have two Maoisms?

[ClassLiberator]

Could you add democratic socialism? It's different from social democracy and it's also my tendency.

[RevolutionIsComing]

Lenin is the man I follow. I do NOT agree with everything he says, but I think it's the best basis to build upon.

[l'Enfermé]

You're right of course but then again all Trotskyists, Stalinists and Luxembourgists are all Orthodox Marxists along with most other movements that were spawned from the second international perhaps social democrats would be better?
Very clever, Ratty, but no.

By that same logic, Council-Communists and other Left-Coms are Social-Democrats also.:)

"Kautskyism" is a slur, not a tendency. The tendency is called Orthodox Marxism.
I think the more proper form is "orthodox Marxism", not "Orthodox Marxism".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How come ANTISTATE ULTRAMAOISM isn't an option?

[Ostrinski]

I answered Marxism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

How come ANTISTATE ULTRAMAOISM isn't an option?

because it's presupposed that everyone acknowledges anti-state third-worldist shining ultra-maosim as the highest qualitative stage of revolutionary theory

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So how do you "Orthodox Marxists" (aka Kautskyists) make sense of the incredible betrayal of the world revolution fostered by Kautsky? Do you disown him at some point? I mean the Second International kind of screwed the world when it did nothing to stop WWI (which, I believe, it might have been able stop, or end earlier -- with socialist revolutions in many countries). I really don't know what your position is on this -- and I am curious.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Very clever, Ratty, but no.

By that same logic, Council-Communists and other Left-Coms are Social-Democrats also.:)

I think the more proper form is "orthodox Marxism", not "Orthodox Marxism".

Council Communists are not Left Communists, although the movements are historically interrelated.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I answered left communist, but I am sure anyone who knows my political stances even slightly will not find this surprising.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Orthodox Marxism, that is, Marxism as a theoretical system was started by Kautsky and others in the revolutionary center of the Second International. Trotskyists and Stalinists deny these origins and argue that it all (or mostly) started with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. This mythology, which spawned its own political heritage, is a political deviation from Orthodox Marxism.



The body of work of Marx and Engels is more accurately referred to as classical Marxism.


Maoism is simply the shorthand version of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM). It is a development of Marxism-Leninism which evolves beyond what some might call Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism (Re: Hoxha & Stalin). MLM upholds Stalin and the Soviet Union, while remaining highly critical, while incorporating Mao Tse-tung's theories; in this sense it is an evolution and is the factor which pushed it past the theories of Stalin and Lenin.

"Stalinism" is simply a slur for Marxism-Leninism. It is not an actual tendency. No organized group ever referred to themselves as Stalinist. Left-Coms, Anarchists, and Trotskyist employed it to denigrate Marxist-Leninist because of their support of Stalin.


Having both Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism is redundant. Also, why do you have two Maoisms?

Obviously i posted in the right forum, for i am still learning apparently.
So Stalinism equals Marxism-Leninism.
Kautskyism is orthodox Marxism.
And Marxism-Leninism-Maoism can be called Maoism for short.



How come ANTISTATE ULTRAMAOISM isn't an option?

Maybe i spelled it wrong. I spelled "Other"...

Also, what's up with all these sub-tendencies? Ultrarevisionist Anticorporate Orthodox Left Libertarian Anarchism.
That kind of bullshit.

[Ostrinski]

So how do you "Orthodox Marxists" (aka Kautskyists) make sense of the incredible betrayal of the world revolution fostered by Kautsky? Do you disown him at some point? I mean the Second International kind of screwed the world when it did nothing to stop WWI (which, I believe, it might have been able stop, or end earlier -- with socialist revolutions in many countries). I really don't know what your position is on this -- and I am curious.They acknowledge the betrayal of both Marxism and the worker's movement on the part of Kautsky and the Second International and agree with Lenin and Luxemburg in their analysis of the former's renegacy. However, they also feel that there are too valuable lessons to learn from and positive experiences to draw influence from to simply dismiss all of it into one huge amorphous blob.

As such "Kautskyism" exists not as it is indeed a consciously used slur. The term Kautskyism would imply a defense of every aspect and every attribute of Kautsky's in the way that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin could never have been wrong to our fellow Leninists.

[l'Enfermé]

So how do you "Orthodox Marxists" (aka Kautskyists) make sense of the incredible betrayal of the world revolution fostered by Kautsky? Do you disown him at some point? I mean the Second International kind of screwed the world when it did nothing to stop WWI (which, I believe, it might have been able stop, or end earlier -- with socialist revolutions in many countries). I really don't know what your position is on this -- and I am curious.
Usually The Road to Power (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/index.htm)(this English translation isn't so good but all the good ones are still copyrighted :(), published in 1909, is usually consider the last major work written by Kautsky as a "revolutionary Marxist"(Lenin). This is Lenin's view and ours also. Lenin, though, spoke of Kautsky's "turnaround in 1914 from Marxism", but obviously this is a simplification. Kautsky's degeneration as a genuine Marxist started years before 1914.

There is pretty much nothing new or original in The Road to Power, it's basically a summary of what Kautsky has been saying for like a decade before he wrote it(even the prediction of an upcoming epoch of revolutions is found in Kautsky's articles years back and the "war will lead to revolution!" prediction goes back as far as the Social Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/index.htm)).

I don't agree with your point on the SI though. The SI would not have been able to end the war. If it was many times more powerful, it could have prevented the outbreak of a war, maybe. It did try, very vigorously. The Basel Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1912/basel-manifesto.htm), for example, was adopted unanimously (I believe) by the SI at Basel. It actually called on the proletariat, if war broke out, to use the war to "fasten the overthrow of capitalism". But all efforts at preventing the war were futile.

The funny thing is that the SPD right-wing minority leadership in 1914(Südekum, Ebert, Noske, etc) was incredibly surprised in August to find out that the majority of the SPD Reichstag fraktion was for voting yes on war credits(78 vs 14, including Liebknecht, right?), since this was a sudden and unexpected reversal of the party's line during the last 40 years, it's not only the Left that was surprised.

Anyway, the SI wouldn't have been able to end the war with "socialist revolutions". That's just crude "Blanquism". The socialist party is not a revolution-making party. You can't artificially conjure a revolution out of the air.

Check out Lars Lih's 3 speeches given at the CPGB's Communist University on Lenin and his Kautskyism.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/783/vi-lenin-and-the-influence-of-kautsky
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/784/lenin-kautsky-and-1914
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/785/the-four-wagers-of-lenin-in-1917

And Lih's "Kautsky as Marxist" database:
http://www.historicalmaterialism.org/journal/online-articles/kautsky-as-marxist-data-base/Kautsky%20Post-1914%20Data%20Base.pdf

Council Communists are not Left Communists, although the movements are historically interrelated.
I'm not surprised you know so very little about your own tendency. Like 75 percent of the most famous Left-Coms historically, like Gorter, Mattick, Pannekoek, etc, have been council communists.

[Fnord]

I answered other, I would have to say a mixture of social anarchism and insurrectionary anarchism, although I am critical of some aspects of the various dogmas within it, it is the best label I can find as an umbrella term.

[LeonJWilliams]

Anarcho-communist. Surprised not to see Titoism on the list.

[Ostrinski]

I think a more insightful list would be no more than thus

Anarchism
Marxism-Leninism
Trotskyism
Left Communism
Non-Doctrinaire

[Yuppie Grinder]

I think a more insightful list would be no more than thus

Anarchism
Marxism-Leninism
Trotskyism
Left Communism
Non-Doctrinaire

I'd split Syndaclism and Insurrectionary Anarchism, but other than that good.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think a more insightful list would be no more than thus

Anarchism
Marxism-Leninism
Trotskyism
Left Communism
Non-Doctrinaire

Why, comrade? The non-doctrinaires would be a hodge-podge of "Marxists" and non-Marxists, and across them another hodge-podge of those with revolutionary strategy and those without. :confused:

[l'Enfermé]

Anarchism gets only 1 option but the various off-shoots of Comintern communism get 3? Take that, anarchists!

[Red Enemy]

"Kautskyism" is a slur, not a tendency. The tendency is called Orthodox Marxism.
And apart from rhetoric, there is nothing "Orthodox" or "Marxist" about it.

[Goblin]

Whats the difference between Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Whats the difference between Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

nothing

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Whats the difference between Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

Look at my post earlier in this same thread...


Maoism is simply the shorthand version of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM). It is a development of Marxism-Leninism which evolves beyond what some might call Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism (Re: Hoxha & Stalin). MLM upholds Stalin and the Soviet Union, while remaining highly critical, while incorporating Mao Tse-tung's theories; in this sense it is an evolution and is the factor which pushed it past the theories of Stalin and Lenin.

[l'Enfermé]

And apart from rhetoric, there is nothing "Orthodox" or "Marxist" about it.
Lenin wasn't a Marxist? I thought you were "appreciative" of the Bolsheviks?

Comrade, do not be so greedy, at least allow "orthodox Marxism" the luxury of one of the two, don't deprive it of both!

[Sea]

Kautskyism. Even that's only because you don't have revisionism or Blanquism or bourgeoism as options.

In all seriousness Marxism doesn't need to be up there without some other -ism to compliment it. Reason being that except for the anarchist fringe you won't find many non-Marxists (diggers and levellers, christian communists, etc.) here. Marxian communism as a sort of super-tendency represents the only theoretically sound and relevant leftist force on this forum and in the world.

[Ostrinski]

I'd split Syndaclism and Insurrectionary Anarchism, but other than that good.Then we'd of course have to add the six trillion offshoots of Marxism-Leninism. The point is that a concise list would be more helpful in understanding the political make up of the board than a long and drawn out hair splitting list that incorporates every split and ideological divergence that has ever taken place among the listed tendencies.


Why, comrade? The non-doctrinaires would be a hodge-podge of "Marxists" and non-Marxists, and across them another hodge-podge of those with revolutionary strategy and those without. :confused:I think within each of these tendencies there are different approaches to political strategy as not one of them are a homogeneous grouping.


And apart from rhetoric, there is nothing "Orthodox" or "Marxist" about it.:sneaky:

[JPSartre12]

Other.

I'm sort of in-between tendencies right now and trying to figure out which one(s) best blend with the existential Marxism that I already embrace.

[Zostrianos]

I chose Left Communist because there's no Luxemburgist choice

[GoddessCleoLover]

I voted other because there was no Luxemburgist choice. The Russian Revolution was the most important event in 20th century revolutionary history, and Rosa recognized that workers' power and party dictatorship were at odds with each other. i do agree that Left Communism is close to Luxemburgism. I am also highly impressed by the efforts of Andres Nin to build a revolutionary workers' party that united Communists who opposed the disastrous positions of the Comintern in the Stalin era. Finally, I believe that the writings of Antonio Gramsci are critical to understanding Marxism in the post-Lenin era.

[Ostrinski]

In what meaningful fashion is Luxemburgism an actual tendency? What do you find in "Luxemburgism" that you find lacking in the communist left?

[Yuppie Grinder]

There is a more meaningful distinction between Syndicalism and Insurrectionism then Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism. Past a certain historical point there is no meaningful difference between orthodox Trotskyism and Stalinism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In what meaningful fashion is Luxemburgism an actual tendency? What do you find in "Luxemburgism" that you find lacking in the communist left?

Left Communists seem to favor abstention from any electoral or trade union activity even in non-revolutionary situations.. Rosa Luxemburg worked within the SPD and the unions prior to the development of the revolutionary situation of 1917-1918. If I am mischaracterizing Left Communism I will cheerfully stand corrected.

[Raúl Duke]

Marxian anarcho-communist influenced by situationists (and I guess Gramscian ideas), autonomists (somewhat), nihilist communism (a little bit, I've haven't written sufficiently to say I know it completly), and left-com/council-communists (tiny bit).

[Skyhilist]

I don't think it's wrong to imply that M-L and stalinism are at least somewhat different. I mean maybe you agree with what Lenin did fully but not Stalin. For example, Trotsky was second in command under Lenin but was ordered to be killed by Stalin.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I don't think it's wrong to imply that M-L and stalinism are at least somewhat different. I mean maybe you agree with what Lenin did fully but not Stalin. For example, Trotsky was second in command under Lenin but was ordered to be killed by Stalin.

Logically, you are correct, but apparently the term "Marxist-Lenist" has been successfully hijacked.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Logically, you are correct, but apparently the term "Marxist-Lenist" has been successfully hijacked.

The term, I think, is newer, and was never used in the Lenin days, and this is why it is associated with "Stalinism", as it represented a sort of codification (official endorsement, so to say) of a Marx-Lenin-(Stalin) continuum by Stalin-era government policy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

IIRC there was no "Marxist-Leninism" before Joseph Stalin's "The Foundations of Leninism" in 1924.

[bcbm]

marxism-leniism-maosinm

[Art Vandelay]

We need a new poll.

[Green Girl]

Why do you have stalinism and marxism-leninism?

I found this thread: Where do the differences between Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and Stalinism lay? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-differences-between-t168414/index.html)

Why is there no choice for Marxism-De Leonism?

Marxism-De Leonism was the branch of Marxist I studied the most as I was a member of the Socialist Labor Party for years and still have their website in my favorites, thus for predominant tendency I just selected Marxism.

The Socialist Labor Party is Daniel De Leon's voice in the USA. Here is a link to his many works (http://www.slp.org/litera2.htm#anchor437650)

See also The SLP and The USSR: From the Bolshevik Revolution To the Nazi-Soviet Pact (http://slp.org/pdf/others/slp_ussr.pdf)

[MaximMK]

Tho i prefer anarcho-communist revolution a marxist-lenninist revolution is more practical because a revolution never happens in the whole world at the same time so if a small poor country goes anarchist it will be easily invaded by big capitalist ones so they need to have a workers state. So ill go with Marxism because id support any radical left wing anti-nationalist movement.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I chose Left Communist because there's no Luxemburgist choice
Didn't even come up. Sorry about that.


I think a more insightful list would be no more than thus

Anarchism
Marxism-Leninism
Trotskyism
Left Communism
Non-Doctrinaire

So where does that leave anarcho-communism?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

We need a new poll.

Sorry to say, but i'd have to agree.

But first i think we need to set some outlines for the tendencies.
All subs like bourdigism, luxembergism and kautskyism. Are they marxist, orthodox or classic or are they to different?

I think anarcho-communism is apart, but for instance anarcho-syndicalism: anarchist sub or not?

And can we call libertarianism leftist (let alone revolutionairy)?

[piet11111]

I voted other because i really cant be arsed to pick between the splits.

I am in favor of marx mostly sympathetic to lenin and trotsky and the forms of anarchism and against stalin and mao and their crony's.

[Sasha]

Voted anarchist for the sake of argument, even though im way more close to marxist infuenced anti-authoritarian autonomism and post-left stuff like tiqqun

[Ostrinski]

There is a more meaningful distinction between Syndicalism and Insurrectionism then Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism. Past a certain historical point there is no meaningful difference between orthodox Trotskyism and Stalinism.Maybe but insurrectionism and syndicalism are both part of the same tradition of revolutionary communism i.e. anarchism. Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism too are very distinct, historically defined traditions that have little to no overlap. Now we can of course talk about how they are strategically similar in how their organizations are run and everything like that but then again that isn't necessarily what defines a historical tendency of a larger social movement.

[human strike]

I'm a whatever singularity, I'm afraid. (Isn't being difficult the whole point of revolution? :P )

[Ostrinski]

So where does that leave anarcho-communism?You wouldn't be posting outside of OI if you were not a communist.

[Art Vandelay]

Social Anarchism (Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, Insurrectionary Anarchism)
Individualist Anarchism (Stirner, etc..although not sure if we have any individualists here)

Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism)
Trotskyism
Left-Communism (Council Communism, Bordigist, etc.)
Orthodox Marxism
Classical Marxism (Impossibilists)
Autonomism

Post-Left.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitely should be amended, but I feel like this would be a decent poll.

[Jack]

"Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism.

You didn't put much thought into this, did you?

[Skyhilist]

You wouldn't be posting outside of OI if you were not a communist.

Anarcho-communists would still fit into both categories though, so it wouldn't make sense. If the only anarchists are communists, then why not just call it "anarchi-communists" instead of making new people have to infer that?
Also, I think that claim that they'd all be restricted is true. Don't we have anarcho-collectivists on here too who aren't restricted to OI?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchism and anarcho-communism at the same time? Are you really forcing me to choose between those?

I choose anarchism, because I am above all anarchist.

[Skyhilist]

Also, I think we can all agree that there was at least SOME distinction in how Lenin and Stalin ran their campaigns. Therefore It'd be possible, in fact probable to agree with one but not the other to an extent. Like for example, how should Trotsky have been treated? You can't agree with both Lenin AND Stalin on that, so M-L and Stalinism logically must be different. But if not 'M-L' and 'stalinism', what would you call the tendencies of Lenin-supporters and Stalin-supporters to differentiate? Because they clearly have differences such as that, where you could be both.
Anyways, I think it's just easier to use the terms M-L and stalinism as slightly different things for the reasons I stated above.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Anarchism and anarcho-communism at the same time? Are you really forcing me to choose between those?


I think Anarcho-communism is a tendency which advocates the abolishment of both state and money.
Anarchists (most of 'em anyway) are pro-money and build their believes upon the honest division of it.
Communists are pro-state. Most of 'em when wanting a vanguard-party anyway. A vanguard-party is state per definition and will not resolve.

Anarcho-communism wants to abolish money and state, immediatly from the point where the people are liberated.

Thus Anarcho-communism is not a tendency of anarchism nor of communism alone. I even reckon it's the only main tendency besides Anarchism and communism. Not a sub-tendency from either of them (like marxism, trotskyism etc.)



Social Anarchism (Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, Insurrectionary Anarchism)
Individualist Anarchism (Stirner, etc..although not sure if we have any individualists here)

Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism)
Trotskyism
Left-Communism (Council Communism, Bordigist, etc.)
Orthodox Marxism
Classical Marxism (Impossibilists)
Autonomism

Post-Left.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitely should be amended, but I feel like this would be a decent poll.


That definitly sounds about right!
Are more of you revlefters okay with this?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Usually The Road to Power (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/index.htm)(this English translation isn't so good but all the good ones are still copyrighted :(), published in 1909, is usually consider the last major work written by Kautsky as a "revolutionary Marxist"(Lenin). This is Lenin's view and ours also. Lenin, though, spoke of Kautsky's "turnaround in 1914 from Marxism", but obviously this is a simplification. Kautsky's degeneration as a genuine Marxist started years before 1914.

There is pretty much nothing new or original in The Road to Power, it's basically a summary of what Kautsky has been saying for like a decade before he wrote it(even the prediction of an upcoming epoch of revolutions is found in Kautsky's articles years back and the "war will lead to revolution!" prediction goes back as far as the Social Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/index.htm)).

I don't agree with your point on the SI though. The SI would not have been able to end the war. If it was many times more powerful, it could have prevented the outbreak of a war, maybe. It did try, very vigorously. The Basel Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1912/basel-manifesto.htm), for example, was adopted unanimously (I believe) by the SI at Basel. It actually called on the proletariat, if war broke out, to use the war to "fasten the overthrow of capitalism". But all efforts at preventing the war were futile.

The funny thing is that the SPD right-wing minority leadership in 1914(Südekum, Ebert, Noske, etc) was incredibly surprised in August to find out that the majority of the SPD Reichstag fraktion was for voting yes on war credits(78 vs 14, including Liebknecht, right?), since this was a sudden and unexpected reversal of the party's line during the last 40 years, it's not only the Left that was surprised.

Anyway, the SI wouldn't have been able to end the war with "socialist revolutions". That's just crude "Blanquism". The socialist party is not a revolution-making party. You can't artificially conjure a revolution out of the air.

Check out Lars Lih's 3 speeches given at the CPGB's Communist University on Lenin and his Kautskyism.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/783/vi-lenin-and-the-influence-of-kautsky
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/784/lenin-kautsky-and-1914
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/785/the-four-wagers-of-lenin-in-1917

And Lih's "Kautsky as Marxist" database:
http://www.historicalmaterialism.org/journal/online-articles/kautsky-as-marxist-data-base/Kautsky%20Post-1914%20Data%20Base.pdf

I'm not surprised you know so very little about your own tendency. Like 75 percent of the most famous Left-Coms historically, like Gorter, Mattick, Pannekoek, etc, have been council communists.
Right -- the SPD could not have simply stopped WWI from happening, I agree. But, if they remained in staunch opposition to it, and for revolution, they would have had an excellent shot at taking down the Kaiser and having a successful revolution to overturn capitalism as the war ground to a halt and the country grew weary. The Bolsheviks lost membership and popularity (in spades) at the outbreak of WWI. Their principled internationalism put them in a position to take power in 1917.

[Stain]

Pan-leftist.

[The Idler]

Pan-leftist.
Pan-leftists seem to me to be leftists with fewer answers than leftists identifying with a tendency. Tendencies are misunderstood on revleft, generally a tendency will emerge because ideas are consistent with one another to form bodies of consistent ideas. Hence why Anarcho-Stalinist, for example is a pretty stupid idea that would be dismissed by most tendencies except Pan-Leftists.

[Luís Henrique]

I think a more insightful list would be no more than thus

Anarchism
Marxism-Leninism
Trotskyism
Left Communism
Non-Doctrinaire

... and, of course, "other".

Never forget us otherists, please.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

In what meaningful fashion is Luxemburgism an actual tendency? What do you find in "Luxemburgism" that you find lacking in the communist left?

Probably the strange ideas that unions and electoral politics aren't necessarily unacceptable.

Really, I can't see two things more widely different than Rosa's broadminded and non-sectarian non-substitutionism and the stark substitutionism of the communist left.

From any point of view that I look at it, they seem the extreme options, with Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, etc., lumped somewhere in between.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The term, I think, is newer, and was never used in the Lenin days, and this is why it is associated with "Stalinism", as it represented a sort of codification (official endorsement, so to say) of a Marx-Lenin-(Stalin) continuum by Stalin-era government policy.

In that sence, it would be rather Zinovievism than either Stalinism or "Marxism-Leninism".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Hence why Anarcho-Stalinist, for example is a pretty stupid idea that would be dismissed by most tendencies except Pan-Leftists.

Really? While I would agree that no one would call themselves AnarchoStalinist, I don't think there is much incompatibility there. They are all Nachayevists in my reckoning.

[\provocation]

Luís Henrique

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I think Anarcho-communism is a tendency which advocates the abolishment of both state and money.
Anarchists (most of 'em anyway) are pro-money and build their believes upon the honest division of it.
Communists are pro-state. Most of 'em when wanting a vanguard-party anyway. A vanguard-party is state per definition and will not resolve.

Anarcho-communism wants to abolish money and state, immediatly from the point where the people are liberated.

Thus Anarcho-communism is not a tendency of anarchism nor of communism alone. I even reckon it's the only main tendency besides Anarchism and communism. Not a sub-tendency from either of them (like marxism, trotskyism etc.)

I always thought anarchist-communism was a synthesis of anarchism and communism. We must take into account anarcho-syndicalism, which is similar to anarcho-communism, both have anarchism.

[Jack]

Also, I think we can all agree that there was at least SOME distinction in how Lenin and Stalin ran their campaigns. Therefore It'd be possible, in fact probable to agree with one but not the other to an extent. Like for example, how should Trotsky have been treated? You can't agree with both Lenin AND Stalin on that, so M-L and Stalinism logically must be different. But if not 'M-L' and 'stalinism', what would you call the tendencies of Lenin-supporters and Stalin-supporters to differentiate? Because they clearly have differences such as that, where you could be both.
Anyways, I think it's just easier to use the terms M-L and stalinism as slightly different things for the reasons I stated above.

There's absolutely no point in that, "Stalinism" is almost only used as a derogatory term, "Stalinists" like myself call ourselves Marxist-Leninists, thus why I and many others voted Marxist-Leninist. Just viewing this poll would make it seem like nobody on this website likes Stalin.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think Anarcho-communism is a tendency which advocates the abolishment of both state and money.
Anarchists (most of 'em anyway) are pro-money and build their believes upon the honest division of it.
Communists are pro-state. Most of 'em when wanting a vanguard-party anyway. A vanguard-party is state per definition and will not resolve.

Anarcho-communism wants to abolish money and state, immediatly from the point where the people are liberated.

Thus Anarcho-communism is not a tendency of anarchism nor of communism alone. I even reckon it's the only main tendency besides Anarchism and communism. Not a sub-tendency from either of them (like marxism, trotskyism etc.)


That definitly sounds about right!
Are more of you revlefters okay with this?

There are somethings I disagree with here. For example Marxist-Leninist-Maoists place an emphasis on identity politics, absolutely refuse to take part in electoral politics, and tend to uphold Protracted Peoples War as the only path to revolution while we hold that insurectionism is impractical. When you get down to it, other than our stanch Anti-Revisionism, we are only Marxist Leninists in name only since we diverge from them in so many ways.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Really, I can't see two things more widely different than Rosa's broadminded and non-sectarian non-substitutionism and the stark substitutionism of the communist left.

Actually, Luxemburg was a sectarian too: http://www.revleft.com/vb/macnair-luxemburgs-heroic-t174370/index.html

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

There are somethings I disagree with here. For example Marxist-Leninist-Maoists place an emphasis on identity politics, absolutely refuse to take part in electoral politics, and tend to uphold Protracted Peoples War as the only path to revolution while we hold that insurectionism is impractical. When you get down to it, other than our stanch Anti-Revisionism, we are only Marxist Leninists in name only since we diverge from them in so many ways.

But since Mao derived his vision from Marx' doesn't he qualify as Marxist?
Or is his vision so much different that it becomes a whole other main-tendency?
And, if such is true, why call it Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and not just Maoist?

I think that even if Mao changed the outlines of (his vision of) communism, it still remains Marxist. Just like Trotskyists are Marxist in in its basics and Anarcho-pacifists are Anarchist in it's basics.

So followers of Mao are either Marxist or Maoist. You decide.

[ind_com]

But since Mao derived his vision from Marx' doesn't he qualify as Marxist?
Or is his vision so much different that it becomes a whole other main-tendency?
And, if such is true, why call it Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and not just Maoist?

I think that even if Mao changed the outlines of (his vision of) communism, it still remains Marxist. Just like Trotskyists are Marxist in in its basics and Anarcho-pacifists are Anarchist in it's basics.

So followers of Mao are either Marxist or Maoist. You decide.

Indeed, since the differences between Maoism and traditional Marxism or other branches of Marxism are huge, it makes sense to have MLM as a separate option. We call our tendency MLM because despite our differences from Marxism and Leninism, we uphold the Marxist idea of communism, place the working class at the center of revolution, and strive for the formation of a vanguard party mostly along Leninist lines.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Indeed, since the differences between Maoism and traditional Marxism or other branches of Marxism are huge, it makes sense to have MLM as a separate option. We call our tendency MLM because despite our differences from Marxism and Leninism, we uphold the Marxist idea of communism, place the working class at the center of revolution, and strive for the formation of a vanguard party mostly along Leninist lines.

So "along Leninist lines"...does that mean the base is Marxist-Leninist with Maoism as a sub-tendency, or is it different enough to say it is Maoist?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Just viewing this poll would make it seem like nobody on this website likes Stalin.

I don't like Stalin.

[ind_com]

So "along Leninist lines"...does that mean the base is Marxist-Leninist with Maoism as a sub-tendency, or is it different enough to say it is Maoist?

No, it is quite different. Non Maoist MLs usually uphold legal struggle and parliamentary struggle, like Trotskyites and other tendencies. Maoists do not participate in the bourgeois parliament and tend to focus on armed struggles and particularly people's war. This kind of separates Maoists from all other tendencies, not just other MLs.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No, it is quite different. Non Maoist MLs usually uphold legal struggle and parliamentary struggle, like Trotskyites and other tendencies. Maoists do not participate in the bourgeois parliament and tend to focus on armed struggles and particularly people's war. This kind of separates Maoists from all other tendencies, not just other MLs.

I would go a bit further and say that the primary separation point is that many Marxist-Leninists uphold Stalin, and some, Hoxha as primary defenders of socialist theory while believing other theories (including Maoism) are "revisionist." In this manner alliances between the two can be difficult to maintain despite having much in common theoretically.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't like Stalin.

But Jack's point is that none of the Stalinists 'like' Stalin either - because Stalinists don't call themselves Stalinists, they call themselves Marxist-Leninists.

It's as if the OP had put 'Anarchism' and 'Petty-bourgeois radical liberalism' (which can be taken to equal 'Anarchism' if one wants to be a sectarian arse about it) as options; the fact that there would be no self-described 'Petty-bourgeois radical liberals' would not then be proof that there were no Anarchists, because the Anarchists would self-describe as Anarchists (or Anarchist-Communists, or Anarcho-syndicalists).

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

No, it is quite different. Non Maoist MLs usually uphold legal struggle and parliamentary struggle, like Trotskyites and other tendencies. Maoists do not participate in the bourgeois parliament and tend to focus on armed struggles and particularly people's war. This kind of separates Maoists from all other tendencies, not just other MLs.


I would go a bit further and say that the primary separation point is that many Marxist-Leninists uphold Stalin, and some, Hoxha as primary defenders of socialist theory while believing other theories (including Maoism) are "revisionist." In this manner alliances between the two can be difficult to maintain despite having much in common theoretically.

So we seem to agree that Maoism is a different main-tendency, yes?

That leaves us with these main tendencies:

-Marxism
-Maoism
-Non-Marxist Communism
-Anarchism
-Anarcho-Communism

Does that sound about right?




But Jack's point is that none of the Stalinists 'like' Stalin either - because Stalinists don't call themselves Stalinists, they call themselves Marxist-Leninists.

It's as if the OP had put 'Anarchism' and 'Petty-bourgeois radical liberalism' (which can be taken to equal 'Anarchism' if one wants to be a sectarian arse about it) as options; the fact that there would be no self-described 'Petty-bourgeois radical liberals' would not then be proof that there were no Anarchists, because the Anarchists would self-describe as Anarchists (or Anarchist-Communists, or Anarcho-syndicalists).

I'm an Anarcho-Communist, but i'm actually more of a communist than an anarchist. Anarcho-communism, as a syntheses of the two, is the best way to go in my opinion.

[Luís Henrique]

Anarcho-communism, as a syntheses of the two, is the best way to go in my opinion.

Anarcho-communism is not a synthesis between anarchism and communism. Communism is a goal (common property of means of production), shared by most anarchists and many non-anarchists (Marxists, Blanquists, liberation theologists, etc.) Anarchism is a method (destroy the State first, and the destruction of private property logically follows), which isn't shared by those communists who believe the destruction of the State can only happen after the abolition of private property.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

So we seem to agree that Maoism is a different main-tendency, yes?

That leaves us with these main tendencies:

-Marxism
-Maoism
-Non-Marxist Communism
-Anarchism
-Anarcho-Communism

Does that sound about right?...

No, I think that's a stupid range of tendencies. who calls themself a 'non-Marxist Communist' that isn't an Anarchist or Anarchist-Communist?

Do all Marxists (except Maoists) have to climb into the same basket? Trots with Stalinists, Left Comms with Councilists, Autonomists with Impossiblists, DNZ with Ismail?

What about Anarcho-syndicalists? They're the largest Anarchist tendency. Why no mention of them?




I'm an Anarcho-Communist, but i'm actually more of a communist than an anarchist. Anarcho-communism, as a syntheses of the two, is the best way to go in my opinion.

Is it really a 'synthesis'? In the 20 years I identified myself as an Anarchist-Communist I never considered it was a 'synthesis' of Anarchism and Communism - because I didn't see Anarchism as a different thing to Communism. Communism is the classless communal society - Anarchism was the means I thought best to get there.

EDIT: Oh, what Luis said.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

No, I think that's a stupid range of tendencies. who calls themself a 'non-Marxist Communist' that isn't an Anarchist or Anarchist-Communist?

Do all Marxists (except Maoists) have to climb into the same basket? Trots with Stalinists, Left Comms with Councilists, Autonomists with Impossiblists, DNZ with Ismail?

What about Anarcho-syndicalists? They're the largest Anarchist tendency. Why no mention of them?

No lets have a poll with fifty thousand options...
Sorry for being sarcastic (i'm real good at that), but i think we are all being silly.

Are we individuals? Then i'm an Utopist M-ist. Are we united? Freaking Communists!

I need to put labels on or else these tendency-topics are all a bunch of bullshit.

It's still okay to have sub-tendencies, but there must be some main ones!?



Oh, and all that talk about Vanguard-parties socialist states keep ending up with, what's up with that! That can't be communism, apparently.




Is it really a 'synthesis'? In the 20 years I identified myself as an Anarchist-Communist I never considered it was a 'synthesis' of Anarchism and Communism - because I didn't see Anarchism as a different thing to Communism. Communism is the classless communal society - Anarchism was the means I thought best to get there.


I've read some articles and stuff about the two,and i keep reading about anarchist-society with money and how they deal with that. Communism with money?
And Council-communism; they apparently do want some kind of elite-ruling. That's not something an anarchist would want.

And from there i probably imagined a syntheses.

[Blake's Baby]

... i think we are all being silly.

...

I need to put labels on or else these tendency-topics are all a bunch of bullshit...

You think we are being silly, because you need to come up with some labels?


...
It's still okay to have sub-tendencies, but there must be some main ones!?

Main tendencies derived from Marxism: social democracy (no votes in the poll above); Impossiblism (not mentioned in the above poll, maybe they just voted 'Marxist', though the SPGB call themselves 'marxian'); Marxist-Leninist; Trotskyist; Left communist; Council Communist. Despite the protestations of 'Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis' and 'ind_com' most of the rest of us see Maoism as another form of Stalinism (based as it is on the notion of Socialism in One Country). But if you want to, you can differentiate between Maoisim and other forms of Stalinism. Up to you of course, it's your poll.

Main tendencies derived from Anarchism: Anarchism 'without adjectives' (a la Malatesta, not as in the 'An-Cap' 'Anarchism without adjectives' bollocks that one comes across on facebook); Anarchist-Communism; Anarcho-syndicalism.

Then there's Revolutionary Syndicalism, though I doubt there's many that post on here.


...



Oh, and all that talk about Vanguard-parties socialist states keep ending up with, what's up with that! That can't be communism, apparently.




I've read some articles and stuff about the two,and i keep reading about anarchist-society with money and how they deal with that. Communism with money?
And Council-communism; they apparently do want some kind of elite-ruling. That's not something an anarchist would want.

And from there i probably imagined a syntheses.

Don''t even know what all this is supposed to mean.

You could differentiate first between people that think 'socialist states' is a phrase that makes sense, and those who think it's meaningless bollocks.

Council Communists want some 'ruling elite'? Do they fuck.

There are very few Anarchists I've ever read tht advocate 'anarchist-society with money'.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:


I don't like Stalin.

Neither do I, but you should try to avoid making one-liner posts like this generally speaking in the Learning forum. This isn't a warning, but please try to avoid doing it again.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

You think we are being silly, because you need to come up with some labels?


Yes indeed, that's what i said. It's the autist-side of me. I can imagine that a lot of people considering theirselfs as being leftist, can't even see the main trees through the tendency-woods.
So do i.

We have like a thousand different subtendencies. So unless we set the main tendencies, this poll was totally useless to begin with.
Any poll will be.



Main tendencies derived from Marxism: social democracy (no votes in the poll above); Impossiblism (not mentioned in the above poll, maybe they just voted 'Marxist', though the SPGB call themselves 'marxian'); Marxist-Leninist; Trotskyist; Left communist; Council Communist. Despite the protestations of 'Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis' and 'ind_com' most of the rest of us see Maoism as another form of Stalinism (based as it is on the notion of Socialism in One Country). But if you want to, you can differentiate between Maoisim and other forms of Stalinism. Up to you of course, it's your poll.


It's just that whatever i put up, almost every tendency was called as being wrong or forgotten.
Stalinism, was the same as Marxist-Leninist. No it wasn't.
Maoism is the same as Marxism-Leninism, but it is differing a lot from Marxism. Someone disagrees.

I think there need to be some outlines. What can i put in a poll?
Maoism shouldn't be on it, according to you. Others disagree.

Ergo, this poll, or any poll for that matter, is total bullshit?



Don''t even know what all this is supposed to mean.

You could differentiate first between people that think 'socialist states' is a phrase that makes sense, and those who think it's meaningless bollocks.


I meant that some Marxists claim that they intend to end up with a stateless society (like anarchists), but i think that vanguard-parties will always lead to statism.

We need to make a difference between the two tendencies.
Vanguard-Marxism and Anarchist-Marxism mayby?




Council Communists want some 'ruling elite'? Do they fuck.


Don't they? A council isn't very much Anarchist, is it?
A democratically chosen elite, is still an elite.




There are very few Anarchists I've ever read tht advocate 'anarchist-society with money'.

Here is one... (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/practicalanarchy.pdf)

[Blake's Baby]

...

We have like a thousand different subtendencies. So unless we set the main tendencies, this poll was totally useless to begin with.
Any poll will be...

Actually there are about 12 main tendencies.



...
It's just that whatever i put up, almost every tendency was called as being wrong or forgotten.
Stalinism, was the same as Marxist-Leninist. No it wasn't...

Well, yes it is. They call themselves Marxist-Leninists, we call them Stalinists. Same thing.


...
Maoism is the same as Marxism-Leninism, but it is differing a lot from Marxism. Someone disagrees.

I think there need to be some outlines. What can i put in a poll?
Maoism shouldn't be on it, according to you. Others disagree.

Ergo, this poll, or any poll for that matter, is total bullshit?...

Pretty much.



...
I meant that some Marxists claim that they intend to end up with a stateless society (like anarchists), but i think that vanguard-parties will always lead to statism...

But that's just your opinion, not inherent in the tendencies themselves. The distinction I was drawing is between how different tendencies see themselves, the distinction you're drawing is between how you see the tendencies. Some vanguardist groups think the party should take control of the state. Some think the party shoud not take control of the state. They're not the same thing.


...We need to make a difference between the two tendencies.
Vanguard-Marxism and Anarchist-Marxism mayby?...

I don't think you've exactly thought this through. Left Communists are vanguardist marxists, in that we believe the working class needs a political organisation, but we don't think the task of that organisation is to take power.





...
Don't they? A council isn't very much Anarchist, is it?
A democratically chosen elite, is still an elite...

Do you know anything about the history of Anarchism?

Go and read some Rudolf Rocker. "Everything for the councils! Nothing above them!"

Then read some Maximov.

How would your Anarchist society be articulated without collective decision-making?





...
Here is one... (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/practicalanarchy.pdf)

I don't know who that is and I don't much care.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Actually there are about 12 main tendencies.


Why not name them so we can make a proper poll?



Well, yes it is. They call themselves Marxist-Leninists, we call them Stalinists. Same thing.

Some on RevLeft disagree. Better read back this topic.



Pretty much.

Then why vote?




But that's just your opinion, not inherent in the tendencies themselves. The distinction I was drawing is between how different tendencies see themselves, the distinction you're drawing is between how you see the tendencies. Some vanguardist groups think the party should take control of the state. Some think the party shoud not take control of the state. They're not the same thing.

Sure it's my opinion. That's what i said: "...i think..."
But a pro-vanguard party can be differentiated from a anti-vanguard party. Agree?
Now, you can't make me think that Stalinists and Maoists do not belong to the pro-vanguard tendency.
Certainly Trotskyists and orthodox-Marxists do not belive in Vanguard-statism.
So they must belong to a anti-vanguard tendency.

That looks like a distinction to me.
So that means both are a main tendency.




I don't think you've exactly thought this through. Left Communists are vanguardist marxists, in that we believe the working class needs a political organisation, but we don't think the task of that organisation is to take power.


An elite (actively chosen or not) making decisions for the people, sounds to me like it already gained power.




How would your Anarchist society be articulated without collective decision-making?


Direct democracy. Every comes together and debates till we make a decision (preferably unanimous).

Read some Kropotkin, Proudhon and Bakunin.




I don't know who that is and I don't much care.

Just saying that doesn't really help your argumentation...

Anyways, i read it again (at least a bit) and i realised it's probably more Anarcho-capitalist.
But raises a couple of questions with me:

1) If Anarchists want to abolish both state and money...then what the hell is the difference between Anarchism and Anarcho-communism?

2) If anrchists an communists both want the same end goal and anarchism is a different way to get to that goal...isn't anarchism just a sub-tendency of communism (like marxism)?

[Blake's Baby]

Why not name them so we can make a proper poll?...

I already did, about four posts ago. "Better read back this topic."


...
Some on RevLeft disagree. Better read back this topic...

It's your topic, there's about 7 pages of it, and I don't care overmuch if someone wants to be wrong. I'm trying to be helpful, but if you make it too hard to help, I'll give up. Why don't you tell me where someone claims that Stalinism and Marxist-Leninism aren't the same thing?


...
Then why vote?
...

Even if the categories are somewhat arbitrary, they do in some sense relate to real tendencies that exist out there in the world.



...

Sure it's my opinion. That's what i said: "...i think..."
But a pro-vanguard party can be differentiated from a anti-vanguard party. Agree?...

Not sure it can. What is a party if it isn't the vanguard?


...
Now, you can't make me think that Stalinists and Maoists do not belong to the pro-vanguard tendency.
Certainly Trotskyists and orthodox-Marxists do not belive in Vanguard-statism...

Erm, I think you'll find that Trotskyists do. I'm not sure what you think 'orthodox Marxists' are though.


...
So they must belong to a anti-vanguard tendency...

Except they don't.


...That looks like a distinction to me.
So that means both are a main tendency...

Except your facts are wrong and therefore the conclusions you draw based on them are wrong.




...
An elite (actively chosen or not) making decisions for the people, sounds to me like it already gained power...

I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is 'making decisions for the people'?




...
Direct democracy. Every comes together and debates till we make a decision (preferably unanimous)...

Right, mass assemblies, great. How do you make decisions that affect more than 200 people?


...Read some Kropotkin, Proudhon and Bakunin...

Again?




...
Just saying that doesn't really help your argumentation...

My argumnt is perfectly coherent. I said in 20 years as an Anarchist-Communist I'd rarely come across Anarchists advocating the retention of money. You linked to something by someone I'd never heard of. I didn't say that no-one who claimed to be an Anarchist had ever advocated money (mind, as I didn't read the piece, I don't even now if Steven Molyneux self-describes as an Anarchist, or advocates money). So you didn't disprove anything I said.


...Anyways, i read it again (at least a bit) and i realised it's probably more Anarcho-capitalist...

Which I don't regard as 'Anarchism'.


...
But raises a couple of questions with me:

1) If Anarchists want to abolish both state and money...then what the hell is the difference between Anarchism and Anarcho-communism?...

I don't think there is a difference.


...2) If anrchists an communists both want the same end goal and anarchism is a different way to get to that goal...isn't anarchism just a sub-tendency of communism (like marxism)?

Yes, as I was arguing several posts ago.

However, Anarcho-syndicalists might disagree.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm not even going to quote you.
This discussion is derailing more and more and now involves our personal opinions instead of actually setting outlines (if that is even possible).

We are going nowhere fast.
It has gone from a tendency-poll to a discussion about tendency relevancy.
The first was fun, the second turns out to be somewhat of a drag.

I think we're done here.

[Red Banana]

And Council-communism; they apparently do want some kind of elite-ruling.


Don't they? A council isn't very much Anarchist, is it?
A democratically chosen elite, is still an elite.


An elite (actively chosen or not) making decisions for the people, sounds to me like it already gained power.

Direct democracy. Every comes together and debates till we make a decision (preferably unanimous).

I think you are jumping to some conclusions that come from a fundamental misunderstanding of Council communism. Council communists do not want 'some kind of elite-ruling', they want society to be organized by workers' councils', which are directly democratic institutions, like the ones you described above. Almost all Council communists are actually against elections/hierarchy of any kind.

It's something I think you'd actually be interested in. I'd recommend reading Workers Councils by Pannekoek: http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/workers-councils.htm

[Red Banana]

Right, mass assemblies, great. How do you make decisions that affect more than 200 people?

Addition. One mass assembly votes, we count the results, another mass assembly votes, we count the results, add the two together and there you go, no hierarchy needed.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Addition. One mass assembly votes, we count the results, another mass assembly votes, we count the results, add the two together and there you go, no hierarchy needed.

I too have an adition. When it is something which doesn't concern you, you just withhold from voting.

[Red Banana]

I too have an adition. When it is something which doesn't concern you, you just withhold from voting.

No I meant 'addition' in the mathematical sense, not as an addition to what he said.

Instead of electing people to represent the views of each of the assemblies, then have the representatives vote, the assemblies should just vote themselves and add up the results of each assembly- that's what I meant, sorry for saying it in such a strange way.

I do agree with proportional self management though. If the decision doesn't affect you, what right do you have to a say in the matter? That's one of the aspects I like most about IOPS.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

No I meant 'addition' in the mathematical sense, not as an addition to what he said.


Ah, hmm... sorry then.



Instead of electing people to represent the views of each of the assemblies, then have the representatives vote, the assemblies should just vote themselves and add up the results of each assembly- that's what I meant, sorry for saying it in such a strange way.

I do agree with proportional self management though. If the decision doesn't affect you, what right do you have to a say in the matter? That's one of the aspects I like most about IOPS.

True. Why bother if it doesn't effect you?

What you are saying about direct voting is actually what i meant, though.

[China studen]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Kimilsung-Kimjongilism（Juche idea）.

[sixdollarchampagne]

No organized group ever referred to themselves as Stalinist. Left-Coms, Anarchists, and Trotskyist employed it to denigrate Marxist-Leninist because of their support of Stalin.

This statement by godless jogged my memory: I seem to recall seeing, some years ago, in a Russian text, the noun stalinyets, which, I think, translates as something very much like Stalinist. Undoubtedly, that noun is a part of the famous kul't lichnosti. "cult of personality," surely one of the least of Stalin's crimes, but, in the USSR, factually, they actually did invent a word for "Stalinist." Even if my recollection were somewhat erroneous, and I don't think it is, it is the case that the tens of millions of Communists in the USSR, who were an "organized group," most definitely held that the sun rose and set, thanks to Stalin, and I think all that, the enormities of the Stalin cult, which constituted the CP and the "non-party" masses in the old SU, was a conscious "Stalinist" tendency. Given the relentless nature of the Stalin cult, how could it be otherwise?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Not sure it can. What is a party if it isn't the vanguard?

After you have a vanguard party abolish all other you can say that.


I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is 'making decisions for the people'?

Answer:
An elite
You know, that party that takes power, abolishes the other parties, hunts down and executes the oposition, and becomes the new ruling party in a totalitarian regime.


Right, mass assemblies, great. How do you make decisions that affect more than 200 people?

Isn't there a part of anarchist theory that refers a federation of communities? I thought maybe you had heard of that?
The division of an area into communities facilitates the creation of communal assemblies that work democraticaly.


Again?

Yep. A good cause for someone to "grow out" of leftist ideologies, and in fact any ideology, is because it has not been a relevant thing in their lives.


My argumnt is perfectly coherent.

Yep:laugh:


Yes, as I was arguing several posts ago.

However, Anarcho-syndicalists might disagree.

I disagree. Anarchists are not marxists, and thus they should not be identified with terms associated with marxism.

http://badnewswade.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lolmarx.jpg

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The tendencies in the poll should be:

Stalinists
petty-bourgeois liberals
trotskyte traitors
people with an infantile disorder
revisionists


Done!

[Camaradus]

Because Leninism has nothing to do with "the irresponsible despotism of bureaucracy over the people."(Trotsky)

Tis precisely why Lenin desperately petitioned for the demotion of Stalin in the Bolshevik party shortly before his premature deat in 1924.

[Oswy]

Couldn't it be one of the weaknesses of the left that we seem to give great importance to which sub-species or variation of leftism we support and thus open up divisions between us? I ticked the Marxist option but wonder if it would be better for us all to identify ourselves as 'leftist' or (to avoid confustion with left liberalism) 'radical leftist'.

There must be a potential core of plain-language concenpts which 99% of us would agree with, like:

1. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (kudos Mr Spock!).

[Blake's Baby]

...

Isn't there a part of anarchist theory that refers a federation of communities? I thought maybe you had heard of that?
The division of an area into communities facilitates the creation of communal assemblies that work democraticaly...

The organisation that you need for the assemblies to aggregate the decisions is the 'council' I'm talking about...




...

I disagree. Anarchists are not marxists, and thus they should not be identified with terms associated with marxism.



So 'revolution', 'communism' and 'socialism' are all out? Are you seriously suggesting that there should be no such term as 'Anarchist-Communism'?

[Luís Henrique]

What level of detail do we want?

We can perhaps list three or four main tendencies, such as

Blanquists
Lassalians
Marxists
Anarchists

(and Blanquism and Lassalianism wouldn't get any votes in a poll, so it would after all boil down into Marxists vs anarchists)

Or we could go to the point of aknowledging the differences between Pablist and anti-Pablist Trotskyists, or even down to the differences between the several anti-Pablist Trotskyist tendencies - Lambertists, "Spartacists", Healites, Cliffists, Lorists, Altamirists, etc - and embarking in an endless dispute on who is and who is not a Pablist, with the groups listed above accusing Posadists, Morenoists, and Mandelists of Pablism, ending in the famous theoretical dispute summarised in the "Am not, Are too" controversy.

Anyway, a major distinction between anarchists that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the divide between platformists and non-platformists.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

All Platformists are Anarchist-Communists, but not all Anarchist-Communists are Platformists - in my understanding anyway. So Platformism is a sub-tendency of Anarchist-Communism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The organisation that you need for the assemblies to aggregate the decisions is the 'council' I'm talking about

Aggregate the desisions? You forget english is not my first language.


So 'revolution', 'communism' and 'socialism' are all out? Are you seriously suggesting that there should be no such term as 'Anarchist-Communism'?

The term anarchist-communist is usefull to destinguish left anarchists from right anarchists. I prefer the term collectivist, because it has less ties to communism.
If I am asked about my political views i will say "I am anarchist", and if they ask me what kind of anarchism I will say "communist anarchism".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I quite like the term 'anarcho-communism', as though i'm not an anarchist myself, it seems undeniable to me that anarchism and marxism are trying to head to the same place. Well, aside from those who have a secret fetish for the state, military powerrrrrr and so on!

[Blake's Baby]

Aggregate the desisions? You forget english is not my first language...

We agree that there should be mass assemblies. But you were talking about a 'federation' of assemblies to decide on questions that affect more than the people from one assembly. So say, in a community that has three neighbourhoods (each of which has its own assembly) some question about the water supply affects the whole community. One assembly decides they want to option A, one assembly picks option B and the other assemby decides to do option C. How do the three assemblies then reach a decision?

By 'aggregate the decisions' I meant something like 'add the small decisions together to make a big decision'.



...
The term anarchist-communist is usefull to destinguish left anarchists from right anarchists. I prefer the term collectivist, because it has less ties to communism...

By 'communist' you seem to mean 'Marxist'. Kropotkin was very happy to call himself an Anarchist-Communist, Berkman was happy to call himself a Communist-Anarchist. Bakunin was a 'collectivist' and I've never rated him as an Anarchist thinker. I was an Anarchist-Communist for 20 years. Not a Marxist Communist, an Anarchist-Communist.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

We agree that there should be mass assemblies. But you were talking about a 'federation' of assemblies to decide on questions that affect more than the people from one assembly. So say, in a community that has three neighbourhoods (each of which has its own assembly) some question about the water supply affects the whole community. One assembly decides they want to option A, one assembly picks option B and the other assemby decides to do option C. How do the three assemblies then reach a decision?

To me the solution seems obvious. In a community the votes are counted, and the results are anounced, in the other communites the same happens, then you combine the results of all communities.


By 'aggregate the decisions' I meant something like 'add the small decisions together to make a big decision'.

Yes, but what did you mean with council?


By 'communist' you seem to mean 'Marxist'. Kropotkin was very happy to call himself an Anarchist-Communist, Berkman was happy to call himself a Communist-Anarchist. Bakunin was a 'collectivist' and I've never rated him as an Anarchist thinker. I was an Anarchist-Communist for 20 years. Not a Marxist Communist, an Anarchist-Communist.

The thing is, in Portugal, if you say you are a communist everyone will assume you are an ML, since that is the most common communist tendency. If you say you are an anarchist, everyone will know what you mean, because anarchist communism is the most common form of anarchism in Portugal, all other forms are almost inexistant, except for anarcho-syndicalism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The thing is, in Portugal, if you say you are a communist everyone will assume you are an ML, since that is the most common communist tendency. If you say you are an anarchist, everyone will know what you mean, because anarchist communism is the most common form of anarchism in Portugal, all other forms are almost inexistant, except for anarcho-syndicalism.

I think this is the same in most places, outside of traditional leftist circles where people argue over whether somebody is an anarchist, anarcho-communist, left-libertarian or whatever.

Surely the base point here, and that we should agree on, is that every anarchist is a communist, but not every anarchist is a Marxian (clearly), and not every Marxian is a communist.

[Blake's Baby]

Stalin said, 'it's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes'.

So, three neighbourhoods (Eastside, Westside and Southside) in Anarchyville are all trying to decide about how the water supply should work.

Eastside: there are about 200 people here, 100 of them want option A, 20 of them want option B, 10 want option C and 70 want option D.

Westside: there are about 130 people here, 20 of them want option A, 60 of them want option B, 10 want option C and 40 want option D.

Southside: there are about 160 people, 20 want option A, 30 want option B, 60 want option C and 50 want option D.

How does your system work then?

Combining all the votes means

A = 100 (most popular option in Eastside) +20+20 = 140
B = 20+60 (most popular option in Westside)+30 = 110
C = 10+10+60 (most popular option in Southside) = 80
D = (most popular option nowhere) 70+40+50 = 160

So on this basis, the 'most popular' option is option D, which none of the neighbourhoods voted for.

What was the point of the neighbourhood assemblies voting? Out 490 people, 160 (a minority in the city, and a minority in each area) vote for option D, but that 'wins'.

And who takes each neighbourhood's votes and add them together? There has to be a city-wide structure to do that.

[Geiseric]

anarchists don't have a problem with de facto leadership when it's an "anarchist collective" like makhnovschina or CNT in charge, who both failed to change social relations, but they do have beef when its a communist in charge, because of arguments passed down from the anti semite bakunin. That's how it seems to unfold in real life, when anarchists want to do something, they're like the ultra vanguard, and don't even talk to peple in the wider movement before they do a direct action, which often involves things that non white people will be unable to participate in due to police brutality. These are just arguments I've heard from a variety of people, which somewhat makes sense due to some ofmy experince with "ultra lefts," which anarchism is a shade of.

[Luís Henrique]

All Platformists are Anarchist-Communists, but not all Anarchist-Communists are Platformists - in my understanding anyway. So Platformism is a sub-tendency of Anarchist-Communism.

So we would have,


non-communist anarchists
communist anarchists

non-platformists
platformists


?

How about anarcho-syndicalists? Are all of them non-communist anarchists, or are words confusing here?

And revolutionary syndicalists? How do they relate to anarchism? A sub-tendency, something completely apart, or do they criss-cross?

How about Kropotkians, Bakuninists, Proudhonians, Malatestians, Durrutians, Makhnovists? (as far as I understand, Proudhonians are mutualists, and so non-communist anarchists; am I wrong?)

Luís Henrique

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Stalin said, 'it's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes'.

So, three neighbourhoods (Eastside, Westside and Southside) in Anarchyville are all trying to decide about how the water supply should work.

Eastside: there are about 200 people here, 100 of them want option A, 20 of them want option B, 10 want option C and 70 want option D.

Westside: there are about 130 people here, 20 of them want option A, 60 of them want option B, 10 want option C and 40 want option D.

Southside: there are about 160 people, 20 want option A, 30 want option B, 60 want option C and 50 want option D.

How does your system work then?

Combining all the votes means

A = 100 (most popular option in Eastside) +20+20 = 140
B = 20+60 (most popular option in Westside)+30 = 110
C = 10+10+60 (most popular option in Southside) = 80
D = (most popular option nowhere) 70+40+50 = 160

So on this basis, the 'most popular' option is option D, which none of the neighbourhoods voted for.

What was the point of the neighbourhood assemblies voting? Out 490 people, 160 (a minority in the city, and a minority in each area) vote for option D, but that 'wins'.

And who takes each neighbourhood's votes and add them together? There has to be a city-wide structure to do that.


That is a problem with voting, but those problems always exist in any system. You can instead use a proportional system.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

How about Kropotkians, Bakuninists, Proudhonians, Malatestians, Durrutians, Makhnovists? (as far as I understand, Proudhonians are mutualists, and so non-communist anarchists; am I wrong?)

Luís Henrique

You forgot Berkmanians!

[Blake's Baby]

So we would have,


non-communist anarchists
communist anarchists

non-platformists
platformists



?

How about anarcho-syndicalists? Are all of them non-communist anarchists, or are words confusing here?

And revolutionary syndicalists? How do they relate to anarchism? A sub-tendency, something completely apart, or do they criss-cross?

About two pages ago, I offered the opinions that:

Anarchism can be subdivided into 'Anarchists without adjectives (as Malatesta)'; Anarcho-syndicalists; Anarchist-Communists. And, now, Anarchist-Communists can be Platformist or non-Platformist.

Revolutionary syndicalists are not Anarchists. Anarchists who are syndicalists are Anarcho-syndicalists.


...How about Kropotkians, Bakuninists, Proudhonians, Malatestians, Durrutians, Makhnovists? (as far as I understand, Proudhonians are mutualists, and so non-communist anarchists; am I wrong?)...

These things aren't real. Schools of Anarchism don't name themselves after people. The closest to any reality here would be 'Anarcho-mutualists' (an almost insignificant school since the 1870s which has had some revival under the influence of the Agorists, themselves an almost entirely internet-based phenomenon), that some people refer to as 'Proudhonists'.

Kropotkin was an Anarchist-communist; Bakunin was a Collectivist Anarchist (these really don't exist any more); Proudhon was a Mutualist Anarchist; Malatesta was an Anarchist; Durruti was an Anarcho-syndicalist; I'm not sure if Makhno considered himself an Anarchist-Communist or an anarcho-syndicalist - I think he started as the latter, and moved to considering himself the former. The 'Makhnovists' were directly the followers of Makhno, not politically but militarily. So they ceased to exist in 1921.

And Berkman was an Anarchist-communist.

[Blake's Baby]

That is a problem with voting, but those problems always exist in any system. You can instead use a proportional system.

Who decides? what if the assemblies all decide they want different ways of making the decision?

This is the point. I don't disagree that at its basis the assembly is sovereign. But there must be a level above the assemblies - something that the assemblies agree to that acts as a way of co-ordinating the assemblies.

People (as individuals) take part in assemblies. We agree that collective decision-making is going to be how we live; we voluntarily give up some of our control to the assembly (the collective). But the collective must also voluntarily give up some of its control to the 'collective of collectives'.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Who decides? what if the assemblies all decide they want different ways of making the decision?

This is the point. I don't disagree that at its basis the assembly is sovereign. But there must be a level above the assemblies - something that the assemblies agree to that acts as a way of co-ordinating the assemblies.

People (as individuals) take part in assemblies. We agree that collective decision-making is going to be how we live; we voluntarily give up some of our control to the assembly (the collective). But the collective must also voluntarily give up some of its control to the 'collective of collectives'.

It's something i've thought about a lot. The possibility of different assemblies using different methods didn't cross my mind yet. It is certainly food for thought.

[GeorgeZinn]

There seem to be so many intelligent and well educated people on rev left and following Marxism and Anarchism in general from websites I go to. Why aren't both more successful in North America? Can't be legacy of McCarthyism still is it?

[Blake's Baby]

Partly. But I think Mccartyism is a symptom, not so much a cause.

People's lives are patterned by capitalism. The ruling class control the education system and the media. It's hardly surprising that the majority of people, the majority of the time, accept the situation as 'the way things are'. I think it requires extraordinary events to jolt that assumption of normality.

[Marxaveli]

Voted for Marxism. In general I don't subscribe to a particular tendency really (I think most of them have merit to some degree, a few really don't), but orthodox Marxism and in particular Impossibilism seem to be what I agree with the most. Sectarianism kind of sucks if you know what I mean, though I accept that it is inevitable since Marxism as a theory is scientific, and therfore constantly being built upon or updated, rather than ideological or monolithic.

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

I am a communist. The only tendency I belong to is communism.

Marxism-Leninism died in 1991, Maoism died when Deng took over China in 1978, "Stalinism" isn't a tendency, Trotskyism died in 1927 and was buried with Trotsky in 1940, Kautskyism died in 1914, Anarchism/Anarcho-Communism died in the 1930s, Left-Communism and Council-Communism died in the early 1920s, Social-Democrats aren't even allowed on this site, and I have no clue what "libertarianism" refers to. What is it with you people? Why the urge to categorize yourselves into these marginal quasi-religious cult-like sects?

Every time new revolutionary movements emerge, new revolutionary theorists and leaders arise with them. And so it shall be when communism re-emerges, it will be accompanied by new leaders and by new revolutionary theories and tendencies. What the shit is the point of clinging on to these outdated dogmas of long-past epochs? Do any of you actually believe that they will make a comeback? That's absurd. Dead political tendencies have never made comebacks. Jacobinism didn't return in the 19th century. Utopian socialism, Neo-Jacobinism, Blanqusim, Proudhonism and Chartism didn't come back in the 20th. Whatever happened to classical liberalism, classical conservatism and classical social democracy?

Utilize the materialist outlook championed by Marx and Engels, jackasses. All these 20th century movements arose because the material conditions peculiar to the 20th dictated that they arise. 21st century material conditions dictate thaht new movements and new ideologies will arise, so all of this Trot, ML, Maoist, Left-Com and whatever masturbation isn't anything more than sadomasochistic necrophilia. Future communist movements will obviously build up from the foundations already laid down by the previous generations of communists, but they won't be imitating or copying them step-by-step. History doesn't repeat itself.

[Red_Banner]

I put down anarcho-communist.

I'm a mix of many different leftist ideologies.

I'm a sort of Marxist-Leninist-Goldmanist-Trotskyist-Maoist with Titoist charecteristics.
:grin:

I also consider myself to be a libertarian socialist and syndicalist.

And some other things.



I am not a Kautskyite, "left communist", "council communist", Stalinist, Jucheist, Hoxhaist, Avakianist, and I am not a utopian.

[boiler]

my answer Marxism-Leninism-Maoism :)

[CharisaAce]

Anarchist :)

[Sinister Intents]

I voted Anarcho-Communism a long time ago and forgot to post my vote :)

[tallguy]

I am bound to say folks, all these labels remind me of that Monty Python movie.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I don't think I need any label further than marxist, but I suppose there are so many labels to chose from there must be one tailored just for me somewhere

[Sabot Cat]

I posted Other; I am a Revolutionary (Industrial) Unionist, but I will collaborate with anyone who wishes to liberate the proletariat.

[tallguy]

I just want stuff shared out more equally and all the greedy bastards strung up. Whose gang do I need to join then?