Marxist-Leninist politician assassinated - Tunisia

[Tim Cornelis]

Chokri Belaïd, member of the 'Parti du Travail Patriotique et Démocratique', which ostensibly follows 'scientific socialism' and is part of the Marxist-Leninist dominated Popular Front (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_populaire_(Tunisie)) (which includes a Trotskyist and Arab nationalist factions as well), was assassinated on February 6, 2013.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21349719


Tunisian opposition politician Chokri Belaid has been shot dead outside his home in the capital, Tunis, his brother and officials say.

[TheEmancipator]

Why is he a Marxist-Leninist? Since when do Marxist-Leninist believe in parliamentary democracy?

[Tim Cornelis]

Anti-government protesters have started riots throughout the country. Obviously, mostly attracting secular leftists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tunisian-opposition-leader-shot-to-death-amid-tensions-over-islamist-extremism/2013/02/06/c82f48a8-703b-11e2-b3f3-b263d708ca37_story.html


TUNIS, Tunisia — A Tunisian opposition leader critical of the Islamist-led government was gunned down as he left home Wednesday in the first assassination in post-revolutionary Tunisia, setting off anti-government riots that left downtown Tunis choked with tear gas and patrolled by a tank and armored cars.


Why is he a Marxist-Leninist? Since when do Marxist-Leninist believe in parliamentary democracy?

Lenin argued in 'Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder' against the ultraleft opposition to parliamentary participation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm), virtually all Marxist-Leninist parties that can garner some popular support have participated in elections.

Wikipedia designates his party both as scientific socialist and Marxist-Leninist:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_populaire_(Tunisie))

It groups his party, Mouvement des patriotes démocrates, as Marxist-Leninist.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_des_patriotes_democrates

This page calls its ideology 'Marxism'.

http://themoornextdoor.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/leftistparties.pdf

This page calls its ideology Marxist-Leninist and Arab nationalist.

http://www.partistunisie.com/fr/mpd.html?PHPSESSID=12113fa6b53f9cdf16cd6a920a687d9 c

This page calls its ideology Marxist-Leninist.

[vanukar]

"Marxism-Leninism" is just another word for left-nationalism.

[Comrade Samuel]

"Marxism-Leninism" is just another word for left-nationalism.

I realize you are new but flaming like this is frowned upon around here.

I caught something on the news about this (but they conveniently left out the part about him having communist sympathies). If there are mass protests by secular leftists then I have to ask, what happens now? Really this raises many questions such as what is the current provisional government of Tunisia like? What's wrong with this guy or the people he was affiliated with? (Revleft can always answer that one) How violent are the protests? What are they demanding?

Needless to say, I've got some reading to do.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

"Marxism-Leninism" is just another word for left-nationalism.

Congradulations. You get to join the cool kids club by making fun of the nerd ideology.

Have fun lacking a spine.

Back on the topic. Does anyone have any other information about Communists in Tunisia? I hear the Tunisian worker's party was threatened with violence from Salfaist militias, hence the dropping of communist from their name, so I suppose they haven't been doing anything in an attempt to lay low. What about those Soviets that were set up, are they still opperational?

http://www.marxist.com/salafist-attack-pcot.htm

Apparently the TWP has gone revisionist. Saying they "don't want to establish a communist state"

Source: http://www.tunisia-live.net/2011/10/11/how-communist-is-tunisias-communist-party/

[blake 3:17]

Why is he a Marxist-Leninist? Since when do Marxist-Leninist believe in parliamentary democracy?

It is foolish for revolutionaries to oppose participation in elections on principle.

[Let's Get Free]

Demonstrations after the assassination

66lMbGS8kYs

[vanukar]

Im sorry about my last comment I won't lash out like that again.


It is foolish for revolutionaries to oppose participation in elections on principle.

Even though participation in bourgeois democracy almost always necessitates the watering down of political positions to the point where the person(s) running may as well be reformists?

[The Intransigent Faction]

It is foolish for revolutionaries to oppose participation in elections on principle.

Yeah, what kind of moron thinks you can't overthrow capitalism by participating in the committee for managing the affairs of the bourgeoisie?

Oh wait...:rolleyes:

[freepalestine]

Tunisian opposition leader murdered, sparks nationwide protests
http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/5cols/leading_images/choukri.jpg
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Updated 4:12pm: The murder of Tunisian opposition leader Chokri Belaid Wednesday morning sparked nationwide protests.

Belaid was shot dead a day after he had said on Tunisian Nessma TV that the leading Islamist party Ennahda had "given the green light for political assassinations."

Eight thousand protesters demonstrated outside the interior ministry in central Tunis on Wednesday chanting for the government to fall and for a second revolution...............
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/tunisian-opposition-leader-shot-dead-pm-calls-it-terrorism




Egypt opposition leader warns over death edict


http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-opposition-leader-warns-over-death-edict-194901226.html

[freepalestine]

Tunisian opposition leader murdered, sparks nationwide protests
http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/5cols/leading_images/choukri.jpg
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Updated 4:12pm: The murder of Tunisian opposition leader Chokri Belaid Wednesday morning sparked nationwide protests.

Belaid was shot dead a day after he had said on Tunisian Nessma TV that the leading Islamist party Ennahda had "given the green light for political assassinations."

Eight thousand protesters demonstrated outside the interior ministry in central Tunis on Wednesday chanting for the government to fall and for a second revolution......................






http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/tunisian-opposition-leader-shot-dead-pm-calls-it-terrorism

----------------
Egypt opposition leader warns over death edict


Egypt opposition leader warns over death edict
By AMIR MAKAR | Associated Press – Wed, Feb 6, 2013



CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's most prominent opposition leader criticized the Islamist government on Wednesday for its silence over a Muslim cleric's edict calling for the death of opposition supporters.
Mohamed ElBaradei was responding to well-known ultraconservative cleric Mahmoud Shaaban, who said in a TV show last week that the opposition should be punished by death for seeking to bring down a leader who has been elected by the public.
"God's verdict is death," he said amid a new wave of protests against Islamist President Mohammed Morsi.
The fatwa, or religious edict, followed another one by hard-line cleric Magdi Ghoneim who said: "I publicly incite to kill the thugs, criminals, thieves, and those who burn the country and kill the innocents."
ElBaradei lamented the edicts in a message posted on his Twitter account
"Regime silent as another fatwa gives license to kill opposition in the name of Islam," he said, adding: "Religion yet again used and abused."
The edicts caused alarm in Egypt after a Tunisian opposition leader critical of the Islamist-led government there was assassinated on Wednesday.
Tunisia was the first Arab country to witness a mass uprising and Egyptians watch Tunisia for cues on the direction their own country might take.
At the same time, Morsi's office accused the opposition on Wednesday of benefiting from the recent wave of violence that left more than 70 people dead. Yasser Ali, Morsi's spokesman, told reporters that the opposition was using the clashes "as a means of political pressure."
Egypt has been engulfed in riots and protests over the past two weeks.
The mostly liberal opposition and a large sector of moderate Muslims are demanding Morsi amend the constitution, which was passed hurriedly by an Islamist-led constituent assembly and approved in a referendum despite vigorous opposition objections.
Egypt's powerful military has warned recently of the "collapse" of the state in mid of political fragmentation.
Criticism of Morsi's administration has mounted lately after a string of violent sexual assaults on female protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square. On Wednesday, an international rights group warned mob-led sexual assaults will only increase if perpetrators are not punished.
Amnesty International said statements from victims show that the assaults follow a "clear pattern" where mobs of men encircle the victims, assault them with weapons and hands and then try to undress them.
Amnesty's warning followed a statement from the U.N. human rights office, which last week said that about 25 women were reportedly sexually assaulted — in some cases with extraordinary violence — in Tahrir Square during recent demonstrations against Morsi.
The square witnessed a number of assaults against women — both protesters and journalists — in the aftermath of the uprising. Women have been stripped, groped and raped at demonstrations there.
The U.N. agency demanded that Egyptian authorities take steps to bring the perpetrators to justice. Amnesty also urged prompt action.
"Horrific, violent attacks on women, including rape in the vicinity of Tahrir Square, demonstrate that it's now crucial President Morsi takes drastic steps to end this culture of impunity and gender-based discrimination," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui of the London-based group.
Amnesty cited a report by a local anti-harassment group, which said that a total of 19 violent attacks against women took place on Jan. 25 alone — the day Egyptians staged a huge demonstration in Cairo to mark the second anniversary of the uprising that ousted authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak.
Activists have called the incidents the worst in years, describing them as the darkest stain on the country's opposition street movement.
One particular attack on a woman on Jan. 25 has stood out: A mob of men in Tahrir Square raped a 19-year-old woman with a sharp object, cutting her genitals in an attack that forced her to undergo emergency surgery.
Some 2,000 people rallied in downtown Cairo on Wednesday, protesting against the failure of Morsi's government to protect women demonstrators. Some at the rally raised banners reading: "Those silent against the harassers are devils."
In other developments, the official news agency said the country's top appeals court has granted retrials for two senior officials from the Mubarak regime.
MENA says the court threw out guilty verdicts for Mubarak's chief-of-staff, Zakariya Azmi, and former Agriculture Minister Amin Abaza. They were charged with illegally acquiring and concealing gains from real estate deals.
Several Mubarak-era officials face retrials after their verdicts were overthrown — a development that puts the spotlight in Egypt back on the highly divisive issue of justice for former regime members, two years after the uprising.
Mubarak's own life sentence on a conviction of failing to prevent the killing of hundreds of protesters has been overturned and he is to be re-tried along with his top security officers.
http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-opposition-leader-warns-over-death-edict-194901226.html

[NewLeft]

Yeah, what kind of moron thinks you can't overthrow capitalism by participating in the committee for managing the affairs of the bourgeoisie?

Oh wait...:rolleyes:
But he's right, we shouldn't oppose it as a matter of principle.

[The Intransigent Faction]

But he's right, we shouldn't oppose it as a matter of principle.

Hmm, true enough, it's just the implication seemed to be that we should in fact participate in the bourgeois electoral process rather than that we should not do so because of an understanding, based in class awareness, that it amounts to reformism at best.

[Luís Henrique]

Why is he a Marxist-Leninist? Since when do Marxist-Leninist believe in parliamentary democracy?

Since ever?

Never met one that wasn't into it up to (at least) his neck.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Even though participation in bourgeois democracy almost always necessitates the watering down of political positions to the point where the person(s) running may as well be reformists?

Does it? Why?

Luís Henrique

[p0is0n]

French wikipedia article on the Democratic Patriotic Movement:

"Marxist and pan-Arabic, its ideological principles emerged in the 1970s and offer a "national revolution Democrat" based on a scientific analysis of society based primarily on class struggle, between an oppressed class consisting of the workers, small farmers, unemployed, civil servants, artisans and "capitalist patriots" [...]"

My translation may be very crappy, anyone who knows french, feel free to check http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_des_patriotes_d%C3%A9mocrates.

There's also a party program there, if anyone is interested.

[Luís Henrique]

French wikipedia article on the Democratic Patriotic Movement:

It is clearly a reformist party.

That said, this murder requires our complete and inconditional repulse. Whatever ideologies of this party and its leader, his assessination is intended as a direct attack against the organisation and autonomy of the Tunisian working class. Failing to oppose this act of class aggression on sectarian grounds can only reinforce the murderers and their bosses - ultimately, the Tunisian bourgeoisie and its imperialist allies.

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

But he's right, we shouldn't oppose it as a matter of principle.
You didn't elaborate on what exactly is meant here by "principle".

As far as I'm concerned, principles flow from an assessment of the current historical configuration, which takes into account both the global dynamics of capital and class struggle and the aspect of uneven development.

This being said, the principle of the autonomy of the class vis-a-vis the bourgeois state, in conjunction with the fact that the progressive period of capitalism has long since passed (capital cannot afford itself yet another round of extensive concessions and reform, for instance, a significant shortening of the working week in combination with wages decoupled from productivity deals; I don't think that even a labour law reform which would reverse labour market flexibilization is possible), I think it is a matter of principles not to stand in elections. This even leaves out very real dangers of parliamentary participation on behalf of one kind or another of a mass party, where the tendency towards integration and co-optation is very strong.


That said, this murder requires our complete and inconditional repulse....
...this act of class aggression on sectarian grounds
I agree absolutely.

[l'Enfermé]

Merged Tim-Cornelis' and freepalestine's threads on the assassination of Belaïd.

[human strike]

Heard a rumour that the ruling party's headquarters in Tunis was torched. Anyone got any reliable info on that?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Heard a rumour that the ruling party's headquarters in Tunis was torched. Anyone got any reliable info on that?

I saw this on a couple of sites

www.breakingnews.com/.../leader-of-tunisias-ennahda-party-confirms-hq-attacked-and-set-on-fire (http://www.breakingnews.com/.../leader-of-tunisias-ennahda-party-confirms-hq-attacked-and-set-on-fire)

www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110206-polcei-hq-set-fire-tunisian-town (http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110206-polcei-hq-set-fire-tunisian-town)

Not sure how reliable

[human strike]

I saw this on a couple of sites

www.breakingnews.com/.../leader-of-tunisias-ennahda-party-confirms-hq-attacked-and-set-on-fire (http://www.breakingnews.com/.../leader-of-tunisias-ennahda-party-confirms-hq-attacked-and-set-on-fire)

www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110206-polcei-hq-set-fire-tunisian-town (http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110206-polcei-hq-set-fire-tunisian-town)

Not sure how reliable

Links are old or dead. :/

[freepalestine]

http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/all/themes/akhbar/images/twitter.png (http://twitter.com/AlakhbarEnglish) http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/all/themes/akhbar/images/facebook.png (http://www.facebook.com/AlakhbarEnglish/) http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/all/themes/akhbar/images/rss.png (http://english.al-akhbar.com/rss.xml)


Belaid Assassination: Targeting the Tunisian Left


http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/5cols/leading_images/657942-01-08_0.jpg
Tunisian protestors chant slogans behind barbed wire outside the Interior Ministry in Tunis, on 7 February 2013 during a demonstration against the killing of opposition figure and human rights lawyer Chokri Belaid. (Photo: AFP - Khalil)


Published Thursday, February 7, 2013


After the Wednesday assassination of Tunisian leftist leader Chokri Belaid, opposition leaders are seeking to unify their ranks to stem a tide of violence targeting the country’s left.

On Tuesday evening, Chokri Belaid, a 49-year-old Tunisian opposition leader, appeared on the Nessma TV channel, engaging in a discussion on violence and political assassinations.
At 8 AM the next day, 6 February 2013, Belaid was shot (http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/tunisian-opposition-leader-shot-dead-pm-calls-it-terrorism) three times outside his home. He is the second victim of politically motivated murders after Lotfi Nakhd, who was assassinated in October 2012 by members of the National League for the Protection of the Revolution (LNPR) in Tataouine.
Belaid became a political activist at a young age. Born in the poor suburb Jebel Jalloud near downtown Tunis, he engaged in secret political action with one of the most famous leftist Tunisian factions, the Movement of Patriotic Democrats (known in Arabic as al-Watad).
He quickly became a rising star during Tunisia’s students’ protests in the early 1980s. After enrolling in university, Belaid became one of the senior leaders of the MPD.
As a young activist, the slain leader was wanted by security services, prompting his retreat underground. In the mid-80s, he was arrested during clashes between students and the authorities. He was then forcibly conscripted with a group of students to serve in the remote Tunisian desert region of Rjim Maatoug.
Belaid was released after General Ben Ali took power, in a move that was intended to achieve a kind of a political détente.
Belaid continued his activism up until 1992, becoming one of the historic leaders of the Tunisian student movement. In the same year, he traveled to Iraq to finish his law degree, and then to France for his postgraduate studies.
In the late ‘90s, he returned to Tunisia where he began his law practice. As a progressive human rights activist and lawyer, he engaged in issues of freedom of expression and trade union advocacy.


In a clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r2bH9BaLHc) that has made the rounds online, a group of Salafis appear to be calling for his assassination.
The leftist lawyer did not hesitate to defend even the Salafis who were arrested under the Ben Ali regime. Belaid also strongly defended the Gafsa Mining Basin prisoners in 2008, and took part in the protests that began on 17 December 2010. He was arrested a day before Ben Ali fled the country.



Post-Revolution Political Ascendancy

After the fall of the former regime Belaid founded an official party for the MPD. At the party’s first general conference last autumn, Belaid was elected secretary general.
He succeeded in resurrecting the Unified Democratic Nationalist party, of which he was secretary general, and was also among the leaders who founded the Popular Front, a union of leftist and Baathist parties.
Belaid would often give public speeches throughout cities and villages in Tunisia. Recently, al-Nahda, along with Minister of Interior Ali al-Arid, accused him of instigating protests in the cities of Sidi Bouzid, Gafsa, Kasserine, and Siliana.
Since al-Nahda’s rise to power, Belaid has repeatedly come under attack on social media platforms given his rise as a prominent opposition figure. In a clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r2bH9BaLHc) that has made the rounds online, a group of Salafis appear to be calling for his assassination.
In addition to his house being broken into last Ramadan, his wife and a number of his friends and associates at the Popular Front confirmed that he had received death threats.
Belaid had famously described the government as subservient to “Qatari neo-colonialism.” He also accused al-Nahda of abetting terrorism to create a climate of fear among the Tunisian public.

This political alliance would not have seen the light of day were it not for the assassination of Belaid.On the day before his assassination, he called for holding a national dialogue to discuss violence, and demanded that the government act against outlaw groups that have been targeting freedoms in the country.




A Popular Front Without Belaid

Belaid’s death leaves big question marks for the future of the Popular Front, particularly the Patriotic Democrats. Despite the fact that he was not the oldest of the MPD leaders, he had managed to become one of their most senior.
With his death, the left will lose Belaid’s passion for turning the Popular Front into a major political force that was poised to have a strong showing in the next election. Many polls had confirmed that the front was quickly gaining ground.
Nevertheless, the assassination may push other leftist factions to join the Popular Front. Following the slaying of Belaid, the Front joined forces with the Nida Tunis, or Tunisia’s Call party, to create an opposition coalition.
This coalition, which will bring together many democratic parties, is expected to represent a political force to be reckoned with. The government, specifically al-Nahda, will find itself facing a broad front that combines the radical and center left with liberals.
This political alliance would not have seen the light of day were it not for the assassination of Belaid. To be sure, the Popular Front and the slain leader refused to join forces with Nida Tunis in the past. Yet the murder has unified opposition voices against the government and al-Nahda, which is being held politically responsible by all parties for the current climate of violence.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.




http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/belaid-assassination-targeting-tunisian-left

[freepalestine]

Tunisia rocked by clashes as general strike called


http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/5cols/leading_images/ANM03_TUNISIA-PROTEST-_0207_11.JPG
Police fire tear gas at anti-government demonstrators in Tunis on 7 February 2013. (Photo: Reuters - Anis Mili)


Published Thursday, February 7, 2013




Updated 4:12pm: Police on Thursday fired tear gas at demonstrators marching in central Tunis to protest the assassination of Chokri Belaid, a prominent opposition figure who was gunned down in broad daylight one day before.
The country's main trade union called a general strike on Friday to coincide with the funeral of Belaid, a lawyer and vocal critic of the ruling Nahda party who was shot dead outside his home by a lone gunman.
Clashes erupted between police and anti-government protesters who approached the interior ministry on Habib Bourguiba Avenue, epicenter of the 2011 revolution which toppled ex-dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's regime.
"The people want the fall of the regime!" the protesters chanted as they headed towards the interior ministry.
Hundreds of others battled police outside the governor's office in the central Tunisian town of Gafsa.
The protesters, who were observing a symbolic funeral for the slain opposition leader, threw petrol bombs at the police, who fired large quantities of tear gas in a bid to disperse them, according to an AFP journalist.

The demonstration in Gafsa, a central mining region, was organized by the Popular Front, an alliance of leftist parties to which Belaid belonged.
Thursday's unrest follows violence the day before that left one policeman dead in Tunis and saw protesters torch and ransack offices of al-Nahda in a number of towns, including Gafsa.
Tunisian lawyers, judges and some teachers began a strike on Thursday while the General Union of Tunisian Workers (UGTT) announced on its website it had called a general strike on Friday.
Tunisia's governing Islamists meanwhile Thursday rejected a plan by their party chief and prime minister to dismiss the government after Belaid's assassination, whose death has sparked the biggest street protests since a revolution two years ago.
Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali of al-Nahda announced late on Wednesday he would replace the government led by his Islamist party with a non-partisan cabinet until elections could be held as soon as possible.

But a senior Nahda official said Jebali had not consulted the party, suggesting the Islamist group was deeply divided over the move to replace the governing coalition and that could prolong the political crisis.
"The prime minister did not ask the opinion of his party," said Abdelhamid Jelassi, Nahda's vice-president.
"We in al-Nahda believe Tunisia needs a political government now. We will continue discussions with other parties about forming a coalition government," he said.
Jebali announced he was dissolving the government on Wednesday after Belaid was gunned down, sending protesters onto the streets across the country.
"I have decided to form a government of competent nationals without political affiliation, which will have a mandate limited to managing the affairs of the country until elections are held in the shortest possible time," he said Wednesday, without setting a date for the reshuffling.

President Moncef Marzouki denounced the killing of Belaid, an outspoken critic of his government, as an "odious assassination."
The Nahda party, which Belaid's family accused of being behind the killing, rejected any involvement.
Nahda chief Rached Ghannouchi said that the "cowardly" murder was the result of a settling of political scores. The killers "want a bloodbath but they won't succeed," he told AFP.
The four opposition groups blamed Interior Minister Ali Laraydeh from Nahda for Belaid's murder and demanded his sacking "because he knew he was threatened and he did nothing," according to Nejib Chebbi, leader of one of the blocs.

The violent scenes triggered by Belaid's murder were reminiscent of the uprising that ousted veteran dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali just over two years ago, with thousands protesting outside the interior ministry.
Belaid's brother, Abdelmajid, bluntly accused the Nahda chief of the murder of the 48-year-old leftist leader, who headed the Party of Democratic Patriots, part of the Popular Front.
"I accuse Rached Ghannouchi of assassinating my brother," Abdelmajid told AFP.
The slain politician's wife said her husband had received daily death threats and was murdered before her eyes.
"I saw his blood flowing, I saw his little smile. I saw that they want to kill democracy," Basma Belaid told France's Europe 1 radio.

(Reuters, AFP, Al-Akhbar)


http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/tunisian-premier-form-new-government-following-deadly-riots

[MP5]

"Marxism-Leninism" is just another word for left-nationalism.

Please explain this sweeping generalization. Marxist-Leninist's do believe in national liberation but so do many other types of Socialists. It appears you are just flaming so i don't really expect a intelligent response here.

The radical Islamist's don't exactly get along well with Socialists of any type as it does not fit into their imperialist Islamic-fascist ideology so it's hardly surprising they are trying to take out the left in the country. They want total blind obedience to their faith not anything approaching a democracy.

Hopefully the left will start hitting back and give them a taste of their own medicine. One can only talk to people in the language they understand and the only language that people who believe in radical Islam can understand is violence. Trying to talk peace with them is like trying to talk Greek to someone who only understands Mandarin.

[vanukar]

Do Marxist-Leninists not accept in Socialism in One Country? There's your answer.

[MP5]

As it turns out i was not disappointed :rolleyes:

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Why is he a Marxist-Leninist? Since when do Marxist-Leninist believe in parliamentary democracy?

Since the very first communist party was formed.

[Art Vandelay]

As it turns out i was not disappointed :rolleyes:

A very large portion of the left considers Marxism-Leninism and and its offshoot Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, to be entirely bourgeois ideologies; so I wouldn't expect many fruitful exchanges with them.

[China studen]

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/222687_10151418532242929_1127639631_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/537858_309049849217245_1699469958_n.jpg

One million people on streets #Tunisia today

[MP5]

When Syria falls it will probably be a very very bad thing. I suspect that we will get the various groups fighting for control of Syria and the Islamist's will probably win which is all we need right now :rolleyes: . Just look at what is happening in Egypt and Libya. The growing threat of Islamic-fascism needs to be addressed now. The west helping Islamist's just because they are fighting a common enemy is certainly not helping. I am not fan of Assad by any means but he is certainly better then radical Islamist's.

[TheEmancipator]

Since the very first communist party was formed.

That doesn't make sense. Lenin was in nappies when the first communist party was formed. Or do you think communism somehow begins with Bolshevikism?

Marxist-Leninism is a particular brand of communism that advocates violent revolution and a vanguard totalitarian Party to ensure the Revolution is successful. I highly doubt the Tunisian guy was a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, otherwise he wouldn't receive many votes.

[Luís Henrique]

Lenin was in nappies when the first communist party was formed.

Well, since the first "Marxist-Leninist" party was formed, then.

Lenin was the guy who wrote about "Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder", remember? Where he fiercely chastises abstentionism (or otzovism, as he calls it in Russian)?


Marxist-Leninism is a particular brand of communism that advocates violent revolution and a vanguard totalitarian Party to ensure the Revolution is successful.

I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't match the facts. Plenty of self-described "Marxist-Leninists" have been reformist, pacifists, and democratists, and have participated in electoral games. Indeed, that was practically the rule up to 1990 (The "Communist Parties" worldwide, such as the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the Portuguese, the German, the Rumanian, the Hungarian, the Czech, the Brazilian, the Japanese, etc., have always participated in elections whenever possible); it is the fall of the Soviet Union that prompts small minorities among the "Marxist-Leninists" to make a U-turn in their policies and ideas and go into some kind of "third-period" ultra-left fantasy. (Of course, neither their position then nor their position now have much to do with Lenin, but that's a different issue.)


I highly doubt the Tunisian guy was a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, otherwise he wouldn't receive many votes.

Possibly not, and possibly yes. It is not how you describe yourself, it is what relevance you have in everyday politics. The Greek KKE, which describes itself as "Marxist-Leninist" traditionally makes between 5 and 10% of the vote. The PCF in its best times earned between 15 and 20% of the French vote, and the PCI often reached 30% of the Italian vote - both self-declaring "Marxist-Leninist" while doing so.

And how many votes did Belaid receive? His party got two seats in an assembly of 217 members - hardly an overwhelming performance.

Luís Henrique

[TheEmancipator]

Well, since the first "Marxist-Leninist" party was formed, then.

I see what you mean by Communist now.



I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't match the facts. Plenty of self-described "Marxist-Leninists" have been reformist, pacifists, and democratists, and have participated in electoral games. Indeed, that was practically the rule up to 1990 (The "Communist Parties" worldwide, such as the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the Portuguese, the German, the Rumanian, the Hungarian, the Czech, the Brazilian, the Japanese, etc., have always participated in elections whenever possible); it is the fall of the Soviet Union that prompts small minorities among the "Marxist-Leninists" to make a U-turn in their policies and ideas and go into some kind of "third-period" ultra-left fantasy. (Of course, neither their position then nor their position now have much to do with Lenin, but that's a different issue.)


Just because you express support for Marxist-Leninist regimes does not mean you are a Marxist-Leninist. Even before the "third period" ultra-left fantasy, the parties you describe were glorified social democrats who were committed to radical reforms and revolution, but they never, ever were Marxist-Leninist. At best they were Luxemburgist.

The problem was when they did get into power (1930s France and Spain), the Marxist-Leninist "Comintern" that they worshipped like a God told them to postpone any kind of revolution and pursue imperialist interest. Stalin actively told the Spanish Republicans to stop Catalonia's push for social and economic revolution.

So no, they were not Marxist-Leninist, they were just tools of the Comintern.


Possibly not, and possibly yes. It is not how you describe yourself, it is what relevance you have in everyday politics. The Greek KKE, which describes itself as "Marxist-Leninist" traditionally makes between 5 and 10% of the vote. The PCF in its best times earned between 15 and 20% of the French vote, and the PCI often reached 30% of the Italian vote - both self-declaring "Marxist-Leninist" while doing so.


And look at Syriza, who by distancing themselves from Marxist-Leninism now have 35% poll ratings. The high scores for the PCF and PCI were just after WW2 when the communists were (rightfully) getting the credit for the Resistance in those countries. As soon as people realised they were supporting Marxist-Leninist regimes, they deserted them, not taking them seriously, particularly after the collapse of the USSR and the dismal failure of Marxist-Leninist regimes.

Where are the PCF and PCI now?

[Luís Henrique]

Just because you express support for Marxist-Leninist regimes does not mean you are a Marxist-Leninist. Even before the "third period" ultra-left fantasy, the parties you describe were glorified social democrats who were committed to radical reforms and revolution, but they never, ever were Marxist-Leninist.

This would pose a problem: apparently none of the people who self-identified as "Marxist-Leninist" between 1922 and 1991 were ever Marxist-Leninist, and those who actually were Marxist-Leninist either didn't identify as such, or didn't exist. So it seems that "Marxism-Leninism" is some abstract essence, that was floating in the Platonic realm of Universal Ideas, until the fall of the Soviet Union first allowed it to materialise in the form of small sects that nobody, except themselves (and indeed, not even themselves whe we consider the opinion they have of each others), would seriously consider "Marxist-Leninist".

This, of course, I can't believe in. Nor I think it can be considered Marxist, or even Leninist.


At best they were Luxemburgist.Well, no. That's the thing they were not. They were Stalinists, social-democrats, liberals, conservatives, fascists, or even Marxist-Leninists, perhaps, but Spartakists they were not.


And look at Syriza, who by distancing themselves from Marxist-Leninism now have 35% poll ratings.They are not getting such figures because they have distanced from Marxism-Leninism, they are getting such figures because what they say and do seems to make more sence in the Greek conjuncture (and the KKE is not loosing its historic level of support because it is "Marxist-Leninist", but because what it says and does (trying to make a revolution by winning elections, and trying to win elections by saying that elections don't matter at all, and speaking of revolution in abstract) doesn't seem to make any sence at all.


The high scores for the PCF and PCI were just after WW2 when the communists were (rightfully) getting the credit for the Resistance in those countries. As soon as people realised they were supporting Marxist-Leninist regimes, they deserted them, not taking them seriously, particularly after the collapse of the USSR and the dismal failure of Marxist-Leninist regimes.That's not true. The PCF had indeed a good score in 1948 (26.1%), but it maintained such levels of support for a long time (26.7% in 1951, 25.3% in 1956, 20.6% in 1958, 20.9% in 1962, 22,5% in 1967, 20.14% in 1968, 21.2% in 1969, 21.3% in 1973, 20.55% in 1978, 16.1% in 1981, 9.7% in 1986). So it took forty years to the French electorate actually abandon the PCF; this obviously cannot be attributed to they "realisng they were supporting Marxist-Leninist regimes"; it doesn't take 40 years to people realise things like that.]

The PCI case is even less likely to support your argument. The party won "only" 18.9% in 1946, finishing third, behind the Socialist Party, and then went on to 22.6% (and second place) in 1953, 22.7% in 1958, 25.3% in 1963, 26.9% in 1968, 27.1% in 1972, 34.4% in 1976, 30.4% in 1979, 29.9% in 1983, 26.6% in 1987, which was its last election, for it then dissolved into the Democratic Left Party (PDS). So it actually increased its vote systematically up to 1976, more than 30 years after the war - and when it started loosing votes it seems to have to do with other phenomena - the problem posed by the Brigate Rosse, at first, and their turning into "Eurocommunism" a bit later.

(And you have to decide; was the Soviet Union a "Marxist-Leninist" regime? Because if it was, then how do you describe the PCF as "glorified social-democrats"? And if it wasn't, then how was the failure of the PCF related to its supposed support for a "Marxist-Leninist" regime?)


Where are the PCF and PCI now?The PCF no longer defines itself as "Marxist-Leninist", and struggles to survive. The PCI morphed into the PDS, then into the PD, which is essentially a (very moderate, third-wayish) social-democratic party, but has far more electoral success, though, of course, the oncoming crisis of the Italian economy might very well destroy it - they don't seem to have absolutely any clue on what is happening and how to change the course of events, so they will probably rise to government with the collapse of Berlusconism, and take full responsibility for the tenebra apropinquante and dive headfirst into the dustbin of History.

Luís Henrique

[TheEmancipator]

This would pose a problem: apparently none of the people who self-identified as "Marxist-Leninist" between 1922 and 1991 were ever Marxist-Leninist, and those who actually were Marxist-Leninist either didn't identify as such, or didn't exist. So it seems that "Marxism-Leninism" is some abstract essence, that was floating in the Platonic realm of Universal Ideas, until the fall of the Soviet Union first allowed it to materialise in the form of small sects that nobody, except themselves (and indeed, not even themselves whe we consider the opinion they have of each others), would seriously consider "Marxist-Leninist".


They called themselves Marxist-Leninists because they wanted to be Marxist-Leninists, not because they were. They were still hanging on to this quasi-mythical Comintern and singing the praises of Lenin and Stalin because they wanted the USSR to succeed. If you look at their (rather shambolic) policies, there is no suggestion that they actually want to copy what Lenin did, they just want to cling on to the myth of Lenin and Stalin and the October Revolution. It hurt them considerably...


Well, no. That's the thing they were not. They were Stalinists, social-democrats, liberals, conservatives, fascists, or even Marxist-Leninists, perhaps, but Spartakists they were not.


Using democracy to advance the socialist revolution is not Spartakist? That is in essence what their policies have always promoted, while they waffle on about Leninist Revolution?



They are not getting such figures because they have distanced from Marxism-Leninism, they are getting such figures because what they say and do seems to make more sence in the Greek conjuncture (and the KKE is not loosing its historic level of support because it is "Marxist-Leninist", but because what it says and does (trying to make a revolution by winning elections, and trying to win elections by saying that elections don't matter at all, and speaking of revolution in abstract) doesn't seem to make any sence at all.


But don't you see that KKE would actually be more popular in Greece if it weren't for their fervent commitment to supposed (pseudo)Marxism-Leninism, and that it is the Marxist-Leninist bullshit they spout out that is the nonsense? Syriza is accused by many of being to weak and liberal for Greece, and too globalist. Syriza was a tiny party dwarfed by the KKE yet now it has overtaken it. If the KKE had just abandoned their out of context proposals and Marxist-Leninism then they'd have made huge gains. Particularly as they command the respect of many for their role in the Civil War and were always seen as a Third Way alternative even by moderates.

As you point out though, they advocate a democratic revolution, but its their apologist view of the USSR that seems to put Greeks off.



That's not true. The PCF had indeed a good score in 1948 (26.1%), but it maintained such levels of support for a long time (26.7% in 1951, 25.3% in 1956, 20.6% in 1958, 20.9% in 1962, 22,5% in 1967, 20.14% in 1968, 21.2% in 1969, 21.3% in 1973, 20.55% in 1978, 16.1% in 1981, 9.7% in 1986). So it took forty years to the French electorate actually abandon the PCF; this obviously cannot be attributed to they "realisng they were supporting Marxist-Leninist regimes"; it doesn't take 40 years to people realise things like that.]

The PCI case is even less likely to support your argument. The party won "only" 18.9% in 1946, finishing third, behind the Socialist Party, and then went on to 22.6% (and second place) in 1953, 22.7% in 1958, 25.3% in 1963, 26.9% in 1968, 27.1% in 1972, 34.4% in 1976, 30.4% in 1979, 29.9% in 1983, 26.6% in 1987, which was its last election, for it then dissolved into the Democratic Left Party (PDS). So it actually increased its vote systematically up to 1976, more than 30 years after the war - and when it started loosing votes it seems to have to do with other phenomena - the problem posed by the Brigate Rosse, at first, and their turning into "Eurocommunism" a bit later.

Interesting figures, I stand partly corrected. However, its no coincidence that the PCF and PCI lost most of their support after the fall of the USSR. The "failure" of Marxism-Leninism was confirmed and they paid the price for licking the backside of Lenin and Stalin.



(And you have to decide; was the Soviet Union a "Marxist-Leninist" regime? Because if it was, then how do you describe the PCF as "glorified social-democrats"? And if it wasn't, then how was the failure of the PCF related to its supposed support for a "Marxist-Leninist" regime?)


It was officially. Obviously not many had known that Stalin and co had fucked it up. But a lot of them were quite proud of their support for Marxist-Leninist regimes like Cuba and Venezuela too, which drew criticism.

[Luís Henrique]

They called themselves Marxist-Leninists because they wanted to be Marxist-Leninists, not because they were. They were still hanging on to this quasi-mythical Comintern and singing the praises of Lenin and Stalin because they wanted the USSR to succeed. If you look at their (rather shambolic) policies, there is no suggestion that they actually want to copy what Lenin did, they just want to cling on to the myth of Lenin and Stalin and the October Revolution. It hurt them considerably...

In which case we are back to the conception of "Marxism-Leninism" as an ineffable essence that existed, but didn't materialise...


Using democracy to advance the socialist revolution is not Spartakist?

No, it is not. It is Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Marxism, etc., etc., etc... indeed it is leftist politics in general, and it has been so from 1848 to our days. Movements who refuse to do it are very minoritary. So no. While Spartakists would certainly use democracy to advance the socialist revolution, that is not what singles them as a different tendency within the left. They were truly committed to a proletarian revolution - something the Stalinist "communist" parties were not - and they starkly rejected the authoritarianism of Stalinism - again something the "communist" parties never did nor dreamt of.


That is in essence what their policies have always promoted, while they waffle on about Leninist Revolution?

Look, Spartakism has been dead as an active political current since at least the late 30's; it cannot be blamed for the absurds, capitulations, outright treasons, incompetence, ineptitude, servilism, personality cults, abandonment of Marxist analysis, etc., of the Stalinist parties. They were not influential on these parties (though the East German party did try to set up a cult of Rosa Luxemburg, mostly for "nationalist" reasons, to give a local flavour to their particularly stupid form of Stalinism) at all.


But don't you see that KKE would actually be more popular in Greece if it weren't for their fervent commitment to Marxism-Leninism, and that it is the Marxist-Leninist bullshit they spout out that is the nonsense?

No, I don't think the line of the KKE is any more, or less, "Marxist-Leninist" than the PCF in the 60's or the KPD in the 30's. The nonsence resides on their complete inability to design a credible strategy (anyone can see that their magical recipe of quitting the EU and reverting to an autarchic economy is suicidal) and a tactic that somehow subordinates to their strategy (their tactics is to win elections, their strategy is to refuse elections as useless, which obviously gets their voters wondering).


Syriza is accused by many of being to weak and liberal for Greece, and too globalist. Syriza was a tiny party drawfed by the KKE yet now it has overtaken it.

And it was not "Marxist-Leninist" when it was small - so it was not an abandonment of "Marxism-Leninism" that allowed it to grow.


If the KKE had just abandoned their out of context proposals and Marxist-Leninism then they'd have made huge gains.

Probably not. They would most probably just lost their old, traditional base quicklier, while failing to attract a new constituence.


As you point out though, they advocate a democratic revolution, but its their apologist view of the USSR that seems to put Greeks off.

Their apologist views of the USSR were far more relevant when the SU actually existed, but this coincided, on the contrary, with their apogee as a political force in Greece. What puts Greeks off is their lack of understandable policies that can be seen to actually address the crisis.


Interesting figures, I stand partly corrected. However, its no coincidence that the PCF and PCI lost most of their support after the fall of the USSR. The "failure" of Marxism-Leninism was confirmed and they paid the price for licking the backside of Lenin and Stalin.

The PCF however crumbled in 1986, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. No, the reason is elsewhere: in the global conservative bourgeois offencive of the 70s and 80s. The only problem their "licking" of Lenin and Stalin posed is that it substituted for real politics.


It was officially. Obviously not many had known that Stalin and co had fucked up. But a lot of them were quite proud of their support for Marxist-Leninist regimes like Cuba and Venezuela too.

So, what the hell is "Marxism-Leninism", besides a spectre that apparently never haunted either Europe or anywhere else? It has nothing to do with Marx, it has nothing to do with Lenin, it was not the ideology of the Stalinist parties, and now, it seems, it was not the ideology of the Soviet Union. So to what does one have to compare the ideas of a given party to decide if they are "Marxist-Leninist" or not? To peculiar movements that only came into being much after the global failure of "Marxism-Leninism"?

And, please. Venezuela is a liberal democracy with a populist left government. If they are a "Marxist-Leninist" regime, then why not France under Mitterrand?

Luís Henrique

[TheEmancipator]

So, what the hell is "Marxism-Leninism", besides a spectre that apparently never haunted either Europe or anywhere else? It has nothing to do with Marx, it has nothing to do with Lenin, it was not the ideology of the Stalinist parties, and now, it seems, it was not the ideology of the Soviet Union. So to what does one have to compare the ideas of a given party to decide if they are "Marxist-Leninist" or not? To peculiar movements that only came into being much after the global failure of "Marxism-Leninism"?


Marxist-Leninism is what Lenin preached, but what he and his successors never put in to practise. It is the "official" ideology of the Comintern and its successors. People like Castro, Chavez, CCP and most of the Bolsheviks and USSR stooges can be described as Marxist-Leninist. However, parties such as the PCF (and Front Populaire/de Gauche with it), PCI and most Western Communist parties (even most eurocommunists) were always Marxist-Leninist apologists and worshippers, but were never Marxist-Leninist in ideology.

Instead, they hang on to the Luxemburgist proposal that they will one day defeat the liberal bourgeoisie with liberal democracy, something Lenin did not put into effect in Russia, since he ousted a social democrat of all people.



And, please. Venezuela is a liberal democracy with a populist left government. If they are a "Marxist-Leninist" regime, then why not France under Mitterrand?


Mitterand is incomparable to Chavez on the political spectrum. He is a right-wing Pétainist who ran on a socialist ticket because he was a nationalist socialist (don't play the nazi card).

Chavez divides opinion, but he is admittedly more similar to the glorified social democrats/Luxemburgists we talked about. See that is what would happen if they came to power. Licking Castro's and China's behind while continuing liberal democracy and populist lies, nationalising capital. That isn't, by your admission, Marxist-Leninist. It certainly isn't communist.

And please use Communist with a capital C if we're talking about the Marxist-Leninist and their sympathisers. I do not believe Marxist-Leninists to be communists.

[Luís Henrique]

Marxist-Leninism is what Lenin preached, but what he and his successors never put in to practise.

Well, no. It is an invention of Zinoviev, then further corrupted by Stalin.


It is the "official" ideology of the Comintern and its successors.If so, it cannot be what Lenin preached, because there is an evident chasm between what Lenin wrote (and did) and what the mythology of the Comintern is.


People like Castro, Chavez, CCP and most of the Bolsheviks and USSR stooges can be described as Marxist-Leninist.As in adhering to the mythology of the Comintern yes, as in adhering to what Lenin preached no.


However, parties such as the PCF (and Front Populaire/de Gauche with it), PCI and most Western Communist parties (even most eurocommunists) were always Marxist-Leninist apologists and worshippers, but were never Marxist-Leninist in ideology.They adhered to the mythology of the Comintern, too; how were they never Marxist-Leninist?


Instead, they hang on to the Luxemburgist proposal that they will one day defeat the liberal bourgeoisie with liberal democracy, something Lenin did not put into effect in Russia, since he ousted a social democrat of all people.This is not the Spartakist proposal.


Mitterand is incomparable to Chavez on the political spectrum. He is a right-wing Pétainist who ran on a socialist ticket because he was a nationalist socialist (don't play the nazi card).And what is Chávez if not a nationalist?


Chavez divides opinion, but he is admittedly more similar to the glorified social democrats/Luxemburgists we talked about.Er, no. Absolutely not. Chávez is a nationalist populist; the Spartakists were solidly internationalist and anti-populist. Chávez is a petty bourgeois leader coming from the Venezolan army with a somewhat putschist mentality; the Spartakists were a very active working class tendency in Germany, and had nothing to do with putschism.


See that is what would happen if they came to power. Licking Castro's and China's behind while continuing liberal democracy and populist lies, nationalising capital. That isn't, by your admission, Marxist-Leninist. It certainly isn't communist.You seem to use the term "Marxist-Leninist" to denote two very different, even mutually exclusive, things: "what Lenin preached" and "the 'official' ideology of the Comintern". Neither conform with your idea that "Marxism-Leninism" implies a rejection of electoral politics; Lenin often wrote about the necessity of communists engaging in elections, and the Comintern systematically supported electoral participation of its members (and, on the contrary, would expell those who rejected that).

But I can't figure out what you are talking about here: what would happen if who came to power?


And please use Communist with a capital C if we're talking about the Marxist-Leninist and their sympathisers. I do not believe Marxist-Leninists to be communists.I normally put it into quotes, "communists", or just call them Stalinists.

Luís Henrique

[TheEmancipator]

Well, no. It is an invention of Zinoviev, then further corrupted by Stalin.

If so, it cannot be what Lenin preached, because there is an evident chasm between what Lenin wrote (and did) and what the mythology of the Comintern is.

As in adhering to the mythology of the Comintern yes, as in adhering to what Lenin preached no.

They adhered to the mythology of the Comintern, too; how were they never Marxist-Leninist?


You seem to use the term "Marxist-Leninist" to denote two very different, even mutually exclusive, things: "what Lenin preached" and "the 'official' ideology of the Comintern". Neither conform with your idea that "Marxism-Leninism" implies a rejection of electoral politics; Lenin often wrote about the necessity of communists engaging in elections, and the Comintern systematically supported electoral participation of its members (and, on the contrary, would expell those who rejected that).


See :


Marxist-Leninism is what Lenin preached, but what he and his successors never put in to practise.


Combination of both. The successors are Marxist-Leninist too, since they "follow" the Leninist proposals, only in a possibly corrupted fashion. There is no denying Stalinism derives from Marxist-Leninism. What I am saying here is the basis of most "communist" regimes around the world is, sadly, Marxist-Leninism.


This is not the Spartakist proposal.


Why not?


And what is Chávez if not a nationalist?


If Chavez is a nationalist then so are most Marxist-Leninists. I can understand why you call them nationalists, I agree with this criticism, but Marxist-Leninism is a very different kind of nationalism than Mitterand's. Both are stupid IMO.



But I can't figure out what you are talking about here: what would happen if who came to power?


If the" Marxist-Leninist"-supporters in the West (PCF, KKE, etc...) ever came to power, the stuff that Chavez does would just happen to our countries. Nothing special at all. He is a pseudo-communist.

[Luís Henrique]

This is not the Spartakist proposal. Why not?

Because they never proposed similar absurd?

What exactly to you call "Luxemburgists"? Who are them, what did they write, and what are their ideas, in your opinion?

Luís Henrique

[TheEmancipator]

Because they never proposed similar absurd?

What exactly to you call "Luxemburgists"? Who are them, what did they write, and what are their ideas, in your opinion?

Luís Henrique

Social Democrats branded as far left that speak of Revolution with an obsession for "real workers" and labour policies. They tend to support Marxist-Leninist regimes (shouting out "Viva Fidel" in the street, etc), without, you know, actually putting into effect officially. So many western European "Communist" parties can be characterized as "Luxemburgist" in that sense. Even though Rosa Luxemburg is probably turning in her grave at the thought.