Why all this damn infighting? [Archive]

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

23rd February 2013, 00:20

One would assume that on a political forum people would discuss politics.
Also infighting is not something that we only do now.
Wether it eas Marx with the anarchists, or Lenin with all kinds of political trends, iinfighting is something that stays. We can't just scream about unity and think we'll get unity.
Also I'm a bit wary of people who want unity at any cost. Even Engels wasn't fond of the unity-shouters:
"One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for “unity.” Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot (you have a fine example of this in Germany with the people who preach the reconciliation of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie)--or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously (like Mühlberger , for instance) want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/letters/73_06_20.htm

We can't promise unity, it is something we have to achieve ourselves but never trade in principles for peace with opportunists either.

skitty

23rd February 2013, 00:27

This might be a good time to remind everyone to leave the personal attacks and vulgar language at home:).

MarxArchist

23rd February 2013, 00:28

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

23rd February 2013, 00:29

This might be a good time to remind everyone to leave the personal attacks and vulgar language at home:).

Why?

Ostrinski

23rd February 2013, 00:29

Because with legitimacy people do not find anything reconcilable between their own political views and the political views of others that share this board even if they are nominally similar.

You have to understand that revleft is a multi-tendency forum that incorporates a pretty broad range of the political spectrum despite our common opposition to capitalism. In fact many tendencies view other tendencies as not having broken with capitalism conclusively.

I mean, you can't get the Trotskyists to unite with each other, the Stalinists to unite with each other, or even the anarchists to unite with each other. The idea that you will get any form of cooperation between tendencies ever is a pipe dream.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

23rd February 2013, 00:51

Sentinel

23rd February 2013, 01:12

Zostrianos

23rd February 2013, 01:16

Differences will always be there. I for one think authoritarianism is as contrary to socialism as capitalism is, and so Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and most of the other so-called socialist systems put into practice during the 20th century are completely repugnant to me and have no place in a free and egalitarian society. I can appreciate what Lenin did for socialism, but I can't forgive him for being the person who perverted Marxism into a dictatorial tool of oppression.

That being said, we don't necessarily have to have immature infighting and flaming - let's just emphasize what we have in common. As an example, I'm friends on Facebook with a guy I met through an ancient philosophy group - a very intelligent person I may add...who paradoxically happens to be a conservative Republican (and he's an atheist but is also anti-abortion). While I abhor his politics, we've had good discussions and we agree on many philosophical points. Just an example of how stark differences can be bypassed by focusing on common points and values.

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 01:45

Zostrianos

23rd February 2013, 01:50

Rational Radical

23rd February 2013, 02:03

It's a bit hard to work with people who sympathise with dictators and make the rest of us look bad. More progress would be made if people stopped calling the soviet union socialist or stopped saying stalin was a good leader, etc. Until then, those people need to be fought. I agree completely, and i think it's necessary to make it clear that these people aren't communists and have terrible politics.However what i don't agree with(and starting to abhor ) is semantics between communists who's politics actually overlap and converge ie. when you have the uneducated anarchists(clarification:certainly not throwing all anarchist comrades under the bus,i mean the,if you will "bakuninists ") throwing fits about "authoritarianism"(or things they don't find to be reconcilable with their "anarchist" philosophy) or rejecting polices/methods that they could actually empathize with/advocate if they gave it some thought and the left comms/marxists giving a vague,confusing way of how the DotP functions,ranging from armed communes and workers councils to unspecific descriptions of a party, for the sake of dogma and tradition.

Le Socialiste

23rd February 2013, 02:08

Unity on the left is a profoundly idealistic notion that can't wholly come to fruition. That isn't to say we can't work together if necessary, but I've been in enough coalitions (and seen them fall apart) to know it takes tremendous effort to hold such a diverse - and at times incompatible - force together.

rednordman

23rd February 2013, 02:25

It's thanks to their misdeeds that Communism's reputation has been irreparably soiled in the west.to be honest, think the fact that the west is full of religious monarchies has more too do with the concept of communism having a bad name than the so called 'bloody history of socialism'. All the former Leninist states have done is give them all ammo which they use to justify there own existence. Even if some of that ammo is filled up with bullshit of the highest degree.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

23rd February 2013, 02:30

Karl Renegade

23rd February 2013, 02:36

I have a different belief. It's not just politics, there's just a lot of very rude people in our culture these days. I've been called stupid at least 3 times already in this forum and I'm just new here. Some people are incapable of respectfully disagreeing with someone and have a need to constantly look for the slightest reason to object to what someone said so they can show people how much more knowledgeable they are about socialist theory. This has lesser relevance to reality. What use do theories have if you can't put them in practice?

BIXX

23rd February 2013, 04:13

Some people are incapable of respectfully disagreeing with someone and have a need to constantly look for the slightest reason to object to what someone said

If you mean your opposition to gay rights, I don't know that "stupid" was the correct word...

I alway expected arguments amongst the left. I mean, I used to see it even in the "left" wing of reactionary politics (like the Democrats), where there is an excessive number of people arguing amongst each other, whereas I see it very little amongst the reactionary right wing, so I imagine that the counter-revolutionary right has very little internal arguments. I think internal arguments are good, as long as we can put aside our differences when it matters.

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 04:24

If we are going to blame something,I think it is that the ideology of the ruling class being dominant is to blame fore the bad name of communism.
Or do you all think communism had a good name before Stalin?

It had a much better name before Stalin. Because of him and his influence, holocaust-like images, to many, are what they think of when someone speaks of communism. That's why communism is so unpopular, and that's the way it's gonna remain.

Zostrianos

23rd February 2013, 04:39

If we are going to blame something,I think it is that the ideology of the ruling class being dominant is to blame fore the bad name of communism.
Or do you all think communism had a good name before Stalin?

Before Stalin, communism's bad reputation seemed to revolve around its desire to overturn the old order and emancipate the masses, which in a Victorian age of aristocratic vice and colonialism was seen as a threat to society - this reputation would not hinder it today, on the contrary. After Lenin and Stalin is when it sadly became equated with authoritarianism and dictatorship, a reputation further strengthened by all the other tyrants who followed them and claimed to be communists or socialists.

Os Cangaceiros

23rd February 2013, 04:57

Would you rather have Revleft be more like this?

9NDPX4RYH-g

Seriously, though, sectarianism and infighting are a big part of why I find this site entertaining. Why read incredibly dry theoretical BS when I can watch a bunch of posters take out the daggers on some poor pitiful microsect? w/ plenty of salacious accusations and ultra left or right-wing deviations? :drool:

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 05:05

Would you rather have Revleft be more like this?

Yes, actually. There'd be more time for other useful subjects, and we'd no longer have to listen to idiots.

EDIT: I dont mean no debates I just mean like no anarchists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.

MarxSchmarx

23rd February 2013, 05:08

Trying to unite all the revolutionary left in a single, permanent organisation really is doomed to fail. As pointed out, we have split into different tendencies because there really are significant differences in politics and tactics.

But despite all the 'infighting' our organisations do try cooperate with each other around concrete issues on a regular basis, in different networks etc. It's not always successful and often ends in the networks eventually splitting and everyone blaming each other for it.

But efforts are made on a regular basis, and sometimes it actually works for a while and goals (stopping the nazis, winning a local struggle for some transitional demand etc) are reached. As I see it it's a responsibility of all communists to from their part try and make these things work as smoothly as possible.

I also think that whenever possible, we should also try to steer 'inter leftist' discussion into a more friendly direction, and correct our own comrades if they are being unnecessarily sectarian/hostile towards others - something I try to do myself, here on revleft and when working politically in real life.

Unity on the left is a profoundly idealistic notion that can't wholly come to fruition. That isn't to say we can't work together if necessary, but I've been in enough coalitions (and seen them fall apart) to know it takes tremendous effort to hold such a diverse - and at times incompatible - force together.

These two points got me thinking - at what point is networking with other groups actively counter-productive? When do the efforts that get poured into making a hostile coalition viable end up draining your own members? For some groups, I think such "learning experiences" are essential so you can always chalk it up to that, but in many better-established, longer term groups, often mending a frailed coalition can be quite an undertaking in itself that one has to wonder when it can be OK to just cut the chord.

Os Cangaceiros

23rd February 2013, 05:22

Yes, actually. There'd be more time for other useful subjects, and we'd no longer have to listen to idiots.

This site would suck if everyone agreed with everyone else. If you want to have your ideas constantly be re-enforced in a group setting then I'd recommend joining a sect. The fact that this site allows multi-tendency discussion is a big part of what makes it interesting and intellectually challenging.

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 05:36

This site would suck if everyone agreed with everyone else. If you want to have your ideas constantly be re-enforced in a group setting then I'd recommend joining a sect. The fact that this site allows multi-tendency discussion is a big part of what makes it interesting and intellectually challenging.

Debating with Stalinists and other idiots makes me look at the communist movement and realized we're fucked, which isn't as interesting as it is depressing.

Os Cangaceiros

23rd February 2013, 05:55

If one were to attempt to discern the fate of the modern communist project by looking at revleft then yeah, we'd be doomed. Luckily this is a discussion forum...it provides entertainment and some useful information for people of similar political inclinations. It's not an accurate embodiment of communist politics as they materialize in the "real world". How many times do anarchists even debate Stalinists in the real world, anyway? Not often. I think the main problem is not so much left-wing disunity, it's the fact that the left-wing here in the USA (where I live) have failed miserably to actually connect in ANY meaningful way with it's supposed constituents. This problem really dwarfs any other issue I think. And it's not one that can be solved by "far left unity".

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 06:04

B5C

23rd February 2013, 07:32

That being said, we don't necessarily have to have immature infighting and flaming - let's just emphasize what we have in common.

That is the problem I am seeing. It is the immature infighting and flaming. We don't need that here. If you disagree with me do it in a reasonable and respectable manner than. "Your not a true Marxist!" If we want to help the revolution we need to stop acting like school children fighting in a play ground.

Let's Get Free

23rd February 2013, 07:46

I don't really want to unite with people who are simply to the left of capital, I want to unite with people who seek to abolish it all together.

International_Solidarity

23rd February 2013, 08:31

Political differences and debate on ideology are important, but the extent to which this infighting gets here is absolutely ridiculous. We need to focus on Capitalism, because divided there is no way in hell that Capitalism will fall. We NEED to move against Capitalism in a united force, we NEED to be United. However, even though there is a lot of infighting, we are all sharing a discussion-board, which shows that we obviously don't completely hate eachother. There's hope for the destruction of Capitalism yet. :)

Blake's Baby

23rd February 2013, 10:39

But everyone on this board thinks they are either right, or at least substantially right - or else, why do they believe what they do? People don't believe thinhgs they know are wrong - and part of that is the belief that those who disagree with you must be wrong.

So, we all think that the majority of other users are wrong about politics; the consequence of this is that they are, objectively at least, aiding capitalism and the state (no matter what their subjective viewpoints).

The consequence of this is it is necessary to attack the views of the 'mistaken' in order to show them where they're wrong ( = 'infighting') so that they can be educated as to how they're helping capitalism and the state; alternatively if they stubbornly refuse to accept that they're wrong (and therefore prove themselves to be willing agents of capitalism and the state as opposed to deluded dupes of capitalism and the state) then they should be attacked and exposed as such so others don't fall for their poisonous lies. Which means 'infighting' again.

In the end it's not 'infighting' because none of us believes that 'the Left' is a real thing. We're right, everyone else is wrong and therefore to a greater or lesser extent a tool of capital. I am not part of the same political landscape as Stalinists, Maoists or most Trotskyists. They are objectively enemies of the revolution (whatever they may think about what they are). Though on the whole I have little problem with the politics of most anarchists, I'm pretty certain many of them would have a problem with my politics, and would regard me (and those who share my politics) as enemies of the revolution.

Why should we unite with people that we believe are (conscious or unconscious) enemies of the revolution? Isn't it better to work to persuade them of their errors (= 'infighting') or if that fails to deliver results, expose them for the tools of reaction they are (= more 'infighting')?

Green Girl

23rd February 2013, 12:45

During my time in rev-left I see more infighting than trying to unite against the capitalist system.

Should we at least try to put down some of our differences and unite as one to bring down the capitalist class as one?

I think RevLeft is the place to disagree, however to the world communism should provide a unified front with no compromises.

The Venus Project believes the Earth has enough resources to provide abundance for all by eliminating money and that money is the cause of all economic and social problems. We need to tell everyone with REAL communism no one on Planet Earth would be homeless or hungry and all their basic needs as well as many luxuries would be met.

In short we can disagree about how to get there, but to the public we should appear united. :)

Thirsty Crow

23rd February 2013, 14:01

During my time in rev-left I see more infighting than trying to unite against the capitalist system. We got a lot of people here violating the "No True Scotsman" fallacy all the time. All this Moaists vs Trotskyite vs Stalisnts vs Marxist-Lenists vs Anarchists vs... is getting really tired and giving me a head ace.

Should we at least try to put down some of our differences and unite as one to bring down the capitalist class as one?

I apologize if this sounds like a rant, but this is really giving me a headache.
I think that it was in the German Ideology that Marx made the analogy between historical periods and individuals with regard to their assessment. You wouldn't judge a person by what she thinks of herself, would you, but rather on the basis of what she really does.

It's irrelevant who put forward this notion. It's valid in any circumstance I'd say. Good motives are all fine and dandy, but ultimately irrelevant.

This is the approach that is necessary for any discussion on left unity.

The idea that we all want the same result crashes down when one examines the actual ways proposed. The "diversity of tactics" line, which actually turns into "diversity of conceptions with regard to crucial issues", reaps disastrous results in light of the approach briefly described above.

Another issue is that this approach of left unity is inherently substitutionist. No degree of that kind of unity can either: 1) bring about class unity and rising militancy - radicals do not create struggles as radicals or 2) facilitate any kind of a developing tendency towards social revolution since it necessarily rests on a compromise with, ideologically mystified no doubt, forms of reformism.

You can clearly see this illusion in the following:

We need to focus on Capitalism, because divided there is no way in hell that Capitalism will fall. We NEED to move against Capitalism in a united force, we NEED to be United.

The actual revolution is implicitly deemd as an act by radicals, not workers, again implying that it is the adherence to a set of positions that is the absolute prerequisite of revolutionary transformation. This is the birthplace of the ideas of the party-state.

Now, how do we stand with the notion of sectarianism in all of this?

The answer is simple: there is no sectarianism here. The approach outlined above does not rest on the assumed necessity of reverence for a specific existing political organization and its program to the letter. The issue is not one of the absolute truth embodied in a political body, but that of the general conclusions flowing from a class based historical analysis. Of course, there is necessity for revolutionary unity, but not at the price of turning a blind eye on the real character of existing forces.

To be sure, there is sectarianism within the communist, and broader radical millieu. But it is not what the proponents of left unity would like to believe.

Finally, I'd advise anyone to read this: http://www.libcom.org/blog/%E2%80%9C-real-enemy%E2%80%9D-why-we-should-reject-left-unity-concept-17022013

nihilust

23rd February 2013, 14:23

Thirsty Crow

23rd February 2013, 14:29

what i can't understand is that people are condemning the USSR as if they were capitalists, because i'm seeing them use all the same criticisms, tyrant, dictator, holocaust etc
You don't need to agree about the USSR but don't simply reinforce a Capitalist opinion about what it was/wasn't
What bullshit.

The capitalist opinion is decidedly not that the politial regime of the USSR represented a dictatorship over the working class - expressed in the crippling of workers' own organs of power, in the brutal industrialization and the relations on the shop floor (for instance, criminalization of whichever way defined lapses on the job, criminalization of job change) aided by slave labor not only performed by counter-revolutionaries, but also by ordinary workers, petty criminals, and communists.

You see what you want to see (reinforcement of capitalist propaganda) since you don't see the real history in the first place.

Philosophos

23rd February 2013, 15:51

Look there are people arguing because they have a different opinion and there are others that just want to "fight". When I talk with the first people I completly respect their ideas and try to understand them. On the other hand if I see the others I constantly have my middle finger raised.

Just try to find some people worth talking to and the rest will find their way

rednordman

23rd February 2013, 16:06

:rolleyes:
What bullshit.

The capitalist opinion is decidedly not that the politial regime of the USSR represented a dictatorship over the working class - expressed in the crippling of workers' own organs of power, in the brutal industrialization and the relations on the shop floor (for instance, criminalization of whichever way defined lapses on the job, criminalization of job change) aided by slave labor not only performed by counter-revolutionaries, but also by ordinary workers, petty criminals, and communists.

You see what you want to see (reinforcement of capitalist propaganda) since you don't see the real history in the first place.:rolleyes:see how that argument stands against a capitalism supporter. what do you expect them to say...

Left Voice

23rd February 2013, 16:22

I do think it is a massive disadvantage that keeps the left down, though.

Look at the right wing. They have different 'factions', people or groups with fundamental disagreements with others on the right. But aside from the fringe extremists, they are largely able to put their differences to one side and operate together to maintain capitalism.

The fragmentation of the left serves to ensure that any anti-capitalist leftist movement remains small.

Thirsty Crow

23rd February 2013, 16:27

:rolleyes::rolleyes:see how that argument stands against a capitalism supporter. what do you expect them to say...
I don't care at all for pro-capital ideologues, amateur or professional. I think that preaching is best left to the preachers, but obviously this is something very hard to grasp.

And what's the actual point of your clever intervention here? That it is futile to engage in criticism when goddamn liberals will fail to understand it? If you frame the issue in this way, and it is clear that you do, you've lost the battle right from the start.

blake 3:17

23rd February 2013, 16:48

We need to learn to agree to disagree and get on with things. Some of the squabbles people get into are interesting intellectually, but pretty meaningless in the real world.

When we agree on 90 or 95% of things, and all of the most essential issues, then it comes down to working together and getting stuff done.

The Soviet Union's been gone for 20 years! Time to move on folks!

Thirsty Crow

23rd February 2013, 17:23

When we agree on 90 or 95% of things, and all of the most essential issues,
That's mere wishful thinking.

rednordman

23rd February 2013, 17:28

I don't care at all for pro-capital ideologues, amateur or professional. I think that preaching is best left to the preachers, but obviously this is something very hard to grasp.

And what's the actual point of your clever intervention here? That it is futile to engage in criticism when goddamn liberals will fail to understand it? If you frame the issue in this way, and it is clear that you do, you've lost the battle right from the start.but what you are trying to do is basically say that the communist east and capitalist west were basically the same just the east was actually even more capitalist. That's nearly as daft as equating Nazism to communism. The Soviet Union was not a great place, but trying to say that it was of ultra-capitalist nature will only be greeted with laughter in most circles.

Don't get me wrong, i actually see your viewpoint, just it doesn't paint the full picture, that's all. When people see the argument that i disagreed with, it only furthers the resolve of the right wing, and the conviction that everything left wing is doomed to failure.

The Soviet Union got a lot of things wrong, but that doesn't mean it got everything wrong. There was left-wing politics there, just not as prevalent as we'd have hoped.

cyu

23rd February 2013, 17:28

There are different kinds of disagreement.

Sometimes people disagree because one side (or both sides) hasn't learned enough about theory or real world conditions. Discussion of that can be an education.

Sometimes disagreement leads to a synthesis that is better than both original positions.

Sometimes third parties attempt to sow divisions among political allies, in an attempt to divide them, and make them easier to conquer.

Sometimes disagreements are only window dressing - in order to restrict the active ideas to only those within certain boundaries, while those outside the boundaries are considered too extreme, useless, or stupid to consider.

Thirsty Crow

23rd February 2013, 17:59

but what you are trying to do is basically say that the communist east and capitalist west were basically the same just the east was actually even more capitalist.

Even more capitalist? If that relates to the relentless exploitation and oppression of the working class under industrialization, perhaps. But I'd rather rejct this stupidity of counting advantages and disadvantages for a clear insight into the dynamic of a historical society. In other words, I refuse the framework of deciding which one was worse. Unfortunately, this includes a sober assessment of the dictatorship over the working class.

That's nearly as daft as equating Nazism to communism.

Except that capitalism isn't an ideology or a specific political regime.

And what's this fuss all about, do you fear the guilt by association when you're forced to consider the fact that though concrete mechanisms, for instance, of slave labor were different, still it is necessary to cope with and account for that very slave labor in the "workers' state".

The Soviet Union was not a great place, but trying to say that it was of ultra-capitalist nature will only be greeted with laughter in most circles.

That's the rhetoric of socialdemocrats. It isn't ideal, it isn't great but still...and it is ultimately crap. We're not talking about a subjective assessment, but of a discovery of the social dynamics and forces in history.

Though, I have no clue where this idea of "ultra-capitalism" comes from.

And finally, why should I care about laughter? Is it not that communism would be, if conditions were actually favourable, greeted by laughter, and if they were not, by aggressive smears? And what are these "circles" you speak about?

Don't get me wrong, i actually see your viewpoint, just it doesn't paint the full picture, that's all.

And what would the full picture be? The petty and deluded insistence on "gains" for the working class, just as it was destroyed as a class under the grinding wheels of "primitive socialist accumulation" (and even decimated physically), characteristic of all good philantropist social democrats and liberals?

When people see the argument that i disagreed with, it only furthers the resolve of the right wing, and the conviction that everything left wing is doomed to failure.I don't give a rat's ass, honestly, as it is mere nonsense, persistence in illusions, to try to play into the hands of the right wing and supposedly to ease their resolve by abandoning criticism.

Apart from that, it is sheer fact-denying nonsense to claim that the fUSSR was anything but a failure since it collapsed without any assitance from the other imperialist camp.

The Soviet Union got a lot of things wrong, but that doesn't mean it got everything wrong. There was left-wing politics there, just not as prevalent as we'd have hoped.
Yeah, that's the problem, when left-wing politics substitutes communist politics.

I've no intention at demonizing the Union. And more importantly, I don't do any such thing. What is perceived by demonizing is actually criticism on the class basis. This necessitates looking at the fundamentals of social reproduction. And these were rotten. No amount of "left-wing politics" can change that.

rednordman

23rd February 2013, 18:09

Apart from that, it is sheer fact-denying nonsense to claim that the fUSSR was anything but a failure since it collapsed without any assitance from the other imperialist camp.
I agree with your post and didnt mean to rile you, but are you totally 100% sure of that particular statement?

Lev Bronsteinovich

23rd February 2013, 18:15

Comrades, in "normal" times, most people will shrink from revolutionary politics because they are revolutionary, not because certain tendencies might look book approvingly on the likes of Stalin, Mao, et al. To be upset with these comrades for "giving us a bad name," is foolish. I consider these comrades to be political opponents. However, I will be the first to defend them against oppression by the bourgeois state. That is elementary class solidarity. But I will fight with them around their political ideas that I think will not help to foster revolution.

And that's the crux of the "why can't we just all get along," line of reasoning. If you believe as I do that we must have a disciplined Leninist vanguard party to lead the revolution to victory, then it makes little sense to try to have "unity" based on lowest common denominator questions. For example, we might agree that socialism is what we want for humankind's future. However, if I believe that the methods you want to use will never lead there, or worse yet, will stand in the way of getting there, why on Earth should I not fight with you about it? Making a revolution isn't about getting along. It's about agreeing and implementing various courses of action that lead to revolution.

And although you won't like my saying this, you should look to what happened in Europe around the first world war. The vast majority of the Social Democrats of the Second International, who had for years stated their firm opposition to the coming war, supported their own bourgeoisie in the carnage. At best some took a weak, fatalistic pacifist position. Who stood firm on the principle of proletarian internationalism? A handful, including Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Trotsky, (Martov, sort of) and a handful of others (who, btw met at Zimmerwald in 1916). The most devastating part of the betrayal was by the German SPD, that was looked upon as a beacon by many, including Lenin and Trotsky. This powerful party voted war credits to the Kaiser in, perhaps, the single worst betrayal in the history of socialist political parties. What made the Bolsheviks different was that they got rid of the "soft" Mensheviks early on. This freed them to take sharp opposition to the war in the first place, and hold to it. More importantly, it allowed them, with some internal struggle, to oppose the provisional governments in Russia after the February Revolution.

I would argue that the German Revolution was stillborn because the split that should have happened earlier between left and right or hard and soft, didn't happen until 1918. This was too late to have the kind of clear political preparation and differentiation that happened in Russia. Luxembourg and Liebknicht were both highly capable revolutionary leaders -- but they split with the Noskes and Eberts (and Kautskys) too late.

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 18:44

on the likes of Stalin, Mao, et al. To be upset with these comrades for "giving us a bad name," is foolish.

Do you even know what Stalin and Mao did?

Thirsty Crow

23rd February 2013, 18:57

I agree with your post and didnt mean to rile you, but are you totally 100% sure of that particular statement?I'm not riled up, it's just a learned way of writing. Might have to un-learn it, though.

I've seen no evidence of wide scale military involvement or sabotage. And I think Marxist analysis holds, so I reject the hypothesis - which is also lacking in evidende - of a clique of foreign agents pulling the strings behind the scene. That's a stalinist and brezhnevite take on conspiracy theorizing, not class analysis.
I should have been clearer. Of course, the very existence of the other camp implied an "assistance" in this implosion, particularly through the results of the armamant race and the quasi-war economiy.

TheEmancipator

23rd February 2013, 19:01

Disagreement and contradiction is necessary for progress to happen. So long as we all accept our opinions for what they are and think critically instead of sticking by rigid principles (which is the position of a reactionary, not a revolutionary, and yes, I'm looking at all the ultra-orthodox Marxists-/or leninists here), I see really no problem in disagreement. Fuck, send in the armchair fascists so I can debate their opinions just to show how stupid they are.

For me, the only thing we communists, anarchists, revolutionaries, etc. should not tolerate is intolerance itself. Hence why I agree with the policies of this forum to ban the literally brain-dead fascists who just engage in hate-speech to gain peoples' attention and stupid groups like Maoist-Third Worldism that advocates genocide for pathetic reasons.

ind_com

23rd February 2013, 19:07

Yuppie Grinder

23rd February 2013, 19:13

Because not everyone who is nominally communist has genuinely emancipatory politics. It's not a no-true-scotsman argument. Socialism is a specific economic arrangement, objectively discernible. If not accepting everyone who calls themselves socialist as socialist for inclusiveness' sake, or not upholding some of the most brutal bourgeois dictatorships as socialist because they had red flags, makes me a sectarian, then I am glad to be a sectarian.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

23rd February 2013, 20:04

Do you even know what Mao did?

Raised the lifespan of the Chinese people from 35 years in 1948 to 69 years by the time of his death in 1976. Which is pretty impressive if you consider that India, China's neighbor which underwent a vastly more peaceful Independence movement and received economic aid from both the Soviet and western bloc, (while China's only ally and trading partner was Albania), has life expectancy of 64 years in 2012. (Mobo Gao, The Battle for China's Past)

Yea, what a bad man that Mao Zedong was, how dare he feed his people like that! What a bastard...........

ind_com

23rd February 2013, 20:11

Raised the lifespan of the Chinese people from 35 years in 1948 to 69 years by the time of his death in 1976. Which is pretty impressive if you consider that India, China's neighbor which underwent a vastly more peaceful Independence movement and received economic aid from both the Soviet and western bloc, (while China's only ally and trading partner was Albania), has life expectancy of 64 years in 2012. (Mobo Gao, The Battle for China's Past)

Yea, what a bad man that Mao Zedong was, how dare he feed his people like that! What a bastard...........

That's strange, I always thought he killed 398672762365267 people and ate their livers!

Brutus

23rd February 2013, 20:25

That's strange, I always thought he killed 398672762365267 people and ate their livers!

You've been reading bourgeois sources comrade. It was their kidneys!

ind_com

23rd February 2013, 20:27

You've been reading bourgeois sources comrade. It was their kidneys!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4857226.stm

Desy

23rd February 2013, 20:28

OP. I feel the same way. I think everyone that comes to this site has that impression. But some sort of discussion needs to happen to help class consciousness. One of my friends that are on this site that I can talk to in real life, also gets a head ache from the Debbie downers on the site.

What actually got me not too down about the revolution and revlefts "This is how I understand it you're wrong." Way of thinking. Is don't listen to the "left communists" in revleft. No matter what; somethings wrong, and I see posts where they attack someones tendency over their post they posted. It feels like if you don't have thier out look on things youre wrong. OP just know there are some of us out thier that just want to learn amd can careless what your tendency is as long as you want to bring down capitalism. That some of us just want to help get people get moving, and not just look down on someone because they mixed up what year something happened in the 1920s.

Left communists to the revolution is the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Brutus

23rd February 2013, 20:29

Ah, the black book of communism.
Communism killed 1,000000000000000 people. Yes, communism. A stateless, classless, equal society killed people

Yuppie Grinder

23rd February 2013, 20:43

Stalinist humor is the absolute worst. "lol look at how stupid people are for being mad bout famine and concentration camps what sheeple"

Art Vandelay

23rd February 2013, 20:44

What I find quite humorous is that it appears as if some people literally take revleft to be some valuable tool to help in the surpassing of capital. We come on here for some discussion, to engage in polemics and meet like minded comrades; don't posit that if we didn't argue so much on here, we'd be that much closer to revolution, as if we'd be organizing the overthrow of our respective states on a public forum.

To the OP, join an organization, or if you're an anarchist, start an affinity group, and get some real work done; rather then worrying about the amount of bickering on a internet forum.

Brutus

23rd February 2013, 20:47

Someone on here said once:
Rev left is a substititue for real life political action.

Rurkel

23rd February 2013, 20:47

Do you even know what Stalin and Mao did?
He's an ortho-Trot. Such people are not pro-Stalin or pro-Mao, though they regard their regimes as ambiguous/contradictory.

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 20:49

Raised the lifespan of the Chinese people from 35 years in 1948 to 69 years by the time of his death in 1976. Which is pretty impressive if you consider that India, China's neighbor which underwent a vastly more peaceful Independence movement and received economic aid from both the Soviet and western bloc, (while China's only ally and trading partner was Albania), has life expectancy of 64 years in 2012. (Mobo Gao, The Battle for China's Past)

Yea, what a bad man that Mao Zedong was, how dare he feed his people like that! What a bastard...........

I didn't know millions of dead people from starvation was considered a well-fed population.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

23rd February 2013, 21:25

I didn't know millions of dead people from starvation was considered a well-fed population.

The famine death toll number of 13 million only began as a "historical fact" when Den Xiaoping "released" the information when he was involved in a power struggle to usurp the leadership of the communist party from Maoist elements. This claim, is depedant entirely on bullshit and was largely pulled out of his ass and was invented solely to discredit his political opponents. Western scholarship however has ignored the questionable origins of this number and has tried to expand upon it to the point of absurdity. As Patinik put it:

"Some scholars have used a very dubious method of arriving at
grossly unrealistic and inflated ‘famine deaths’ during this
period (1959–61) by taking account not only of the higher crude
death rate (which is a legitimate measure) but also counting the
‘missing millions’ as a result of the lower birth rate, as part of
the toll. There is a great deal of difference between people who
are already there, dying prematurely due to a sharp decline in
nutritional status, and people not being born at all. The former can enter the statistics of famine deaths according to any
sensible definition of famine, but people who are not born at all
are obviously in no position to die whether prematurely or
otherwise.
(Patnaik 2004)

So I reject both famine death tolls. However obviously there was a famine that took place and if it didn't kill 8 bah-gillion people then I still think it would be reasonable to say that it killed at least a couple million. But you have to understand that China has a history of famines due to the natural cycles of it's local economy. The famine, while exasperated by certain wrong headed moves such as the sparrow hunting campaign, would have happened anyway. Even in the 1880's there was a famine that killed about 40 million people (again, probably a bullshit number but you get my point) and there was generally a historical tendency for China to have a massive famine every 20 years or so. But after the great leap forward, was there a famine again? No, instead there was a massive increase in life expectancy.

But was the end of famine and the increase of life expectancy a result of Mao's reign? After all it is quite possible that these drastic improvements in the livelyhood of the Chinese people were not caused by Mao but were merely the natural projectory of China. In short, the answer is yes, Mao's policies had a drastic effect on the betterment of the Chinese people. To demonstrate my point, let's make a brief comparision to India. This is not baseless, for as Robert Weil notes in his article on China:

At the time of their casting off of colonialism -- India gaining independence from Britain in 1947, China putting an end to a century of imperialist domination in 1949 -- the two largest countries in Asia shared many common characteristics. Each possessed an enormous continental landmass with a population in the hundreds of millions, the most populous in the world. In both the anti-colonial struggle extended over many decades, with the forces that led to eventual victory having consolidated by the 1920s. Each inherited a fractured territory, with imperialist backed enemies forcing the diversion of limited resources into military preparations and conflicts -- India with Pakistan, in three wars, and ongoing clashes over Kashmir, China still colonized in Hong Kong and Macao, divided from Taiwan, with open warfare in Korea, and threatened spillover from Vietnam. Both experienced extreme birth-pains, in the Chinese case the aftermath of occupation and civil war, in the Indian-Pakistani, death and dislocation in the population exchange across their new border, and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Despite their many obvious differences -- China lacked the communal and caste divisions of India, had never been fully colonized, and could rely initially on assistance from the Soviet Union -- the two countries began their new national stage in roughly similar shape.

It is in their economic and social profiles, especially, that the two newly emerged nations most closely resembled each other. Before the colonial era, they had been among the richest societies in the world, but under the impact of occupation and exploitation, had rapidly declined. Both had seen their traditional economies undermined by cheap imported goods, and their old system of classes restructured to fit the new global order. In each country, a "feudal" class prevailed in the countryside, allied not only to the urban elites, but to comprador elements tied to the imperialists. The majority of the population in both was either poor peasants or landless laborers. Each faced deep rural poverty, with a small and oppressed urban working class. Demographics were abysmal. Illiteracy and lack of medical care were the norm for the working classes. In the 1940s, life expectancy in India was only around 32, and in China barely three years longer. The situation of women was especially dire, emerging from centuries old traditional oppression, including such barbaric practices as Indian sati and Chinese footbinding. Each faced similar difficulties, therefore, in entering a newly independent national stage

Amartya Sen, who is an apologist for the Indian capitalist regime has admitted that: " compared with China's rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the capitalist experiment in India could be said to have caused an extra four million deaths a year since India's independence." and that "'India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame".

According to Amartya Sen's testament to the UN, between 1944 and 1980, approximately 100 million people died from famine in India and as I've said in an earlier post, India's life expectancy of 64 in 2012 is pretty pathetic in comparision to the life expectancy of Mao's China in the 1970's being 69 years. India had an entire thirty years to surpass that number and yet they are still somehow behind China 40 years ago.(Mobo Gao, The Battle for China's Past). So, let me ask you, can you really tell me that China have gone the path of "democracy" instead? Do we really live in a world where 100 million deaths is superior to ten million deaths just because of some adherence to a bourgeois notion of "democracy"

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 22:21

"Some scholars have used a very dubious method of arriving at
grossly unrealistic and inflated ‘famine deaths’ during this
period (1959–61) by taking account not only of the higher crude
death rate (which is a legitimate measure) but also counting the
‘missing millions’ as a result of the lower birth rate, as part of
the toll. There is a great deal of difference between people who
are already there, dying prematurely due to a sharp decline in
nutritional status, and people not being born at all. The former can enter the statistics of famine deaths according to any
sensible definition of famine, but people who are not born at all
are obviously in no position to die whether prematurely or
otherwise.
(Patnaik 2004)That does not mean the majority of real historians are in a big conspiracy to hate on Mao. It's accepted historical fact that China's policies greatly helped the famine that killed millions, and throwing in that some scholars over estimate how many people died because from the famine will never change that.

Amartya Sen, who is an apologist for the Indian capitalist regime has admitted that: " compared with China's rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the capitalist experiment in India could be said to have caused an extra four million deaths a year since India's independence." and that "'India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame".

According to Amartya Sen's testament to the UN, between 1944 and 1980, approximately 100 million people died from famine in India and as I've said in an earlier post, India's life expectancy of 64 in 2012 is pretty pathetic in comparision to the life expectancy of Mao's China in the 1970's being 69 years. India had an entire thirty years to surpass that number and yet they are still somehow behind China 40 years ago.(Mobo Gao, The Battle for China's Past). So, let me ask you, can you really tell me that China have gone the path of "democracy" instead? Do we really live in a world where 100 million deaths is superior to ten million deaths just because of some adherence to a bourgeois notion of "democracy" How is this relevant to anything I said at all? Does it look like I'm advocating the path of India's development of capitalism over Mao's development of China? I advocate neither. Who here thinks "100 million deaths is superior to ten million deaths just because of some adherence to a bourgeois notion of 'democracy' "? Not I, nor any other leftist.

Mass Grave Aesthetics

23rd February 2013, 22:24

Left communists to the revolution is the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.
nah, we are more like the Greek/Russian Orthodox Church;)

Captain Ahab

23rd February 2013, 22:32

The Great Leap Forward was Mao's attempt at modernizing China and having it keep up with the West hence the name. Mao was not this diabolical devil that the likes of Jung Chang try to make him out to be trying to intentionally starve the Chinese people. Should Mao and the CCP have done some things differently? Of course but you'd have the benefit of hindsight where Mao did not.

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 22:35

Left communists to the revolution is the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

nah, we are more like the Greek/Russian Orthodox Church;)
The Westboro Church is actually closest the the Bible in that it does want to stone homosexuals, non-believers etc. So that means Left Communists are the closest to actual communism, to every last sentence of the Communist Manifesto, like the WBC is to the Bible. :laugh:

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

23rd February 2013, 22:46

The Westboro Church is actually closest the the Bible in that it does want to stone homosexuals, non-believers etc. So that means Left Communists are the closest to actual communism, to every last sentence of the Communist Manifesto, like the WBC is to the Bible. :laugh:

Not entirely:

What will be the course of this revolution?

Fredrick Engels

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

I, and the rest of the communist left are entirely opposed to "taxing the bourgeois to death". This is not communism as we advocate, it is Bernsteinite revisionism, even when it comes from the mouth of Engels.

So no, we don't uphold Marx and Engels word to word, and I doubt Left-Comms do either

Fourth Internationalist

23rd February 2013, 22:51

Not entirely:

I, and the rest of the communist left are entirely opposed to "taxing the bourgeois to death". This is not communism as we advocate, it is Bernsteinite revisionism, even when it comes from the mouth of Engels.

So no, we don't uphold Marx and Engels word to word, and I doubt Left-Comms do either

It was a joke (the guy who made the wbc comment clearly believed left communists were not real communists like how people say the wbc arent real christians, so according to his comparison, left communists would be the actual real communists he claims they arent)

Desy

23rd February 2013, 23:02

It was a joke (the guy who made the wbc comment clearly believed left communists were not real communists like how people say the wbc arent real christians, so according to his comparison, left communists would be the actual real communists he claims they arent)

No. That's not what I said. Come on now. Don't babble what I say to something that makes no sense. :cool:

vanukar

24th February 2013, 01:29

Should we at least try to put down some of our differences and unite as one to bring down the capitalist class as one?

Because the majority of us support capitalism in one form or another. The left really is a lot worse than you want to think it is.

Zostrianos

24th February 2013, 08:23

I didn't know millions of dead people from starvation was considered a well-fed population.

And let's not forget the Cultural Revolution.

Mao apologists can brush off the tragic consequences of the Great Leap Forward as a poor judgment or mistakes with good intentions, but it's a little harder to do that for the orgy of savagery, terror and destruction that later followed it.

Kindness

24th February 2013, 08:39

I can't believe some people are still defending Stalin and Mao after the monstrous acts they committed. Yes, they called themselves communists, but in reality they were oppressive despots who starved, imprisoned, and tortured their people, as well as set up ridiculous cults of personality surrounding them. They were closer to fascist dictators than communist leaders. Supporting them only helps discredit the leftist movement.

Left Voice

24th February 2013, 08:43

And this is really the problem. While there are some legitimate arguments against left unity (irreconcilable differences, perceptions of not fully breaking away from capitalism, perceptions of reformism etc.), much of the split among the left revolves around disagreements over dead Russians rather than anything that relevant to the challenges that the working class today faces today.

Engels

24th February 2013, 17:00

Sorry OP, but this is an irrelevant (and misguided) call to unity to a left that is utterly irrelevant from a pro-revolutionary perspective.

All that remains of the Left that was annihilated many decades ago by both ‘socialist’ reformism and Stalinist counter-revolution are a bunch of irrelevant political sects that attempt to channel any resistance back into upholding the status-quo. The success of any future revolutionary movement will depend, in part, on its ability to break free of the left.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

24th February 2013, 17:19

That does not mean the majority of real historians are in a big conspiracy to hate on Mao. It's accepted historical fact that China's policies greatly helped the famine that killed millions, and throwing in that some scholars over estimate how many people died because from the famine will never change that.

The "some" he refers to are the "some" scholars who make up absurd death statistics, not every scholar who has ever studied Chine because a good portion of them reject these death tolls entirely

And while there isn't a consperiacy per se, we live in a capitalist society and as Gramsci said, capitalism replicates it's self into the plain of ideology, and as long as capitalism is a hegemonic ideological force we will continue to see the dominance of the Anti-Mao narrative just like we see the dominance of the Anti-Marx narrative. In fact there is a bucket load of work that goes against the liberal hegemony, enough to say that these issues are worthy of a debate. Here is a small selection from the MLM group:

Memoirs by Chinese people of the Maoist years:
-The Crippled Tree, by Han Suyin
-A Mortal Flower, by Han Suyin
-Birdless Summer, by Han Suyin
-My House Has Two Doors, by Han Suyin
-The Dragon's Village, by Chen Yuan-tsung

First-hand accounts of Westerners who visited China during the Maoist years:
-Red Star Over China, by Edgar Snow
-Red China Today, by Edgar Snow
-The Long Revolution, by Edgar Snow
-Fanshen, by William Hinton
-Iron Oxen, by William Hinton
-Shenfan, by William Hinton
-Turning Point in China, by William Hinton
-China! Inside the People's Republic, by the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars
-The Great Reversal, by William Hinton

Narrative histories of the PRC that are at least nominally socialist or Mao-sympathetic or at least try to be fair:
-Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth-Century World: A Concise History, by Rebecca E. Karl
-Mao's China: A History of the People's Republic, by Maurice Meisner
-Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic, by Maurice Meisner
-Morning Deluge, by Han Suyin
-Wind in the Tower, by Han Suyin

Biographies of Mao and other famous party members of the time (Some of these are pretty liberal but they do tend to be more fair than others):
-Eldest Son: Zhou Enlai and the Making of Modern China, by Han Suyin
-Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions, by Bob Avakian
-Mao Zedong: Man, Not God, by Quan Yanchi
-Mao Zedong: Biography, Assessment, Reminiscences, by Zhong Wenxian
-Mao Zedong: A Political and Intellectual Portrait, by Maurice Meisner
-Mao Zedong: A Life, by Jonathan D. Spence
-Was Mao Really a Monster?, by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun
-Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary, by Gao Wenqian
-Mao Zedong and China's Revolutions: A Brief History with Documents, by Timothy Cheek

Books about the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution:
-Biography of a Chairman Mao Badge, by Melissa Schrift
-The Battle for China's Past: Mao & the Cultural Revolution, by Mobo Gao
-The Unknown Cultural Revolution, by Han Dongping
-And Mao Makes 5, by Raymond Lotta
-Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism, by Raymond Lotta

So with a plethora of scholarly work to back up my argument, I don't think that I am in anyway being unreasonable to question the bourgeois consensus.

How is this relevant to anything I said at all? Does it look like I'm advocating the path of India's development of capitalism over Mao's development of China? I advocate neither. Who here thinks "100 million deaths is superior to ten million deaths just because of some adherence to a bourgeois notion of 'democracy' "? Not I, nor any other leftist.

It is relevant because you were suggesting that China would be better off without Mao, which is demonstratively false as I have shown. And after all, if China were ruled not by Mao but by a Trotskyist would it really have made a difference? As another person in this thread has said:

The Great Leap Forward was Mao's attempt at modernizing China and having it keep up with the West hence the name. Mao was not this diabolical devil that the likes of Jung Chang try to make him out to be trying to intentionally starve the Chinese people. Should Mao and the CCP have done some things differently? Of course but you'd have the benefit of hindsight where Mao did not.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

24th February 2013, 17:21

And let's not forget the Cultural Revolution.

Mao apologists can brush off the tragic consequences of the Great Leap Forward as a poor judgment or mistakes with good intentions, but it's a little harder to do that for the orgy of savagery, terror and destruction that later followed it.

The Cultural revolution was the proletariat exersizing it's dictatorship over the bourgeios. I am not ashamed of this! I am proud of this! What other tendency can say that, in literal terms, it lead the working class to exersize dictatorship over the bourgeois?

Art Vandelay

24th February 2013, 19:01

Le Socialiste

24th February 2013, 19:06

How ironic: a thread against infighting has devolved into just that...:laugh:

Fourth Internationalist

24th February 2013, 19:18

It is relevant because you were suggesting that China would be better off without Mao,

Why do you assume capitalism is the only other option to choose? Maoism or capitalism? NEITHER!

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

24th February 2013, 19:27

Really? Are you really trying to say that Maoists are the only 'tendency' to exercise a dotp? Regardless of that ridiculous claim this thread is awful.

First of all, 9MM is correct to question my claim and I admit it is somewhat faulty. Obviously there were other DOTP, such as the Paris Commune, the First Hungarian Soviet, The USSR before it degenerated, and the Bavarian Soviet. However in most of these cases the experiance was crushed before it could devlop or actual proletarian democracy couldn't florish due to a weak proletarian population. As Engels said:

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

So in the USSR it took the form of the class party exersizing dictatorship over the rest of the country, however as we all know this soon degenerated and although we might not agree at which point it degenerated, the fact that the proletarian dictatorship was defeated from within is somewhat uncontroversial.

During the cultural revolution however. a different conception of proletarian dictatorship arose that was distinct from the model of the USSR, that the dictatorship of the proletariat implies that the class struggle has defeated the traditional propertied bourgeois but that bourgeois ideology still exists and that until the bourgeois in it's entirety are defeated there can be no socialism. So this "class struggle from below" model is what charctherizes our conception of the proletarian dictatorship rather than the Borgidist model which according to him: "The dictatorship of the proletariat will therefore be the dictatorship of the Communist Party" (Theses of the Abstentionist Faction of the Italian Socialist Party) or the traditional Marxist-Leninist model which is somewhat similar to the Borgidist model in this way

So in short, yes there were other DOTP, it is merely that the cultural revolution to us represents the highest form of DOTP ever sustained in a state. Obviously the Paris Commune is a bit higher but that was broken up in the span of mouths.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

24th February 2013, 19:36

Why do you assume capitalism is the only other option to choose? Maoism or capitalism? NEITHER!

The "ism" is just a reflection of the concrete social relations of China at that time. Trotskyism or Orthdox Marxism (which were also relevant at the early part of the Chinese Revolution) could theoretically have taken hold and yet their actions would probably correspond to Mao's. You've gone on about how much you don't like Mao, but as I've proven with empirical evidence that he did benefit the Chinese people so at this point you don't seem to be giving reasons why Mao was wrong. Please, if you are going to critique Mao then tell me what about Maoist China went wrong?

Zostrianos

25th February 2013, 04:30

The Cultural revolution was the proletariat exersizing it's dictatorship over the bourgeios. I am not ashamed of this! I am proud of this! What other tendency can say that, in literal terms, it lead the working class to exersize dictatorship over the bourgeois?

How does destroying your country's culture further the revolution? If I go out today and start burning libraries and museums, demolishing ancient historical sites, breaking into people's houses, beating them up (or killing them) if I think they're "bourgeois" (a loose term that lost all meaning in Maoism, and was thrown around loosely as an excuse to attack anyone they didn't like - teachers, intellectuals, writers, artists etc), and confiscating their books and goods to later burn them in a bonfire - you think that's a good thing?
If that's your idea of a revolution, I want no part of it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_klPH-OTfCQ8/SJvMbpJi0JI/AAAAAAAAA_Y/-PPVugtO3R0/s400/cr+burning+books.jpg

Art Vandelay

25th February 2013, 04:33

Burning books is never acceptable.

ind_com

25th February 2013, 04:45

They should have recycled all that paper instead.

Art Vandelay

25th February 2013, 04:48

They should have recycled all that paper instead.

No. As communists we understand that as class consciousness increases and the productive forces develops, reactionary consciousness will disappear. The fact that Maoists in China felt the need to destroy and burn other ideas, is probably a reflection of the fact that their own convictions weren't persuasive enough. Even reactionary books should remain as a historical curiosity. This is the type of shit I would expect from fascists, not "communists."

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

25th February 2013, 04:56

Admittedly Poimandres and 9MM bring up some valid concerns which I will attempt to address tommorow since right now I am stuck in the middle of a bucket load of work.

ind_com

25th February 2013, 05:02

No. As communists we understand that as class consciousness increases and the productive forces develops, reactionary consciousness will disappear. The fact that Maoists in China felt the need to destroy and burn other ideas, is probably a reflection of the fact that their own convictions weren't persuasive enough. Even reactionary books should remain as a historical curiosity. This is the type of shit I would expect from fascists, not "communists."

That is one of the main difference between Maoists and leftists of other varieties; you dissociate the rise in consciousness from continuous class struggle. Till socialism has firmly taken roots in all of the world, it will be impossible to convince a portion of the population merely through ideological struggle; they will always act against socialism and the revolution. Hence, class struggle must be continued in the form of class war even under socialism. So, sometimes it is necessary to violently attack and destroy all the negative remnants of capitalism from the society.

Art Vandelay

25th February 2013, 05:14

That is one of the main difference between Maoists and leftists of other varieties; you dissociate the rise in consciousness from continuous class struggle. Till socialism has firmly taken roots in all of the world, it will be impossible to convince a portion of the population merely through ideological struggle; they will always act against socialism and the revolution. Hence, class struggle must be continued in the form of class war even under socialism. So, sometimes it is necessary to violently attack and destroy all the negative remnants of capitalism from the society.

First off, your premise is faulty, because socialism has never existed anywhere on the face of the earth. Secondly socialism is stateless and classless, so you're argument is non-nonsensical (but what else is to be expected from a Maoist). Thirdly you've made your point very clear and quite frankly I am not too interested in engaging in polemics with book burning philistines.

ind_com

25th February 2013, 05:40

First off, your premise is faulty, because socialism has never existed anywhere on the face of the earth. Secondly socialism is stateless and classless, so you're argument is non-nonsensical

Sorry, but we define socialism differently. And we won't care about what you think of socialism unless one of your dream revolutions actually take place.

(but what else is to be expected from a Maoist).

I see that you are a very able moderator. :rolleyes:

Thirdly you've made your point very clear and quite frankly I am not too interested in engaging in polemics with book burning philistines.

Okay next time we will sell you the books instead of burning them.

Art Vandelay

25th February 2013, 05:43

Just because I'm a mod, doesn't mean I have to leave my political convictions at the door; I've dealt with you in a level headed manner. But regardless, I am no longer interested in talking with you.

Sam_b

25th February 2013, 13:45

I see capitalist parties and organisations fighting and splitting all the time yet apparently when the left does this it's the biggest problem ever

Geiseric

25th February 2013, 22:59

To the OP: splits happening isn't a bad thing if true revolutionaries have problems with the theory and actions of the bureaucracy which can take hold, and which has, see: the failure of stalinism during rise of Nazism and Spanish fascism, which resulted with the 4th international being founded.

Blake's Baby

26th February 2013, 00:45

... see: the failure of stalinism during rise of Nazism and Spanish fascism, which resulted with the 4th international being founded.

The Trotskyist 4th International. Only Trotsky counts 1, 2, 3, 2.5, 4, 3.5, 4.

First (Workingmen's) International - 1864

Second (Socialist) International - 1889

Third (Communist) International - 1919

'2 and a half' ('Vienna') International - 1921

Fourth (Communist Workers') International - 1922

'3 and a half' (London Bureau) International - 1932

Fourth (Trotskyist) International - 1938

Left Voice

26th February 2013, 08:46

I see capitalist parties and organisations fighting and splitting all the time yet apparently when the left does this it's the biggest problem ever

That's the thing though - they don't really split, aside from extreme fringe elements (such as UKIP). To use the UK as an example, the major parties such as Labour and the Conservatives have clear 'wings' and factions and plenty of infighting, but ultimately stick together for the good of the larger goal (recognising that splitting and weaking the party gives their opponents an advantage).

Plenty of members of the Conservative Party disagree with gay marriage, for example. Yet they don't turn around and form a new 'true' Conservative Party.

kasama-rl

26th February 2013, 16:56

If we are going to blame something,I think it is that the ideology of the ruling class being dominant is to blame fore the bad name of communism.
Or do you all think communism had a good name before Stalin?
I think that reality here is not just complex, but intrusive.

For a long time (centuries really in one sense, but certainly many decades in modern times) socialism and communism were goals and a movement. And one could imagine the future society any way we chose.

Starting with the Paris Commune (and then with the revolutions of the 20th century), communism was not just a vision of the future -- but there emerged a series of specific experiments -- attempts -- to reach communism in actual political reality.

So suddenly you have the complex interplay between the 19th century visions of communism and the 20th century (realworld!) attempts to reach communism.

Basically, the move from "vision only" to "specific attempts at real existing socialism" was a powerful and exciting development. After all, if you want a liberated, alternative society you DO have to actually ACHIEVE it (in the only place it can be achieved, i.e. on the canvas of real life).

But (at the same time), as we might expect, the real world attempts are more gritty, more contradictory, more "soiled" by difficult choices, and therefore more controvesial than the preceding "communism as vision alone."

I think we should welcome the experiences of the twentieth century, and learn from them (both the positive and the negative). After a century of real-life experiences, any attempt to retreat to "vision only" is really an attempt to retreat to "fantasy only."

By that I mean: Some people say "I simply reject the experienes of the twentieth century. Lenin? Stalin? Mao? They had nothing to do with MY socialism!"

But really, we now know (after the twentieth century) a great deal more about the pitfalls and laws-of-motion of the transition to communism than (say) Marx or Engels did. We have now seen it in real time. We know more about the dangers of capitlaist restoration (and we know rather surprising things about where that danger emerges from -- i.e. not just from the old overthrown classes, or external threats -- but also, as Mao said "those in power within the party and the state taking the capitalist road.")

In other words, there is a great deal positive and exciting about the twentieth century attempts at socialism, and a great deal to learn from them. Entrenching ourselves in simple doctrines and hurling trollish grenades at each other is (literally) senseless. It accomplishes zero. We actually have to look at reality (both our current reality and our common historical experience) and craft a road forward. And the answers are not simple (especially if we really haven't all looked clearsightedly at either our present or our past.)

B5C

26th February 2013, 17:45

I see capitalist parties and organisations fighting and splitting all the time yet apparently when the left does this it's the biggest problem ever

That is because we split into many different factions and those factions fight each other.

A great example is the Republican Party in the US. The GOP has three factions fighting for control: The Party Leaders, Libertarian, and Tea Party. Those factions are fighting so hard that it could split the party apart and yet they are still together. Why? All of them have a goal to get rid of an black man from the presidency. That is the ONLY thing keeping them united. They all have one common enemy: Pres. Barack Obama.

Profunc

1st March 2013, 01:55

I'm new here, so maybe I shouldn't be commenting, but "infighting" as you put it, is simply debate and disagreement. Consider this: it is a forum, and not an organisation dedicated to a revolutionary goal. I don't know about others, but my goal here is to learn new ideas and expand my ideas, and reinforce the ones that I think are most correct.

But, given the opportunity... that is to say, if Revolutionary Leftist forum decided "hey! let's organise and start a revolution!", and Marxism–Leninism (the ideology I most adhere to) wasn't the chosen "vanguard" ideology, but it was the most supported by others, I'd certainly put aside my differences and join the cause willingly, knowing full well that the endgoal was the destruction of the bourgeois class and the dismantling of their warped systems.

But, in the meantime, I'm satisfied with having debates, even heated, with others.

Orange Juche

3rd March 2013, 03:57

Raised the lifespan of the Chinese people from 35 years in 1948 to 69 years by the time of his death in 1976. Which is pretty impressive if you consider that India, China's neighbor which underwent a vastly more peaceful Independence movement and received economic aid from both the Soviet and western bloc, (while China's only ally and trading partner was Albania), has life expectancy of 64 years in 2012. (Mobo Gao, The Battle for China's Past)

Yea, what a bad man that Mao Zedong was, how dare he feed his people like that! What a bastard...........

This is an example of probably one of the worst elements of in-fighting that I CONSTANTLY see - b.s. strawmen and red herrings. Seriously, actually respond directly or don't say anything.

Orange Juche

3rd March 2013, 04:03

Red Commissar

3rd March 2013, 06:09

A great example is the Republican Party in the US. The GOP has three factions fighting for control: The Party Leaders, Libertarian, and Tea Party. Those factions are fighting so hard that it could split the party apart and yet they are still together. Why? All of them have a goal to get rid of an black man from the presidency. That is the ONLY thing keeping them united. They all have one common enemy: Pres. Barack Obama.

Well, that and the fact they got robust money/revenue creation, donors, ideological backers, party networking, etc. that left groups generally don't have. For the most part, unless a party has some valuable retail value on their office they can lease out (like the CPUSA), there's nothing to lose by splitting. Republicans- or Democrats- on the other hand risk losing these important connections if they try to stake out on their own. The experience of the "Reform Party" has shown that.

Yeah, it can get annoying when we have splits seemingly based only on leadership spats or arguments over shit that happened nearly a century ago now, but some of the questions for splits are legitimate- what if the leadership has become too abusive like the SWP in UK has? What if you're a good intentioned member of the CPUSA sick with the reformist and bankrupt direction of the party?

The problem right now isn't so much splits but trying to make a viable movement/party. And that itself ties into a broader question of the issues of getting left politics better recognition. Splits may not help in this regard but they are hardly the sole reason for the state of the left right now.

Plus you shouldn't apply what happens on Revleft as indicative of leftist politics. It's easy to get ticked off with some of the discussions and polemics here but they don't usually have such importance outside the forum.