To Marxists: Do you think Leninism/vanguardism was a necessary addition? [Archive]

Lowtech

8th March 2013, 06:30

Except you can't just have a party come in and take control by force at any time. They would be crushed without adequete support from the people. The vanguard is just a group of intellectuals and others who are already aware of economic inequality and how to fix it.please clarify, does their usefulness in this sense validate a position as a higher class? i see this as just another class based system.
They spread this message to others in order to gain support for a revolution so it can be successful. The average person isn't just going to decide one day on their own that the system is unjust and must be destroyed. If they did then we would likely already have had worldwide revolutions.no, the majority of humans know capitalism is unjust, they see it's negative impact in their lives everyday. however law is written to enforce capitalists' notion of ownership. we don't need to sway opinion as if there is a consensus in support of capitalism. no one chooses capitalism unless you have vast amounts of assets and you chose to buy several vacation homes. if you're the working class and assimilated into a capitalist system, you're not choosing capitalism, you're choosing not to starve.
As for when a revolution is actually successful, power is meant to be decentralized and given to the workers. There was a fair amount of power in the hands of worker's representatives during Lenin's regime, but not so much later. Ideally I'm for direct democracy in the workplace, but when so many outside forces are threatening the revolution that's a lot more difficult.this decentralizing of power can be accomplished from day one. in fact the way a revolution is carried out can ensure that no one group seizes power. combining concepts of anarchy with distributed-self-governing-protocol (inspired by how distributed computing works) could accomplish this.
And such transition can't happen overnight, especially not when there's still outside capitalist and imperialist forces seeking to destroy you. you're combining the need for organized revolt with an ideological want for a dictatorship.

if you are biased toward a dictatorship and totalitarian systems, say so, don't earmark it into other principles.

tuwix

8th March 2013, 08:19

This is aimed specifically at Marxists for obvious reasons.

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory?

I think Leninism was actually detrimental to Marxist theory. This “vanguard” party was a greater destroyer of any dream to achieve any DoTP in countries where has been introduces a system based on Leninism with Stalinist deviations. But there is no doubt that Lenin is an author of the concept. And the “vanguard” party was a main source of bureaucracy that killed the system.

In terms of strict theory, it was detrimental too. The Marxism is showed most likely in the form of Marxism-Leninism. And the faults of Lenin are shifted on Marx and thusly Marx is made to be guilty of Lenin despite he has nothing to do with him.

Old Bolshie

9th March 2013, 01:27

This is aimed specifically at Marxists for obvious reasons.

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory?

Absolutely. Without Lenin's vanguard contribution you wouldn't have witness the October Revolution.

Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone?

So far history has proven that you can't. All the revolutions which occurred without the vanguard failed.

I don't think it would be possible to have revolution based on Marx alone, particularly not in feudal and other non-industrialized societies. 1) Marx predicted revolution in industrialized countries. That is yet to happen. 2) The capitalist class has tactics of keeping the workers satisfied just enough to keep them from rebelling completely. 3) With point two in mind, there needs to be a party of class conscious workers to lead everybody else in the same direction.

The point is that the vanguard conception was never applied by the western communist parties because it was thought as a tactic only to be applied to the backward autocratic Tzarist Russia. Those parties have chosen the mass type aimed to win elections and govern through the bourgeois democracy machine pretty much like SPD. If Lenin had adopted this path for the Bolsheviks, firstly they would have remained united to the Mensheviks and secondly you wouldn't have witness the October Revolution. Lenin built a party for taking the power through revolutionary means and not electoral ones.

The question here is if the vanguard concept shouldn't be adopted in the west as well.

Lowtech

10th March 2013, 03:16

Absolutely. Without Lenin's vanguard contribution you wouldn't have witness the October Revolution. ridiculousness. there is a difference between organized military revolt and an authoritarian class. capitalism has already taken the task of authoritarian rule to a high art. the masses are mostly pacified to it's economic subjugation, indoctrinated into it's ideology and assimilated into the crippling psychology of consumerism and the alienating nature of capitalist skill sets (jobs). nothing has yet to match it's ability to dominate the human civilization. authoritarianism is capitalism and capitalism is authoritarianism. if you feel that a vanguard "class" is necessary for the liberation of the working people, perhaps you should consider taking a business study course.
So far history has proven that you can't. All the revolutions which occurred without the vanguard failed.what good is a revolution if it simply changes the face of the oppressors? an effective revolution must have classless, stateless society established from day one.
The point is that the vanguard conception was never applied by the western communist parties because it was thought as a tactic only to be applied to the backward autocratic Tzarist Russia. Those parties have chosen the mass type aimed to win elections and govern through the bourgeois democracy machine pretty much like SPD. If Lenin had adopted this path for the Bolsheviks, firstly they would have remained united to the Mensheviks and secondly you wouldn't have witness the October Revolution.if lenin were marxist, he wouldn't have mirrored the capitalist attitude that the working people are unable to organize themselves productively without a "great man" like himself to dictate their actions. exactly the attitude of every CEO of every business on our planet.
Lenin built a party for taking the power through revolutionary means and not electoral ones.this is true, however the power was for himself, not the people.
The question here is if the vanguard concept shouldn't be adopted in the west as well.it is already here. welcome to capitalism.

this leads us to the fact capitalism has invented the menial job

the menial job is a skill set that increases in profitability as positions increase in volume. however, the logistical need to mange people who are made to work 'shit jobs' that by nature are extremely undesirable skill sets, especially due to insufficient wages, leads to the establishment of a vast network of "middle management" which is capitalism's "vanguard class."

once capitalism is abolished and skill sets are redesigned, these supporting skill sets of "middle management" will vanish. upper management of the corporate elite will vanish as well. all skill sets will exist only as needed. everything else will be based on one's interests and tenure.

LOLseph Stalin

10th March 2013, 03:48

no, the majority of humans know capitalism is unjust, they see it's negative impact in their lives everyday. however law is written to enforce capitalists' notion of ownership. we don't need to sway opinion as if there is a consensus in support of capitalism. no one chooses capitalism unless you have vast amounts of assets and you chose to buy several vacation homes. if you're the working class and assimilated into a capitalist system, you're not choosing capitalism, you're choosing not to starve.

This isn't necessarily true. There's actually plenty of working class people who are pro-capitalism. Why? They see it as a chance to succeed and get wealthy while they see communism as a system where everybody is poor. However, that's more so something to blame on propaganda rather than certain tendencies of communism; the capitalists want us to believe their system is working.

this decentralizing of power can be accomplished from day one. in fact the way a revolution is carried out can ensure that no one group seizes power. combining concepts of anarchy with distributed-self-governing-protocol (inspired by how distributed computing works) could accomplish this. you're combining the need for organized revolt with an ideological want for a dictatorship.

Nobody "wants" a dictatorship. However, isn't society now essentially a dictatorship? The bourgeoisie do essentially have power over everybody and everything. The only way to stop this would be through force, which is essentially dictatorial itself.

if you are biased toward a dictatorship and totalitarian systems, say so, don't earmark it into other principles.

See my response up above.

Baseball

10th March 2013, 04:12

Guard.
mirrored the capitalist attitude that the working people are unable to organize themselves productively without a "great man" like himself to dictate their actions.

The "attitude" is more accurately described as being skeptical that the workers can organize themselves productivelly socialistically.

There is a reason why the only succeful revolutions have required the use of a v anguard. There is also a reason why those successful revolutions were failures.

LOLseph Stalin

10th March 2013, 04:20

Guard.

The "attitude" is more accurately described as being skeptical that the workers can organize themselves productivelly socialistically.

There is a reason why the only succeful revolutions have required the use of a v anguard. There is also a reason why those successful revolutions were failures.

The only reason they failed is because socialism is not sustainable within one country. It needs to be worldwide, pretty much every revolutionary knew this. Even capitalism needs to be worldwide since it continously needs new resources, hence imperialism.

Baseball

10th March 2013, 04:25

once capitalism is abolished and skill sets are redesigned, these supporting skill sets of "middle management" will vanish. upper management of the corporate elite will vanish as well. all skill sets will exist only as needed. everything else will be based on one's interests and tenure.

See- here is a reason to be skeptical of the workers ability to productive functioning within a a socialist. Isn't the purpose of work to provide needed goods and services to other people? Shouldn't work be structured to do so in the best eay possible? I would think the answer to be "yes' to both. Yet here you are suggesting that how work is carried will be decided by thosr workets, based upon their own intetests, as oppossed to the interests of those who want that product. h

tuwix

10th March 2013, 06:50

And don't you see that one who produces and one who want which means buy it is the same person which means a worker? If so, why someone else is to decide what to produce?

Baseball

10th March 2013, 15:43

And don't you see that one who produces and one who want which means buy it is the same person which means a worker? If so, why someone else is to decide what to produce?

How many autos do the autoworkers consume? How much beer do the brewers consume? Statistically, its probably 0%. So what sense does it make to organize production in order to satisfy the needs of the auto workers or brewers? Production should be organised to satisfy the needs of people who want cars and want to drink beer.

Old Bolshie

10th March 2013, 17:57

ridiculousness. there is a difference between organized military revolt and an authoritarian class. capitalism has already taken the task of authoritarian rule to a high art. the masses are mostly pacified to it's economic subjugation, indoctrinated into it's ideology and assimilated into the crippling psychology of consumerism and the alienating nature of capitalist skill sets (jobs). nothing has yet to match it's ability to dominate the human civilization. authoritarianism is capitalism and capitalism is authoritarianism. if you feel that a vanguard "class" is necessary for the liberation of the working people, perhaps you should consider taking a business study course.

Ridiculousness was your idiotic interpretation of my post. I was pointing the different course that Lenin has taken from 1903 onwards distancing from the other leftist political parties like the SR's and the Mensheviks and the reason why he was successful in the task of overthrowing the bourgeois ruling.

As far as authoritarianism is concerned, Karl Marx himself pointed the lack of it in the Paris Commune as one of the reasons for its fall. Lenin recognized that the iron discipline within the Bolshevik party was one of the cornerstones of the Bolshevik success in the chapter "An essential condition of the Bolsheviks success" of his book "Left-Wing Communism: An infantile disorder". The working class can be and should be authoritarian in its task to overthrow the bourgeoisie rule. Otherwise the revolution will be smashed like it happen in the Paris Commune.

what good is a revolution if it simply changes the face of the oppressors? an effective revolution must have classless, stateless society established from day one.

Well, that's the point of a proletarian revolution. The oppressor is no longer the bourgeoisie but the proletariat. That's what the October Revolution was all about. You need oppression to overcome the bourgeoisie.

if lenin were marxist, he wouldn't have mirrored the capitalist attitude that the working people are unable to organize themselves productively without a "great man" like himself to dictate their actions. exactly the attitude of every CEO of every business on our planet.

First of all, Lenin always rejected the "great man" conception. He always submitted his positions to the party's CC including in critical times like when the initiation of the revolution was debated. Lenin was forced to persuade the majority of the CC members who were skeptical about the revolution to initiate the October Revolution after a long and heated debate among the CC members. This example destroys any theory of "great man" around Lenin.

this is true, however the power was for himself, not the people.

While Lenin's position was far from being autocratic as he needed to submit all his decisions to the Central Committee approval and the Bolshevik party was still democratic by Lenin's death, it would have been impossible for Lenin to gather the support from all Russia as the proletarian class was still a minority one in 1917's Russia.

it is already here. welcome to capitalism.

this leads us to the fact capitalism has invented the menial job

the menial job is a skill set that increases in profitability as positions increase in volume. however, the logistical need to mange people who are made to work 'shit jobs' that by nature are extremely undesirable skill sets, especially due to insufficient wages, leads to the establishment of a vast network of "middle management" which is capitalism's "vanguard class."

once capitalism is abolished and skill sets are redesigned, these supporting skill sets of "middle management" will vanish. upper management of the corporate elite will vanish as well. all skill sets will exist only as needed. everything else will be based on one's interests and tenure.

Messing all up again. I was talking about the dichotomy between vanguard/mass party and you came talking about a completely different issue.

tuwix

11th March 2013, 09:56

How many autos do the autoworkers consume? How much beer do the brewers consume? Statistically, its probably 0%. So what sense does it make to organize production in order to satisfy the needs of the auto workers or brewers? Production should be organised to satisfy the needs of people who want cars and want to drink beer.

And you state that cars and beer aren't bought by workers? And that the workers aren't buyers? But if they are, then I ask again: hy someone else is to decide what to produce?

Lowtech

11th March 2013, 11:08

Nobody "wants" a dictatorship. However, isn't society now essentially a dictatorship? The bourgeoisie do essentially have power over everybody and everything. The only way to stop this would be through force, which is essentially dictatorial itself.force has never been a successful tool in structuring society. force is what you resort to when two parties will not agree but one has decided to dominate. its barbarism, not coexistence. the natural response from the other party is to fight back in defense. it is darwinistic. we cannot "evolve" into a better society in this manner. with this attitude, the unscrupulous among us will always have access to resources, power and exercise it for their own agenda. the only solution is appealing to higher faculties of reasoning, altruism and establishing a cultural respect for interdependence. we should teach mutual respect, not mutual respect for the barrel of a gun.
The "attitude" is more accurately described as being skeptical that the workers can organize themselves productively socialistically.as a capitalist, you aren't skeptical, you are being elitist and seeing other people as inferior to you, self-validating your exploitation of them. capitalism is economically invalid and this is mathematically observable.
See- here is a reason to be skeptical of the workers ability to productive functioning within a a socialist. Isn't the purpose of work to provide needed goods and services to other people?i'm not responsible for your inaccurate understanding of capitalism. to reiterate, i said that skill sets will exist as needed. under communism, skill sets will have to be more productive than it's capitalist counterparts as a consequence because in communism, economic value has precedence, not profit. since people would not be subjected to artificial scarcity, the same level of productivity we see now will be accomplished with less work hours. under capitalism there is a huge artificial deficit in economic value the working class experiences because economic value is concentrated in the 1%. an economy free of artificial scarcity will not have this burden.
And don't you see that one who produces and one who want which means buy it is the same person which means a worker? If so, why someone else is to decide what to produce?currently, corporate structures, entrepreneurs decide what is to be produced, the belief capitalism isn't planned is a myth. it is very much planned; for the good of the rich.
How many autos do the autoworkers consume? How much beer do the brewers consume? Statistically, its probably 0%. So what sense does it make to organize production in order to satisfy the needs of the auto workers or brewers? Production should be organised to satisfy the needs of people who want cars and want to drink beer.subjective wants do not validate economic subjugation (few rich dominating the working majority) nor does it validate the allocating of resources on massive scales based on the whim of a plutocratic ruling class. on massive scales, need follows a very uniform and predictible pattern. essentially, we know what people need to survive and live happy productive lives and this does not include paying atonement to a plutocratic class for the fault of being alive. the "subjective wants" can be satisfied by 3D printers and rediscovering the lost art of crafts. the convenience of being a consumerist sloth does not validate a system creating poverty and giving exchange value to crime.
As far as authoritarianism is concerned, Karl Marx himself pointed the lack of it in the Paris Commune as one of the reasons for its fall ... Otherwise the revolution will be smashed like it happen in the Paris Commune.people have lived in very communistic societies for the better part of our 26 million year existence as a species. the historical information you provided is nothing more than reverse rationale for authoritarian ideology.
Well, that's the point of a proletarian revolution. The oppressor is no longer the bourgeoisie but the proletariat.the proletariat and a vanguard class are not the same thing. people do not need oppressors, we need no handlers, dominance has had it's day as an evolutionary factor. we are no longer just a species of animal, we are a civilization.
Messing all up again. I was talking about the dichotomy between vanguard/mass party and you came talking about a completely different issue.political economy underpins everything in our world today. if economic principle isn't important to you, you're debating on the wrong forum.

LOLseph Stalin

11th March 2013, 23:37

force has never been a successful tool in structuring society. force is what you resort to when two parties will not agree but one has decided to dominate. its barbarism, not coexistence. the natural response from the other party is to fight back in defense. it is darwinistic. we cannot "evolve" into a better society in this manner. with this attitude, the unscrupulous among us will always have access to resources, power and exercise it for their own agenda. the only solution is appealing to higher faculties of reasoning, altruism and establishing a cultural respect for interdependence. we should teach mutual respect, not mutual respect for the barrel of a gun.

Nothing in society will ever be 100% agreed upon so by even making any decisions you'll be viewed as dictatorial by somebody somewhere. Even just setting up a socialist society is viewed as tyrannical and dictatorial by the bourgeoisie. Everybody has their own agenda and the point here is to have the people in power who'll benefit the largest amount of society.

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

11th March 2013, 23:49

Absolutely not.

Lowtech

12th March 2013, 20:31

Nothing in society will ever be 100% agreed upon so by even making any decisions you'll be viewed as dictatorial by somebody somewhere. Even just setting up a socialist society is viewed as tyrannical and dictatorial by the bourgeoisie. Everybody has their own agenda and the point here is to have the people in power who'll benefit the largest amount of society.

A blatant dictatorship has zero accountability to the people, so you're asking us to have blind faith in a totalitarian structure. you are wanting the working class to have a blind faith relationship the same way you do with your employer under capitalism. You have zero understanding of the very thing you think you advocate and you can achieve what you want right now by picking a corporation, any corporation and singing it's praises. Save yourself the trouble of debating me, and just do that.

Baseball

12th March 2013, 22:27

And you state that cars and beer aren't bought by workers? And that the workers aren't buyers? But if they are, then I ask again: hy someone else is to decide what to produce?

Even in the socialist community, the brewers are producing beer for other people who want beer. And even in the socialist community, people who want beer also want other goods and services(sometimes even more so than beer). And resources whicj are usrd to brew beer can be used for other items. So nothing is really said when its claimed that in a socialist community brewers are workers also.

Baseball

12th March 2013, 22:46

capitalist, you aren't skeptical, you are being elitist and seeing other people as inferior to you, self-validating your exploitation of them. capitalism is economically invalid and this is mathematically observable.i'm not responsible for your inaccurate understanding of capitalism.

to reiterate, i said that skill sets will exist as needed. under communism, skill sets will have to be more productive than it's capitalist counterparts as a consequence because in communism, economic value has precedence, not profit. since people would not be subjected to artificial scarcity, the same level of productivity we see now will be accomplished with less work hours. under capitalism there is a huge artificial deficit in economic value the working class experiences because economic value is concentrated in the 1%. an economy free of artificial scarcity will not have this burden.currently, corporate structures, entrepreneurs decide what is to be produced, the belief capitalism isn't planned is a myth.
it is very much planned; for the good of the rich.subjective wants do not validate economic subjugation (few rich dominating the working majority) nor does it validate the allocating of resources on massive scales based on the whim of a plutocratic ruling class. on massive scales, need follows a very uniform and predictible pattern. essentially, we know what people need to survive and live happy productive lives and this does not include paying atonement to a plutocratic class for the fault of being alive. the "subjective wants" can be satisfied by 3D printers and rediscovering the lost art of crafts. the convenience of being a consumerist sloth does not validate a system creating poverty and giving exchange value to .

There is nothing particularly elitist questioning whether workers can create and function effectively within a socialist community. It is sort of par for the course.

Socialism has to be defended in terms of socialism, not in terms of capitalism. All the above paragraph explains is the glory that will be socialism, without explaining the how and why. It is mere assertions.

So, even if craftworkers are all that are needed to provide goods and services in a socialist community, you would need to ecplain why their needs are more important than the needs of those who want the product iof the craftmaker. You need to define and explain "economic value" as the socialist understands it.

Revenant

12th March 2013, 22:52

The vanguard is just a group of intellectuals and others who are already aware of economic inequality and how to fix it. They spread this message to others in order to gain support for a revolution so it can be successful.
I disagree, I think the vanguard should be able to gauge the right moment to act on class consciousness, they should represent the step beyond, I think if you look at the 70's and 80's in the UK, the attacks on the Unions and british industry, what was lacking was a clear and equal response to the violence/force employed by the state to put down revolution, essentially the Proletariat weren't ready for or expecting actual warfare, but that's what they got, there was the solidarity, the class consciousness, the intent, but they lacked the Revolutionary spark, figurative and literal;)1

When the Police state closed in British sensibilities won through, where were the Anarchists?

An opposite example would imo be Carlos the Jackal, he had the revolutionary spark, the methods and means of attaining a successful revolution, his name and reputation probably struck fear into many an international diplomats heart, but he lacked a revolution and tried to make one.

So to me a Vanguard knows the specific situation, it is not a specific group with well defined functions in the Revolution, it acts on the Revolutionary consciousness and masses at the decisive moment, it should have no obstacles, ethical, moralistic, scientific or ideological to the achievement of revolution it's job is to a=raise the stakes and b=to defend the success if victories are won.

For every obscene oppressive use of force by the State apparatus the Vanguard should have an equal reaction in place imo..

I would say from the little I've read Marx's complaint about the Paris Commune was their reluctance to raise the stakes, take the wealth of the cities institutions, which inhibited their ability to defend the successes they'd won.

Now I think bearing that in mind MLK's method of resistance is interesting, he negated the force of the state, and actually used it as a weapon

Old Bolshie

13th March 2013, 00:42

people have lived in very communistic societies for the better part of our 26 million year existence as a species. the historical information you provided is nothing more than reverse rationale for authoritarian ideology.

Yes I know but we aren't living in Hunter-Gatherer societies anymore and we have to deal with harsh realities like a brutal counter-revolution against the proletariat revolution. You need organization and certain degree of authoritarianism to counter it.

the proletariat and a vanguard class are not the same thing.The vanguard is not a class or something apart from the proletariat. The vanguard party comes from and is supported by the proletariat. The proletariat is the pillar of the vanguard which represents the proletariat interests and aims, leading it through the class struggle against the bourgeoisie.

people do not need oppressors, we need no handlers, dominance has had it's day as an evolutionary factor. we are no longer just a species of animal, we are a civilization.That's a very nice speech but I doubt that would repel the counter-revolution.

political economy underpins everything in our world today. if economic principle isn't important to you, you're debating on the wrong forum.Economic principle is important for me. What isn't important is distorting completely others users posts. I was talking about the dichotomy vanguard/mass party and you came talking about companies and CEO's. If I wanna talk about companies and CEO's I go to another forum.

tuwix

13th March 2013, 07:27

Even in the socialist community, the brewers are producing beer for other people who want beer. And even in the socialist community, people who want beer also want other goods and services(sometimes even more so than beer). And resources whicj are usrd to brew beer can be used for other items. So nothing is really said when its claimed that in a socialist community brewers are workers also.

But you ignores the fact that they are workers still. And you don't answer the question: why someone else shoould decide what and how to produce?

Lowtech

13th March 2013, 16:28

There is nothing particularly elitist questioning whether workers can create and function effectively within a socialist community. It is sort of par for the course. there is no doubt workers can. We already function more than effectively, even under the harsh burden of exploitation right now. Tell me again how you justify economic subjugation? You are comical.
Socialism has to be defended in terms of socialism, not in terms of capitalism. All the above paragraph explains is the glory that will be socialism, without explaining the how and why. It is mere assertions. there is no glory accept the reality that capitalism is economically invalid and this is mathematically observable. you can disgree with reality if you wish, it will just make you look like an idiot and rightfully so.
So, even if craftworkers are all that are needed to provide goods and services in a socialist community, you would need to ecplain why their needs are more important than the needs of those who want the product iof the craftmaker. You need to define and explain "economic value" as the socialist understands it. we by far understand economic value better than capitalists, we create it.

Lowtech

13th March 2013, 20:52

Yes I know but we aren't living in Hunter-Gatherer societies anymore and we have to deal with harsh realities like a brutal counter-revolution against the proletariat revolution. You need organization and certain degree of authoritarianism to counter it. you are again putting forward the argument that the working class is unable to organize itself, therefore justifying an authoritarian system.. "who will watch the watchers?" economic subjugation is the problem, and you are wanting to substitute this with subjugation of another kind. This is the attempt to use a problem as It's own solution. it is madness.
The vanguard is not a class or something apart from the proletariat. The vanguard party comes from and is supported by the proletariat. The proletariat is the pillar of the vanguard which represents the proletariat interests and aims, leading it through the class struggle against the bourgeoisie. spare me your blind faith nonesense. If a "vangard" class, group, whatever is given unopposed power, they are a defacto ruling class.
That's a very nice speech but I doubt that would repel the counter-revolution. class awareness, proper (communist) economic policy, there would be little to no counter revolution. however, opposition of a new ruling class would be an entirely diferent scenerio.
Economic principle is important for me. What isn't important is distorting completely others users posts. I was talking about the dichotomy vanguard/mass party and you came talking about companies and CEO's. If I wanna talk about companies and CEO's I go to another forum.capitalism is economic subjugation. It shouldn't bother you if i bring up the "economic" portion of that issue. If it does, you're not helping the movement, man. Maybe you should get a new hobby.

lemushyman

13th March 2013, 21:58

How else are you supposed to achieve revolution? What - you expect millions of workers to be completely altruistic, educated in Marxism and to co-operate with one another in the establishment of a harmonious, woe-free society? The problem with a lot of these pre-revolution countries is that the proletariat was illiterate, extremely susceptible to reactionary propaganda (as is today's working class) and had no clue why their lives were so bad, and how to improve them. Vanguardism is necessary because it unites the working class, and can act as a governing body that will aid in the establishment of socialism, and provided the vanguard party integrates mandatory membership worker's councils, it can function democratically.

The Idler

13th March 2013, 22:41

Forgive me for quoting but Engels was pretty clear on what he thought of vanguards

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work that we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

Pretty hard to quibble with, yet aspiring vanguards seem to dispute this.

Old Bolshie

14th March 2013, 00:58

you are again putting forward the argument that the working class is unable to organize itself, therefore justifying an authoritarian system.. "who will watch the watchers?"

Unfortunately that's the case with proletarian revolutions and you just have to look at History to confirm it.

economic subjugation is the problem, and you are wanting to substitute this with subjugation of another kind. This is the attempt to use a problem as It's own solution. it is madness.

I am proposing subjugation of what kind if I defend the end of classes differences?

spare me your blind faith nonesense. If a "vangard" class, group, whatever is given unopposed power, they are a defacto ruling class.

Political movements or political parties aren't classes apart. They come from, are support by and represent classes interests.

class awareness, proper (communist) economic policy, there would be little to no counter revolution. however, opposition of a new ruling class would be an entirely diferent scenerio

That's very pretty in theory but reality tell us a completely different thing. Counter revolution will always follow a proletarian revolution despite of the class awareness or how proper your economic policy is.

.capitalism is economic subjugation. It shouldn't bother you if i bring up the "economic" portion of that issue. If it does, you're not helping the movement, man. Maybe you should get a new hobby.

My problem wasn't that you brought the economic portion but rather the fact that I was talking about something and you came talking about a completely different one.

c0z

15th March 2013, 05:57

The vanguard is just a group of intellectuals and others who are already aware of economic inequality and how to fix it.

Yeah, so they claim. Or maybe it's just a subconscious desire for power? It's much easier to get the population to support your dictatorship when you promise them your authority is for their ultimate benefit.

Baseball

15th March 2013, 19:13

But you ignores the fact that they are workers still. And you don't answer the question: why someone else shoould decide what and how to produce?

Why should the workers, as brewers decide , ? Who cares what they wish to do? Shouldn't the workers, as beer consumers decide?

Fourth Internationalist

15th March 2013, 20:05

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory?It was not a necessary addition, no.

Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone? Yes, of course it would be possible.

I don't think it would be possible to have revolution based on Marx alone, particularly not in feudal and other non-industrialized societies. Marxism was designed for capitalist society, not for feudal and other non-industrialized societies.

1) Marx predicted revolution in industrialized countries. That is yet to happen. How does that make a Marxist revolution impossible?

2) The capitalist class has tactics of keeping the workers satisfied just enough to keep them from rebelling completely. Only for a limited time, that is.

3) With point two in mind, there needs to be a party of class conscious workers to lead everybody else in the same direction. Indeed.

Also, an Orthodox Marxist I was arguing with said that Russia should have had a capitalist revolution before having a communist one in order to have the proper Marxist conditions in place. For a specifically Marxist revolution, capitalism is needed prior to socialism.

However, I don't think there would have been a revolution had a capitalist revolution occurred beforehand. There probably wouldn't have been a successful revolution yet.

Again, the new capitalist class would prevent it from happening; at the time of the October Revolution Russia had no such class on a large scale to prevent such a revolution. It would had prevented it from happening at the time, yes. However, I think that if there had been no Soviet Union and other countries like it, socialism would be much more popular. With the Soviet Union, and countries like it, socialism's image has been almost permanently damaged, despite the fact that they never achieved socialism.

Lowtech

16th March 2013, 08:36

Unfortunately that's the case with proletarian revolutions and you just have to look at History to confirm it.if you believe the people cannot organize themselves, you agree with the capitalist contention that people require subjugation. the working class cannot trust those that are capitalist-like
I am proposing subjugation of what kind if I defend the end of classes differences?you can pretend to defend anything you wish, once you have unopposed power, your actions become completely unaccountable to the people, again, like a capitalist.
Political movements or political parties aren't classes apart. They come from, are support by and represent classes interests.are you now advocating political systems? which is a strange position as political systems cannot exist within a superseding totalitarian structure. are you unaware of what you're actually talking about or are you a liar?
That's very pretty in theory but reality tell us a completely different thing. Counter revolution will always follow a proletarian revolution despite of the class awareness or how proper your economic policy is.people have a natural tolerance level for each other. some would call it conformity, others would call it a weakness, ultimately it is a propensity for peace. you want to use it as a means to subjugate humanity. we are subjugated now. if you cannot provide an alternative to what is already exercised by capitalists, you and those who share your ideology would be poor in taking up the task of social engineering.
My problem wasn't that you brought the economic portion but rather the fact that I was talking about something and you came talking about a completely different one.if you can't see the link, you're still in the wrong place discussing the wrong things. you can't say that you support the interests of the economically subjugated and then stubbornly ignore economic principle. economics has everything to do with how we are to liberate ourselves from economic subjugation. you make a mockery of everything we hope to create.

Old Bolshie

16th March 2013, 15:06

if you believe the people cannot organize themselves,

It's not a matter of believe. It's a matter of practical analysis and historic evidence. I'm a Marxist and not an idealist like yourself and neither was Lenin. It was not by chance that Lenin headed the first successful proletarian revolution in History.

you agree with the capitalist contention that people require subjugation. the working class cannot trust those that are capitalist-like

I'm not advocating subjugation of any kind so it would be better if you could drop this demagogic speech.

you can pretend to defend anything you wish, once you have unopposed power, your actions become completely unaccountable to the people, again, like a capitalist.

I don't see anything wrong with proletarian unopposed power.

are you now advocating political systems? which is a strange position as political systems cannot exist within a superseding totalitarian structure. are you unaware of what you're actually talking about or are you a liar?

I am advocating that the Bolsheviks born of the Russian proletarian, represented its interests and were supported by. Try not to confuse this simple statement like you have been doing during our arguing.

people have a natural tolerance level for each other. some would call it conformity, others would call it a weakness, ultimately it is a propensity for peace. you want to use it as a means to subjugate humanity. we are subjugated now. if you cannot provide an alternative to what is already exercised by capitalists, you and those who share your ideology would be poor in taking up the task of social engineering.

But I provide an alternative. The replacement of the bourgeoisie dictatorship for the proletarian's one. The methods by which I defend that replacement is what separates us.

if you can't see the link, you're still in the wrong place discussing the wrong things. you can't say that you support the interests of the economically subjugated and then stubbornly ignore economic principle. economics has everything to do with how we are to liberate ourselves from economic subjugation. you make a mockery of everything we hope to create.

Again, I don't ignore the economic principle. I never said I did. I was talking about the fact that Communist Parties in the West don't resemble in anything the Bolsheviks and are more alike parliamentary bourgeois reformist parties and you came talking about companies and CEO's...

Jimmie Higgins

23rd March 2013, 13:58

Why should the workers, as brewers decide , ? Who cares what they wish to do? Shouldn't the workers, as beer consumers decide?LOL, as if capitalists as beer consumers decide? Capitalists decide based on profits. If you worked as part of a socialist brewerey it wouldn't matter if you were a brewer because you liked the science of it or just loved the beer, you would be producing for use, not profit... which means your accountability would be meeting need as much as possible. You would decide how to produce because it's your labor which produces it. But that decision would be based on meeting the demand for beer - both in aestetics and in quantity. You would do this because the pub soviets and other distribution sites have demand for X amount of beer from people in that area. Even if you don't like beer, since you like going to distribution sites (stores) and finding milk and cheese available, then you understand that the beer you make is part of making abundance for people and you yourself get to also enjoy that abundance... even if it's for goods you didn't make personally. Your incentives would be meeting need with as little wasted labor effort or materials as possible without sacrificing quality... since collective production and collective consumption would be unified.

In capitalism however, the producers and the mass consumers are seperated from the decision-making process. Workers consume some of the social wealth, but it's a tiny portion (their wages) and most of it just goes back into privitized necessities like mortgage or rent, food and bills, and maybe some diversions. Socialism is about putting all the collective wealth into the hands of workers for collective consumption.

Pretty hard to quibble with, yet aspiring vanguards seem to dispute this.Indeed, but the point of organizing revolutionaries isn't to lead over the unsuspecting masses, but to coordinate radical elements organically involved in various struggles of workers and the oppressed. But there have been many "aspiring vanguard" groups that would fit the description you quoted unfortunately. In fact many anti-vanguard groups too.

Baseball

23rd March 2013, 18:51

If you worked as part of a socialist brewerey it wouldn't matter if you were a brewer because you liked the science of it or just loved the beer, you would be producing for use, not profit... which means your accountability would be meeting need as much as possible.

And profit, risk, cost, all are factors which guides the capitalist in determining how much production is "possible."
By what basis would the workers in a socialist community be held accountable?

You would decide how to produce because it's your labor which produces it. But that decision would be based on meeting the demand for beer

So in other words, the workers vote on how to organizse their production based upon what meets the needs of beer consumers.

Which of course means that the CONSUMERS of beer determine how production is organised, based upon what they wish to consume. The brewers simply organize themselves in such a way to meet that demand.

This is of course only natural and reasonable, since it makes little sense for the producers in any community to decide what to produce and how to produce it. The workers in the socialist brewery would not have the kind of control over the means of production as you seem to think they would.

- both in aestetics and in quantity. You would do this because the pub soviets and other distribution sites have demand for X amount of beer from people in that area. Even if you don't like beer, since you like going to distribution sites (stores) and finding milk and cheese available, then you understand that the beer you make is part of making abundance for people and you yourself get to also enjoy that abundance... even if it's for goods you didn't make personally.

Yeah-- your objective would be to produce beer, and not cheese or milk.
But so what? If you produced X amount, you did your job. And you hope the cheese and milk guys did theirs.

Your incentives would be meeting need with as little wasted labor effort or materials as possible without sacrificing quality... since collective production and collective consumption would be unified.

How would you know this was accomplished? How would you know if 30 workers were needed to produce X amount of beer as opposed to 20? Or X amount of electricity as opposed to Y amount?
Why would you care, if you did your job and met the objective in beer production?

Lowtech

25th March 2013, 16:16

. And profit, risk, cost, all are factors which guides the capitalist in determining how much production is "possible."
By what basis would the workers in a socialist community be held accountable? by producing for economic value, producing commodities designed to meet a need, not to dereive the most profit. It is hypocritical that you advocate accountability while your system of exploitation has none.
So in other words, the workers vote on how to organizse their production based upon what meets the needs of beer consumers.

Which of course means that the CONSUMERS of beer determine how production is organised, based upon what they wish to consume. The brewers simply organize themselves in such a way to meet that demand. demand does not equate to need.demand is manufactured out of commercialism in order to sell garbage for it's profitability.

Capitalists chose a few designs, a recipe or product to mass produce, this is very much planned.simply planned for the good of the few.
The workers in the socialist brewery would not have the kind of control over the means of production as you seem to think they would. alcohol would not be mass produced for this use anyway. This kind of commodity doesn't meet a need, rather it is suited to profitability and alienation, creating a employer-employed-consumer arrangement. Whereas without exhange value and without a profit oriented economy, such commodities would not be mass produced, needed commodities would have priority.
Yeah-- your objective would be to produce beer, and not cheese or milk.
But so what? If you produced X amount, you did your job. And you hope the cheese and milk guys did theirs. you're describing disorganized, aliented production centers as they exist now in a market paradigm. However your understanding of communism is crude. Communism is not required to emulate a market. Therefore problems of market dynamics don't apply. And only the rich experience the "benefits" of capitalism, so you have no argument there either
How would you know this was accomplished? How would you know if 30 workers were needed to produce X amount of beer as opposed to 20? Or X amount of electricity as opposed to Y amount?
Why would you care, if you did your job and met the objective in beer production?we know what a single human needs to live a long, happy productive life, that cannot be met while the burden of production is left on the shoulders of the many and enjoyment of economic value is kept to the few in an archaic plutocratic society.

The economy is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain a civilization. Capitalism is economic subjugation enforced by a totalitarian structure based on fuedalistic elitism.

revscare

29th March 2013, 18:43

This is aimed specifically at Marxists for obvious reasons.

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory? Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone?

I don't think it would be possible to have revolution based on Marx alone, particularly not in feudal and other non-industrialized societies. 1) Marx predicted revolution in industrialized countries. That is yet to happen. 2) The capitalist class has tactics of keeping the workers satisfied just enough to keep them from rebelling completely. 3) With point two in mind, there needs to be a party of class conscious workers to lead everybody else in the same direction.

Also, an Orthodox Marxist I was arguing with said that Russia should have had a capitalist revolution before having a communist one in order to have the proper Marxist conditions in place. However, I don't think there would have been a revolution had a capitalist revolution occurred beforehand. Again, the new capitalist class would prevent it from happening; at the time of the October Revolution Russia had no such class on a large scale to prevent such a revolution.

So comrades, thoughts?

The concept of the vanguard party was necessary for Marxian theory to be converted into practical action - it's the only way to have a disciplined movement. Today, in most countries, we don't have that kind of organised dissent an the result is anarchy.

Comrade Alex

30th March 2013, 21:13

Big Time
Without the vanguard party we are nothin but an unorganized riot
Leninism also included the peasantry which were excluded in Marxism
And it has given organisation to the art of revolution

Baseball

31st March 2013, 01:45

The concept of the vanguard party was necessary for Marxian theory to be converted into practical action - it's the only way to have a disciplined movement. Today, in most countries, we don't have that kind of organised dissent an the result is anarchy.

Yep. The "vanguard" is the only logical way to organize socialism into some sort of coherence and to move it forward.

Dear Leader

31st March 2013, 02:55

I think Lenin did have something to add to Marxism, and it was an important contribution (his theory on Imperialism being one). A vanguard party is something that maybe can be, and should be, used. Though, I think the party he envisioned was too strict, and perhaps a little bit "elitist".

Danielle Ni Dhighe

31st March 2013, 03:31

There's a difference between a vanguard being the most advanced members of the class and a vanguard party substituting itself for the class. The vanguard's role is to spread class consciousness and class struggle.

Sudsy

31st March 2013, 03:41

Yes, revolutions that are taking place today are almost all guided by a vanguard party, FARC, Naxalites. In the contest of this subject, people tend to bring up anarchist Spain. Although anarchist Spain was essentially a successful Marxist society, it was unable to protect itself from the fascists. The Marxists and Anarchists were guided by the right virtues against the evil fascists, but their struggle ultimately failed. The vanguard party in its proper form should never be elitist or undemocratic. Someone needs to set up democratic institutions before they can even happen. A good example of successful vanguard party is when Mao Tse-Tung successfully set up democratic institutions after the Cultural Revolution, before which the Party Cadres were becoming increasingly bureaucratic and elitist. But the Cultural Revolution set up local Revolutionary Committees designed for complete participation of citizens in their own lives, (dictatorship of the proletariat). In my opinion, this proves the democratic capabilities of the vanguard party. Sadly, these institutions ceased to exist as capitalism returned to the country.

dodger

2nd April 2013, 09:16

Sudsy for nigh on a century the British Working class has rejected the very idea of a vanguard party.Is there a plan B ? Readily see the advantages of Democratic Centralism, Lenin studied our trade unions and developed his ideas whilst in London. No the very idea of a vanguard, professional full timers makes a mockery of democracy. Besides any caste old or new on our political landscape invites further derision and suspicion. We have several MP's in clink. If I am to engage politically or set out on a course of action or put it this way, make some sacrifice--Then I would expect that cadre to be beside me in 'the trench'. Put another way have as much to lose as me. It was noted by workers that during the Great War, top brass stayed in Chateaux, some 40 miles from the trenches. Whilst Tommies and Fritz slaughtered each other. Does not appeal. An example, calling for a General Strike, all too often the people calling for it are not the ones on strike. All too often we get served up half baked theories some positively dangerous...others merely hilarious. No , I am not a fan of any Vanguard.

Buck

3rd April 2013, 07:11

Leninism. According to Stalin, Leninism is ‘Marxism in the era of imperialism and of the proletarian revolution … Leninism is the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular’ (Foundations of Leninism, 1924). Accordingly, this ideology is often referred to as ‘Marxism-Leninism’. This, however, is a contradiction in terms: Marxism is essentially anti-Leninist. But not everything Lenin wrote is worthless; for example, his article entitled The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913), contains a concise exposition of Marxism. Why, then, is Leninism objectionable? Because, for socialists, it is anti-democratic and it advocates a course of political action which can never lead to socialism.

In What Is To Be Done? (1902) Lenin said: ‘the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness’. Lenin argued that socialist consciousness had to be brought to the working class by professional revolutionaries, drawn from the petty bourgeoisie, and organised as a vanguard party. But in 1879 Marx and Engels issued a circular in which they declared:

‘When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.’

Nor is this an academic point, since the history of Leninism in power shows that allowing elites to rule ‘on behalf of’ the working class is always a disaster. Working class self-emancipation necessarily precludes the role of political leadership.

In State and Revolution (1917) Lenin said that his ‘prime task is to re-establish what Marx really taught on the subject of the state’. Lenin argued that socialism is a transitional society between capitalism and full communism, in which ‘there still remains the need for a state… For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary’. Moreover, Lenin claimed that according to Marx work and wages would be guided by the ‘socialist principle’ (though in fact it comes from St Paul): ‘He who does not work shall not eat.’ (Sometimes this is reformulated as: ‘to each according to his work’.) Marx and Engels used no such ‘principle’; they made no such distinction between socialism and communism. Lenin in fact did not re-establish Marx’s position but substantially distorted it to suit the situation in which the Bolsheviks found themselves. When Stalin announced the doctrine of ‘Socialism in One Country’ (i.e. State Capitalism in Russia) he was drawing on an idea implicit in Lenin’s writings.

In State and Revolution, Lenin gave special emphasis to the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. This phrase was sometimes used by Marx and Engels and meant working class conquest of power, which (unlike Lenin) they did not confuse with a socialist society. Engels had cited the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, though Marx in his writings on this subject did not mention this as an example, since for him it meant conquest of state power, which the Commune was not. Nevertheless, the Commune impressed itself upon Marx and Engels for its ultra-democratic features - non-hierarchical, the use of revocable delegates, etc. Lenin, on the other hand, tended to identify democracy with a state ruled by a vanguard party. When the Bolsheviks actually gained power they centralised political power more and more in the hands of the Communist Party.

For Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat was ‘the very essence of Marx’s teaching’ (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, 1918). Notice, however, that Lenin’s Three Sources article - referred to above - contains no mention of the phrase or Lenin’s particular conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And for modern Leninists this concept, in Lenin’s interpretation, is central to their politics. So, for its anti-democratic elitism and its advocacy of an irrelevant transitional society misnamed ‘socialism’, in theory and in practice, Leninism deserves the hostility of workers everywhere.

Buck

3rd April 2013, 07:12

Nicholas Popov

16th April 2013, 07:45

The revolution, revolution... What is a revolution? :confused:
After the unsuccessful assassination of the tzar and the execution of his brother Alexander, Lenin famously said "We will go another way" implying the overthrow of the autocracy as a political system. The February Revolution had made it possible. However, Lenin's mistake of assigning a General Secretary within the collective government had untied the hands of a pathological criminal and again brought Russia back to autocracy. Stalin had once confessed to his own mother that he had become new Russian tsar. The further fate of the "great revolution" and revolutionaries had been predetermined.
... Today as well as 100 years ago, already the next generation of Russian "revolutionaries" continues to fight against yet another autocrat and assiduously puts forward new idols and future tyrants. http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/Down_with_Putin.jpg

"A new political system as a real Democratic Revolution."
http://www.modelgovernment.org/

liberlict

11th May 2013, 03:22

I'm not a Marxist, but I'll offer my opinion anyway.

It was necessary in the sense that reality never conformed to Marxist theory. The working class were never as monolithic as Marx and Engels conceived. So either a) We have to either wait around for the working class to develop adequate class conscious. Or b) have a minority of sufficiently enlightened individuals lead the working class into unity.

Waiting doesn't really appeal, so b) was inevitable really.

It really does depend on how you view capitalism as well; Marx portrays it as destined to basically commit suicide. At this point the working class could just "take over" capitalism's infrastructure after it implodes. Assuming there was sufficient class unity, of course.

Free Communist

13th May 2013, 22:05

No, I prefer my revolutions spontaneous.

Theophys

17th May 2013, 09:18

proper observation of capitalism is all that's required for revolution.

Nonsense. The average person can never understand the very working of capitalism or not the complex theories of Marxism or Capitalism. That's why Communist Parties exist, they are nothing more than the most dedicated, educated, and revolutionary elements of society be them proletarians or petit-bourgeois.

authoritarian ideology simply uses the guise of "leading" the working class to freedom as means to supremacy.

They lead them as a means of supremacy for who? For the working class. That is undeniable. Lenin and Co. did not start another revolution to feed their ego. The authoritarian ideologies are the means by which the "proper observations of Capitalism" are realized and effected. You cannot do away with Capitalism by playing niceties with the individuals that exploit you while you're trying to topple.

if all is needed is to "lead" people, there is no need to make them aware of economic inequality in the first place. walk in with guns and make them do what you want.

And who's going to do the "walk in with guns and make them do what you want"? A handful of individuals? No. You firstly need to show people the issues of Capitalism, convince them of an alternative, and they will do all that by themselves under the Communist banner. The Communist Party merely directs them, organizes them, educates them, and manages them. The revolutionaries individually without any organization or even without any Communist or Socialist organization can only build a more "liberal" form of Capitalism as we have seen in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries as of late. It is the Communist Party that sets them on the path to Socialism and Communism, not the other way around.

its a parallel to religion and it's false ideology that people are inherently bad making it religion's job to mold us into desirable people.

You know, comparing it to religion in an attempt to make it look bad despite the lack of similarities isn't much of an argument.

it is just a fetish for control, not unlike that expressed in capitalism.

Oh please, more of that "Freedom Fighter" bullshit. Control is not evil. Capitalism isn't as authoritarian as its state.

transition from capitalism to communism is seen as an eventuality, not a requirement of communism. that's if we survive our volatile adolescence as a civilization.

Misanthropic? Figured. First we must get to Socialism, secure Socialism, and THEN EVENTUALLY move on to Communism. That "eventuality" is a necessity unless you want a Makhnovshchina, Kibbutzim, or other such failure.

please clarify, does their usefulness in this sense validate a position as a higher class? i see this as just another class based system.

First of all, they are not a class. See my post in the Learning section on the bureaucracy, the state, and party being "classes" (they are not). Yes, their usefulness validates their position as a higher class. They know what they are doing, they are educated in that aspect, much, much more than your average steelworker. They are dedicated to Communism much more than your average revolution, person, or even worker.

no, the majority of humans know capitalism is unjust, they see it's negative impact in their lives everyday

[citation needed]

however law is written to enforce capitalists' notion of ownership.

And that's why it continues to exist. That's what Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat are - the use of force to enforce Socialists'/Communists'/Workers' notion of ownership against the Capitalists' notion of ownership.

we don't need to sway opinion as if there is a consensus in support of capitalism. no one chooses capitalism unless you have vast amounts of assets and you chose to buy several vacation homes. if you're the working class and assimilated into a capitalist system, you're not choosing capitalism, you're choosing not to starve.

Ergo why we need a Communist Party, a vanguard party. People really do not give a shit even if they're exploited, even if they gave no consensus in support of Capitalist, or even if they have a negative opinion of it. They are require a vanguard party to do that for them, to act as an organizer for a catalyst, to lead the path for them.

this decentralizing of power can be accomplished from day one. in fact the way a revolution is carried out can ensure that no one group seizes power. combining concepts of anarchy with distributed-self-governing-protocol (inspired by how distributed computing works) could accomplish this. you're combining the need for organized revolt with an ideological want for a dictatorship.

Oh please, if anything is evident from "the way a revolution is carried out" it is that vanguard parties are necessary and will inevitably rise and come to power. Your Anarchistic Utopian beliefs are ridiculous. It is impossible that "no one group seizes power", even the transitional councils of Libya, Egypt, and so on led to the formation of groups seizing power whether people liked it or not, be it the Muslim extremists or otherwise. It is the job of the vanguard to ensure that the Socialists, the Communists, the representatives of the working class come to power, not anyone else. A group will come to power whether you like it or not, it is not a question of "if" or "when" but a question of "who". Anarchy and self-governance are Utopian teenage nonsense. Why? Because they only exist in the imaginations of misanthropic teenage Utopian Anarchists, and I mean this because that is the only instance where I find such a self-destructive means of social mass suicide. Production on a world or national scale can NEVER take place with fragmented, autonomous, independent, and decentralized workplaces. You need these workplaces to be united or acting in accordance in order to meet the demands of the world or society. Bukharin addressed this in "ABC of Communism" under the name he gave to this concept of yours "lumpenproletarian socialism", since I cannot link yet I have to quote:

"1. Lumpenproletarian socialism (anarchism). The anarchists reproach the communists on the ground that communism (so they contend) will maintain the State authority in the future society. As we have seen, the assertion is false. The essential difference consists in this, that the anarchists are far more concerned with dividing up than with the organization of production; and that they conceive the organization of production as taking the form, not of a huge cooperative commonwealth, but of a great number of 'free', small, self-governing communes. It need hardly be said that such a social system would fail to liberate mankind from nature's yoke, for in it the forces of production would not be developed even to the degree to which they have been developed under capitalism. Anarchism would not increase production, but would disintegrate it. It is natural that, in practice, the anarchists should advocate the dividing up of articles of consumption and should oppose the organization of large-scale production. They do not, for the most part, represent the interests and aspirations of the working class; they represent those of what is termed the lumpenproletariat, the loaferproletariat; they represent the interests of those who live in bad conditions under capitalism, but who are quite incapable of independent creative work."

you're combining the need for organized revolt with an ideological want for a dictatorship.

It is exactly because of the combined need for organized revolt exists that a combined class dictatorship is necessary.

if you are biased toward a dictatorship and totalitarian systems, say so, don't earmark it into other principles.

I don't know about the other guy, but I support Socialist/Communist dictatorships (Marxist sense, not traditional one-man-rule sense) and totalitarian systems.

Geiseric

18th May 2013, 21:11

I like how the (mostly sectarian) people who have never overthrown an autocracy are bashing on the Bolsheviks. No I'm sure you're political advice is more useful, with the centuries of failed revolutions experiance as proof for your 20/20 hindsight. A vanguard is necessary so the clusterfucks that were 1848 and the Paris commune aren't repeated with the same mistakes.

evermilion

18th May 2013, 21:13

Fourth Internationalist

18th May 2013, 21:22

A vanguard is necessary so the clusterfucks that were 1848 and the Paris commune aren't repeated with the same mistakes.

How did a lack of a vanguard party lead to the failures of the Paris Commune? Also, if lack of a vanguard party is what lead to the failure of the Paris Commune, then logically, having a vanguard party is what lead to what happened in the USSR, no?

Geiseric

18th May 2013, 21:55

How did a lack of a vanguard party lead to the failures of the Paris Commune? Also, if lack of a vanguard party is what lead to the failure of the Paris Commune, then logically, having a vanguard party is what lead to what happened in the USSR, no?

The Paris commune was disorganized and frantic due to the lack of a dedicated, organize revolutionary party which paul lafarque and Marx were arguing for. 1848 was sold out by the mountain because the socialists accepted positions in government. The Bolshevik party was formed after Marxists studied what didn't work in immediately establishing a workers state. They got the farthest ahead than anybody else but they were invaded because the second international sold the revolutionaries in their own countries out. So the 3rd international was between a rock and a hard place and the opportunists in the Russian workers state were more concerned at best with revolutionary defensism.

None of that history validated your claim that the vanguard party leading the Russian or German working classes for that matter had the idea their whole time about becoming the new capitalists or consolidating their power until the purges which actually killed most oohs the original vanguard.

Theophys

18th May 2013, 22:13

How did a lack of a vanguard party lead to the failures of the Paris Commune? Also, if lack of a vanguard party is what lead to the failure of the Paris Commune, then logically, having a vanguard party is what lead to what happened in the USSR, no?

The failure of the Paris Commune could have been stopped by a vanguard party. A vanguard party with Democratic Centralism allows for swift and decisive action with disregard for the long and slow consensus and problems of direct democracy or public democracy. Yes, the Soviets had a large part in the events following the October Revolution but they were sidelined for a reason during the Civil War and after, they were too slow to act, too slow to reach a consensus, too slow to take part in meetings, too disorganized, too problematic, each delegate concerned about his own local community above all else, they could not start a new meeting for every new item of information from the front, etc. etc. A vanguard party allows for what is needed during wartime, even being able to know when sacrifice is necessary. A vanguard party would have been able to nationalize the banks of Paris without the consent of the rest of the populace. They would have known what needed to be done at whatever cost to ensure victory and then AFTER victory had been secured that they can proceed to construct their own society.

And what the hell do you mean by "what happened in the USSR"? Are you speaking of how the Bolsheviks turned a shithole of a medieval agrarian country into a super-industrialized world superpower that defeated the Nazi scum and struck them in their very heart, made the world's Capitalist powers shit themselves in constant fear of the USSR, achieved numerous firsts and won the Space Race, led to multiple revolutions all over the world, etc. etc.?

Seriously Anarchist, go break some windows or play in your garden commune or something, leave this real shit to us Communists.

Fourth Internationalist

18th May 2013, 22:59

The Paris commune was disorganized and frantic due to the lack of a dedicated, organize revolutionary party which paul lafarque and Marx were arguing for.

And there was no other way of organising?

None of that history validated your claim that the vanguard party leading the Russian or German working classes for that matter had the idea their whole time about becoming the new capitalists or consolidating their power until the purges which actually killed most oohs the original vanguard.I don't believe it was a secret plan to gain power. That's like saying that the non-vanguardists planned the failure of the Paris Commune (if that is what lead to its failure).

And what the hell do you mean by "what happened in the USSR"? Stalin.

Are you speaking of how the Bolsheviks turned a shithole of a medieval agrarian country into a super-industrialized world superpower
Hitler took Germany and remade it into into a superpower. That doesn't make him a good leader.

that defeated the Nazi scum and struck them in their very heart, World War 2 was between many countries not just the USSR and Nazi Germany.

made the world's Capitalist powers shit themselves in constant fear of the USSR, Both sides feared each other.

achieved numerous firsts So did other capitalist nations.

and won the Space Race, And how did that help socialism? Plus, wasn't that done under "revisionists"?

led to multiple revolutions all over the world, etc. etc.?That failed to establish socialism and were mostly authoritarian.

Seriously Anarchist, go break some windows or play in your garden commune or something, leave this real shit to us Communists. I am a communist.

Theophys

18th May 2013, 23:44

And there was no other way of organising?

None as effective and as historically proven, no.

Stalin.

Yes, and what about Stalin? Do I need to keep asking you the same question until you decide to reply?

Hitler took Germany and remade it into into a superpower. That doesn't make him a good leader.

A super power? Nonsense. A militaristic machine that was utterly destroyed after he idiotically invaded numerous countries based on a debt-ridden economy of racism, ethnic discrimination, genetic discrimination, etc. etc.? You do know that becoming a superpower was not the argument, but that a SPECIFIC "country" with a SPECIFIC ideology (read: USSR) became a world superpower following a SPECIFIC form of government being discussed here?

World War 2 was between many countries not just the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Indeed it was and yet 70% (yes, that's an actual statistic, it's around 70%) of the Axis casualties were on the Eastern Front. The brunt of the German forces were on the Eastern Front. The Germans were the main force behind the Axis forces. As for Japan, need I even continue saying anything other than "Soviet Invasion of Manchuria"? Furthermore, it was Nazi Germany that invaded the USSR, not Japan or Italy that invaded the USSR. The USSR was capable of not only repelling the invasion, but taking that stake out of their hands and shoving it deep in their heart. The Italians, Japanese, and the rest of the Axis forces were nothing compared to the Nazi Germans.

Both sides feared each other.

I'm pretty sure the "Iron Curtain" with spies filling their ranks made the US fear the Communists much, much more than the Communists feared the US. Do I even need to bring up a list of "containment" wars, the Red Scares, amongst other things that led to the US going against its very ideals? Nevertheless, that was not the point, the point was that the USSR was feared.

So did other capitalist nations.

I was speaking of the firsts in space but for the sake of argument since I can't skip this easy shit, Capitalist nations outnumber Socialist nations in number, years of existence, and advancement (from before the USSR became the USSR). Socialist islands in a sea of Capitalism. Imagine if the USSR were to had taken place in Western Europe (historically wealthier than Easter Europe) or the US and other countries. Given where they took place and the conditions they faced, their achievements are miraculous. So please.

And how did that help socialism? Plus, wasn't that done under "revisionists"?

I do not give a shit about "revisionists". I am not your ordinary Marxist-Leninist, I do not care if they are revisionists. Krushchev contributed a lot to the Socialist cause from housing to the firsts in space. Brezhnev was an issue. Gorbachev had a good idea that should have been started from before with economic liberation in the form of decentralization and cooperatives. He just fucked up like an idiot.

Anyway, you ask how did that help Socialism? Quite simple, that showed the capabilities of Socialism as a proper competitor in space and technology. It showed that Soviet Socialism was capable of staying up with the times and outperform other Capitalist nations in that aspect. It also allowed them to gain a lot of influence and fame, two very essential things for the spread of an ideology.

That failed to establish socialism and were mostly authoritarian.

Of course they were authoritarian! They had something called a fucking REVOLUTION. A revolution is inherently authoritarian. Now if that revolution was to succeed, it needs to be authoritarian. If those revolutionaries want to secure their and ensure that what they have fought for is not lost, they must become authoritarian.

Also they did establish Socialism, specifically a form of Soviet Socialism.

I am a communist.

Sure you are, kiddo. I especially like that tendency there of yours that says "Anarchist".

Fourth Internationalist

19th May 2013, 00:28

None as effective and as historically proven, no.

History has shown it's most effective at what? Certainly not at establishing socialism.

Yes, and what about Stalin? Do I need to keep asking you the same question until you decide to reply?

Do you know what Stalin did during his rule?

A super power? Nonsense. A militaristic machine that was utterly destroyed after he idiotically invaded numerous countries based on a debt-ridden economy of racism, ethnic discrimination, genetic discrimination, etc. etc.?

How does it's eventual end make it a non-super power? Did not the USSR also end?

You do know that becoming a superpower was not the argument, but that a SPECIFIC "country" with a SPECIFIC ideology (read: USSR) became a world superpower following a SPECIFIC form of government being discussed here?

That specific form of government was not socialism. It was state capitalism and a dictatorship.

I'm pretty sure the "Iron Curtain" with spies filling their ranks made the US fear the Communists much, much more than the Communists feared the US.

Stalin was quite over-paranoid about the opposing countries. That is one of the contributing factors to his and the Bolsheviks authoritarianism.

Do I even need to bring up a list of "containment" wars, the Red Scares, amongst other things that led to the US going against its very ideals?

The Red Scare was more about suppressing communists within the US, not against the USSR.

Given where they took place and the conditions they faced, their achievements are miraculous. So please.

Their rapid industrialization came at a price of millions of people, the permanent scarring of the communist movement. Plus, industrialization did not occur under socialism but under state capitalism. That's hardly miraculous.

I do not give a shit about "revisionists". I am not your ordinary Marxist-Leninist, I do not care if they are revisionists. Krushchev contributed a lot to the Socialist cause from housing to the firsts in space. Brezhnev was an issue.

How was the USSR socialist? The workers did not directly control production.

Anyway, you ask how did that help Socialism? Quite simple, that showed the capabilities of Socialism as a proper competitor in space and technology. It showed that Soviet Socialism was capable of staying up with the times and outperform other Capitalist nations in that aspect. It also allowed them to gain a lot of influence and fame, two very essential things for the spread of an ideology.

They didn't have socialism, only in name.

Of course they were authoritarian! They had something called a fucking REVOLUTION. A revolution is inherently authoritarian. Now if that revolution was to succeed, it needs to be authoritarian. If those revolutionaries want to secure their and ensure that what they have fought for is not lost, they must become authoritarian.

No, it is not. A socialist revolution and the dotp's job is to apply democracy, not eliminate it.

"But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished."

- Rosa Luxemburg

Also they did establish Socialism, specifically a form of Soviet Socialism.

Soviet Socialism is to Socialism as National Socialism is to Socialism.

Sure you are, kiddo. I especially like that tendency there of yours that says "Anarchist".

Anarcho-communist. Yes, it's a real ideology.

Mytan Fadeseasy

19th May 2013, 11:19

Theophys

19th May 2013, 15:07

History has shown it's most effective at what? Certainly not at establishing socialism.

What we had in the USSR was by every means Socialism, a specific form of it known as Soviet Socialism. It was the most effective at winning revolutions, securing victory, and building Socialism.

Do you know what Stalin did during his rule?

Yes I do. What's the problem? Instead of killing he should have merely purged as what Lenin did, other than that I see no problem.

How does it's eventual end make it a non-super power? Did not the USSR also end?

It's not that it ended that it was not a superpower, but that it barely lasted a few years, was based on debts with a failing economy, did not achieve anything noteworthy of "superpower" status, and was by no means comparable to the USSR. The USSR was considered a world superpower in that it was the country capable of holding the US and the rest of the world accountable for their actions with the ability to put forward a threat and back it up by force. Nazi Germany barely lasted a few years before declaring war and getting crushed, they did not even reach a superpower status before the war. Nazi Germany did not utilize its military to turn itself into a superpower, instead it used its military and was utterly crushed. The USSR was capable of influencing internal events and situations, had veto power in the UN, etc. as Wikipedia explains perfectly: "A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be a step higher than a great power.

Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."[2]"

Nazi Germany clearly was not a superpower as it did not even attempt to influence anything but instead merely started up an army and led itself into a war which led to its defeat. Had Nazi Germany won the war then it would have emerged as a world superpower.

That specific form of government was not socialism. It was state capitalism and a dictatorship.
I already contested this nonsensical claim previously in another thread which can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-t180744/index.html).

The USSR was not by any means State Capitalist nor was it a dictatorship. For State Capitalism see the thread linked above and my posts there. All the positions in the state and party were democratically elected.

That specific form of government was Socialist, specifically Soviet Socialist with a nationalized means of production, a workers' state, a Communist Party, and so on. Maybe you should read up on the various forms of Socialism?

Stalin was quite over-paranoid about the opposing countries. That is one of the contributing factors to his and the Bolsheviks authoritarianism.

Which was completely justified given that those Capitalist countries invaded the USSR, were on the opposite side during the Cold War, and have attempted time and time again to prevent the spread and rise of Communist revolutions all over the world, even in their own country. Do I even need to remind you of the attempts to support coups and overthrow Communist governments ranging from Allende's Socialist government in Chile and Castro's Cuba to the Invasion of Grenada, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Korea? If Stalin was not paranoid, he'd have been caught offguard and crushed.

The Red Scare was more about suppressing communists within the US, not against the USSR.

Oh really now? And who do you think those Communists within the US called "un-American" were supporting? The US or the USSR? If a revolution had taken place, who do you think those Communists within the US would have supported, the US or the USSR? The Red Scare was suppressing Communists within the US in an attempt to curb the rising influence of the USSR in the US. It was an action taken against Communism which was mainly represented by the USSR.

Their rapid industrialization came at a price of millions of people, the permanent scarring of the communist movement.

The end justifies the means. Communists support a revolution that costs countless lives for a specific end that justifies those deaths. The same applies here. The Kulaks and various other elements of society opposed collectivization, which is nothing but expropriation that Anarcho-Communists also support, and conflict arose which gave way to starvation, killings, burning of crops, killing of livestock in the millions, etc. etc. Stalin did not plan the deaths nor did he desire them, contrary to the "Holodomor" conspiracy theorists.

Plus, industrialization did not occur under socialism but under state capitalism. That's hardly miraculous.
You are quite the fool. The industrialization took place under Socialism. State Capitalism is what you find in China. Seriously, stop trying to play a No True Scotsman fallacy, the USSR was Socialist but not the form that you support. Socialism comes in multiple forms and you are not the one to dictate what Socialism is and what it is not, especially as the USSR had little to do with your Anarchist ideology. Socialism can range from Market Socialism to collective ownership of the means of production to state ownership of the means of production.

How was the USSR socialist? The workers did not directly control production.

The workers need not be directly in control of the means of production or even production. The state and party act as the managers, planners, etc. that hold the means of production, run them, maintain them, and allocate resources to them without receiving the products for their own as private and personal profits. Again, see the link I posted above on this as I explain this very issue in another thread.

They didn't have socialism, only in name.

Are you seriously going to keep ignoring the point and instead ignorantly keep claiming that the Socialist USSR was not Socialist because it did not appeal to your own version of Socialism? Ridiculous.

No, it is not. A socialist revolution and the dotp's job is to apply democracy, not eliminate it.
I support a much more authoritarian DotP and Socialist revolution. I claim that democracy can never take place in a society divided by classes, especially not in a society that just emerged out of the wombs of the previous society. The Bolsheviks I disagree with on this point and I do the same with the other democratic tendencies. Public democracy is useless, counter-productive, and cannot ensure the best decisions. The Bolsheviks did good after the Soviets were marginalized due to the Civil War.

"But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished."

- Rosa Luxemburg

That quote reeks of petty baseless rhetoric. Luxemburg, like the others, who spoke of democracy without considering the adverse effects of democracy. I vehemently and completely disagree with Luxemburg on this issue. I claim that, if there were to be a Socialist democracy, it is to take place "in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created", not the other way around. Socialist democracy can NEVER begin "simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism" as such a situation would be in the middle of the most unstable, turbulent, and life-threatening times of revolution and even civil war. You cannot speak of democratic niceties "at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party."

Soviet Socialism is to Socialism as National Socialism is to Socialism.

According to you, not according to actual theory or reality. Again, we will discuss this after you have read my posts in that one thread as I do not wish to repeat myself. Soviet Socialism is Socialism whether you like it or not. Oh and your false analogy attempting to correlate Soviet Socialism with National Socialism as both being equally different from Socialism is not only ridiculous but stupid. Soviet Socialism based itself on Marxism and Lenin, state (public) ownership of the means of production, a centrally planned economy, following the ideology of Marxist-Leninist Socialism, attempted to achieve communism, and so on. National Socialism, on the other hand, official denied any relations to Marxism, based itself on racism, right-wing nationalism, ethnic discrimination, pertained, defended, and encouraged private ownership of the means of production, opposed the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in favor of the petit-bourgeoisie, crushed every kind of Leftist and Communist, and claimed that their Socialism had nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. So please, Anarchist, at least learn to analyze and study this shit before you try to form analogies and other such nonsense.

Anarcho-communist. Yes, it's a real ideology.

It says Anarchist. Anarchism is in no way, shape, or form synonymous with Anarcho-Communism. There exists a thousand and one Anarchist schools of thought that different and oppose Anarcho-Communism. And yes it is a real ideology, a ridiculous one at that, which I subscribed to before turning to Marxism-Leninism.

Mytan Fadeseasy

20th May 2013, 14:16

What we had in the USSR was by every means Socialism, a specific form of it known as Soviet Socialism. It was the most effective at winning revolutions, securing victory, and building Socialism.

USSR did not have socialism.

I already contested this nonsensical claim previously in another thread which can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-t180744/index.html).

The USSR was not by any means State Capitalist nor was it a dictatorship. For State Capitalism see the thread linked above and my posts there. All the positions in the state and party were democratically elected.

State capitalist dictatorship.

That specific form of government was Socialist, specifically Soviet Socialist with a nationalized means of production, a workers' state, a Communist Party, and so on. Maybe you should read up on the various forms of Socialism?

Not socialist.

Which was completely justified given that those Capitalist countries invaded the USSR, were on the opposite side during the Cold War, and have attempted time.........etc........etc....yawn....

Bored now:bored:

Marxaveli

21st May 2013, 06:24

Wait a minute. Did that windbag above Mytan just say state ownership of the means of production is the same thing as public ownership of the means of production?

It's the very essence of statements like that why Stalinists are WRONG, and always have been and will be. USSR was never socialist - socialism in one country has proven to be an utter failure in practice because it cannot work, as well as being antithetical to anything Marx or Engels wrote in theory.

To answer the original question/topic, I am strongly opposed to Vanguardism. It's not only NOT a necessary addition to Marxism, but almost certainly an undesirable one as well.

Theophys

21st May 2013, 07:45

USSR did not have socialism.
According to YOU, it did not. YOU do not determine what Socialism is and it is not. No True Scotsman logical fallacy right there.

State capitalist dictatorship.
:laugh:
Nice cop-out and yet another No True Scotsman fallacy. China has a State Capitalist economy, not the USSR. As for dictatorship? Really? :laugh: I challenge you to show me that Stalin was a dictator. A dictator holds absolute power in his sole and own hands, that was not the case in the USSR with its government, politburo, delegates, democratic institutions, etc.

Do you even KNOW what State Capitalism and a dictatorship are? State Capitalism pertains a private sector, private ownership of the means of production, corporations for private profit, competing markets, production for private profit and interests, etc.

From another post of mine:
"Oh please stop spouting nonsense you know little abut. The Soviet Union was NOT by ANY means a class society as I have already explained. It is based upon the extraction of surplus value not for private interests but for the interests of those that had their surplus value extracted for them. You need to continue and stop using bullshit superficial slogan throwing, context is everything. A bureaucratic elite? Oh boohoo, they must be evil. No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bureaucratic elite as long as they function according to Socialist and Communist ideals and Democratic Centralism exists. Generalized commodity production? I'd like to see you propose an alternative for a Socialist economy. Go ahead, I'll be waiting, just try to stay on Earth whilst you're daydreaming. Wage-labor will always be the norm as long as money exists, Capitalism exists, and humanity exists. The only instance where wage-labor is no longer necessary if we reach superabundance, and that's never going to happen.

State managed capital is not by any means State Capitalism. State Capitalism would necessitate the existence of "Capitalism" in the first place which is defined by private property, the existence of the bourgeoisie, the existence of financial markets, the existence of competing markets, AND the existence of commodity production for PRIVATE PROFIT, the existence of wage-labor for PRIVATE profit, etc. State Capitalism, when used on the USSR, is nothing more than a "bad word" to use in an attempt to distance one's self from that specific system for ideological reasons. That is nothing short of a cop-out. Whether you will understand it or not, the USSR was by every means Socialist, albeit "State Socialist" or more specifically Soviet Socialist.

All of your "analysis" of wage-labor, classes, commodity production, and bureaucracy in the USSR are nothing but brief nonsense that is only a superficial and ignorant analysis. You need to know the "why", "where", "how", and "when" for them, you need to know the proper context, you need to know the justifications, you need to properly analyze them, you need to stop throwing around labels and instead properly analyze that shit."

Not socialist.
No True Scotsman logical fallacy. It was Socialist as it held the ideals of Socialism and Communism, was ruled by a legitimate Communist Party, had public nationalized means of production, acted in the class interests of the proletariat, etc.

From Wikipedia because it obviously knows more than you:

"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit[5] driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution."

Bored now:bored:
Come again later when you know what you're talking about.

Wait a minute. Did that windbag above Mytan just say state ownership of the means of production is the same thing as public ownership of the means of production?
Yes.

It's the very essence of statements like that why Stalinists are WRONG, and always have been and will be.
I am not a Stalinist nor is that even a proper argument.

USSR was never socialist
According to you it wasn't, according to proper analysis and classification as well as reality, yes it was.

socialism in one country has proven to be an utter failure in practice because it cannot work
That's not an argument. Present an argument rather than opinion.

as well as being antithetical to anything Marx or Engels wrote in theory.[/quoet]
Not everything Marx or Engels wrote or said is desirable or to be followed to dogmatically and blindly. Have you even read Marx and Engels' works and comments on the question of the Slavs and Pan-Slavism? Reality comes into the fore and we need to adjust our theories and actions based on that reality. The world revolution failed, the USSR was stuck alone, it built itself until other revolutions took place and were then aided by the USSR.

[quote]To answer the original question/topic, I am strongly opposed to Vanguardism. It's not only NOT a necessary addition to Marxism, but almost certainly an undesirable one as well.
Those arguments. So many of them.

evermilion

21st May 2013, 07:55

Marxaveli

21st May 2013, 09:44

No idea where you got that I implied that, since I was referring to the obvious troll Theophys.

evermilion

21st May 2013, 09:55

No idea where you got that I implied that, since I was referring to the obvious troll Theophys.

Really? You have no idea?

Did that windbag above Mytan just say state ownership of the means of production is the same thing as public ownership of the means of production?

It's the very essence of statements like that why Stalinists are WRONG, and always have been and will be.

You have no idea why I might have thought you were calling Mytan a Stalinist? You're just that completely surprised I would even suggest that you would've said such a thing? Really?

Mytan Fadeseasy

21st May 2013, 10:07

Evermillion, take a closer look at the following sentence.

Did that windbag 'above' Mytan

evermilion

21st May 2013, 10:24

Evermillion, take a closer look at the following sentence.

The way I have the messages oriented, I see the most recent first, on top, and the older fall below it. So the user "above" you, in that case, was Marxaveli, but I reasoned ol' 'veli had meant "so-and-so above, Mytan, etc." as in "the user above me, Mytan."

Wrong or not, no idea? Just no idea how someone could misunderstand him?

Comrade Anarchist

24th May 2013, 08:00

It necessary only in that workers will rarely join together and the fact that intellectuals like to think they are the vanguard for the downtrodden when in reality they are just blowing shit.

Secondly there is always supposed to be a bourgeois revolution in order to create the capitalist society. Marx thought in stages so a revolution of the marxist variety could only happen after capitalism, because it required workers. Workers exist in every stage of development, but only under capitalism were they considered the proletariat. They became alienated and were brought under wage slavery. To me this is called - life sucks get over it. To Marx it was a reason to rebel. But without the capitalist revolution you don't have the means for an industrial economy. Marxism is a parasite and could only survive if it had something to feed off of. In Russia they barely had capitalist beginnings by time the Bolsheviks came to power, this an many other reasons are why it required shear force and brutality such as the murder of 25 ish million people under stalin in order for the soviet union to reach industrialization.

But ultimately you are right about not having a capitalist revolution, but wrong as to why. After a capitalist revolution marxist feelings will take hold, but as capitalism progresses it becomes more efficient and is able to create in more humane ways. Early capitalism is utter hell on the workers. But as it progress their children start to see better conditions not because of government intervention but because the factories and such became more efficient. This is not the capitalists somehow using they mystery powers to blind workers, but is instead progress that shows workers a way forward. Marxism is for early capitalism. As capitalism grows marxism just become antiquated and that is why only early to pre capitalist societies have had marxist/socialist revolutions.

Lowtech

17th August 2013, 19:19

Nonsense. The average person can never understand the very working of capitalism or not the complex theories of Marxism or Capitalism. That's why Communist Parties exist, they are nothing more than the most dedicated, educated, and revolutionary elements of society be them proletarians or petit-bourgeois.incorrect. people are very capable of understanding economic theory. the false and arrogant notion that economics is some how an arcane or obscure thing left only to the gifted to understand is the reason people were able to be assimilated into capitalism in the first place. example: if I assume I am the 'average person' that can't understand economics, why should I question the business owner? your condescending opinion is useless and worse, detrimental to human progress.
They lead them as a means of supremacy for who? For the working class. That is undeniable. Lenin and Co. did not start another revolution to feed their ego. The authoritarian ideologies are the means by which the "proper observations of Capitalism" are realized and effected. You cannot do away with Capitalism by playing niceties with the individuals that exploit you while you're trying to topple.I am not advocating "playing niceties with the individuals that exploit you while you're trying to topple," what I am challenging is the idea that economic subjugation (capitalism) should be replaced with sociological subjugation(pseudo-marxist totalitarianism). trading control for control still leaves us at square one.
And who's going to do the "walk in with guns and make them do what you want"? A handful of individuals? No. You firstly need to show people the issues of Capitalism, convince them of an alternativeyou had JUST SAID the average person is too stupid to understand economics, you change position as often as a politician.
and they will do all that by themselves under the Communist banner. The Communist Party merely directs them, organizes them, educates them, and manages them.^like an employer. people require PROGRESSION sociologically, not some alternate form of subjugation.
You know, comparing it to religion in an attempt to make it look bad despite the lack of similarities isn't much of an argument.you know, insubstantial sneers do not suffice for rebuttals.
Oh please, more of that "Freedom Fighter" bullshit. Control is not evil. Capitalism isn't as authoritarian as its state.^you believe control is not evil, yet you are against capitalism. you're a very confused person.
First of all, they are not a class. if one group has systematic control over another, how the fuck do you assume that not to be a class system?
And that's why it continues to exist. That's what Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat are - the use of force to enforce Socialists'/Communists'/Workers' notion of ownership against the Capitalists' notion of ownership. this is not a fight between two camps, with your barbaric notion of building the stronger class structure to superimpose socialist ideals over capitalist ones. you must envision some grand war between socialists and capitalists while i look at the real economic process and the mathematical failures of capitalism and it's inability to sustain a civilization. the truth is this pseudo-Marxism invented by Lenin disgraces Marx's life work and provides no progressive solution to humanity's historically perpetuated self-created problems.
Ergo why we need a Communist Party, a vanguard party. People really do not give a shit even if they're exploited, even if they gave no consensus in support of Capitalist, or even if they have a negative opinion of it. They are require a vanguard party to do that for them, to act as an organizer for a catalyst, to lead the path for them. you are a walking contradiction. with one hand you denounce capitalism while in the other you re-affirm the notion that people cannot organize themselves effectively without overseers.
Oh please, if anything is evident from "the way a revolution is carried out" it is that vanguard parties are necessary and will inevitably rise and come to power. stop defending your social biases with arrogant sneering, and give us better validation for your opinions, otherwise it should be and will be ignored.

Vireya

18th August 2013, 17:18

mjg32

25th August 2013, 07:56

I don't believe socialism can be brought about by the proletariat at large, people in general are too ignorant and complacent. A Vanguard is definitely necessary, one of actual true minded socialists, not opportunistic megalomaniacs.

Indeed, yet opportunistic megalomaniacs always find a way to have influence. It would be ideal to avoid and/or purge (remove; not in the Stalinist sense) them, yet history shows as that it is an incredibly difficult task to do so.

hashem

25th August 2013, 12:51

do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory?

Leninism is not an addition. its evolution of Marxism.

hashem

25th August 2013, 13:12

At the moment, the proletariat cannot envisage any form of society, other than a capitalist one. As far as the proletariat is concerned, socialism = Soviet Block = dictatorship. If a vanguard party was to try to lead the proletariat to socialism, the proletariat would support the capitalist class in crushing the communists as they would not want to end up in a dictatorship.

The proletariat needs to understand and want socialism. Once the majority of the proletariat understand and want socialism, the revolution can happen. Socialism cannot be brought about by a vanguard. It will take time, but a vanguard can only lead to another elitist, class divided society, and if there are classes, there will be oppression.

in your scenario, proletariat is dragging a party (which calls itself "vanguard" but its actually a tail of backward workers) behind itself not vice versa.

exactly because proletariat needs to gain class consciousness and organization, a part of it which is already class conscious and organized (vanguard party) needs to lead the class and in time promote the class to its own level. if progressive section of proletariat ignores its duty about promoting its class (and also other toilers who can be allies of proletariat) or reduce it to waiting for backward sections to promote by themselves, such promotion can never take place.

historically, only vanguard parties have lead successful revolutions. workers which were left without a vanguard, never went beyond trade unionism.

hashem

25th August 2013, 13:21

stop defending your social biases with arrogant sneering, and give us better validation for your opinions, otherwise it should be and will be ignored.

the guy which you are arguing with is not a leftist at all. he supports baath regimes of Iraq and Syria, Gaddafi regime, North Korea and former Eastern bloc as democracies and believes that capitalism is superior to socialism! i dont know why he hasnt been banned yet but arguing with him is just waste of time.

robbo203

25th August 2013, 13:54

in your scenario, proletariat is dragging a party (which calls itself "vanguard" but its actually a tail of backward workers) behind itself not vice versa.

exactly because proletariat needs to gain class consciousness and organization, a part of it which is already class conscious and organized (vanguard party) needs to lead the class and in time promote the class to its own level. if progressive section of proletariat ignores its duty about promoting its class (and also other toilers who can be allies of proletariat) or reduce it to waiting for backward sections to promote by themselves, such promotion can never take place.

historically, only vanguard parties have lead successful revolutions. workers which were left without a vanguard, never went beyond trade unionism.

The crucial thing about "vanguardism" is NOT that there are differences in degrees of class consciousness - its a banality to say that only a small minority are militant class conscious communists today . What is peculiar to vanguardism is the belief that this small minority must first capture political power on behalf of the non communist majority in order supposedly to influence them to become a communists from a position of political power

THAT is what the theory of vanguardism is really about. It is a recipe for utter disaster and substitutionism. All that will happen is that this small minority, compelled to operate capitalism will be fundamentally changed in the process and will emerge as a new ruling class opposed to the interests of the working class.

Unless and until the workers want and understand socialism en masse it would be fatal even attempting to capture state power when the subjective preconditions for a socialist society - mass understanding - are not ripe.

bluemangroup

25th August 2013, 15:08

What is peculiar to vanguardism is the belief that this small minority must first capture political power on behalf of the non communist majority in order supposedly to influence them to become a communists from a position of political power

As in Blanquism, which IMHO wasn't integral to Lenin's thought process in relation to the vanguard party (in fact, Lenin fervently denied that he was practicing Blanquism when he was urging his party to launch an immediate insurrection, most notably in his article entitled Marxism and Insurrection)

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory?

Specifically, the theory of the vanguard party first came up arguably in the Communist Manifesto, while the vanguard party as a concrete theory didn't truly come into being until Lenin's What Is To Be Done? which was rooted in strictly Russian conditions (Czarist Russia at the time was a police state, necessitating an underground party consisting of experienced revolutionaries)

That is what the theory of vanguardism is really about. It is a recipe for utter disaster and substitutionism. All that will happen is that this small minority, compelled to operate capitalism will be fundamentally changed in the process and will emerge as a new ruling class opposed to the interests of the working class.

Unless and until the workers want and understand socialism en masse it would be fatal even attempting to capture state power when the subjective preconditions for a socialist society - mass understanding - are not ripe.

And yet the vanguard party theory had nothing to do with Blanquism and/or a minority seizing power in the people's name; Lenin once stated that Soviet power had become Bolshevik power owing to the massive returns in votes the Bolsheviks had gained in the crucial Moscow and Petrograd Soviets (i.e. Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not act until it became clear that Soviet power had been won to the side of the Bolsheviks, until the vast majority of the populace was won over to the side of revolution)

The October Insurrection furthermore was popular, and only came about after the Bolsheviks gained control over the Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC). The MRC, once under the sway of the Bolsheviks, moved to support the upcoming Second Soviet Congress by disarming the Provisional Government and preparing for a preemptive defensive insurrection against the Provisional Government. (which at the time had moved to shut down the Bolsheviks' press and to rearrest key Bolshevik leaders as a means to curb the organized left).

Historians such as Alexander Rabinowitch and Rex. A. Wade have done much to demolish the long-standing Cold War-era myth of the monolithic and authoritarian Bolshevik Party which allegedly launched a coup in October. Both historians paint the October Insurrection and the rise to power of the Bolsheviks as having had mass support from the beginning.

IMHO the vanguard party was and is still an integral part of Marxism (in Greece there is Syriza, which currently as a unified party includes Maoist and Trotskyist tendencies [the Communist Organization of Greece having been a major part of Syriza before the party reformed itself into a single party], in Nepal and India there are the Maoist communist parties which have done much to establish revolutionary societies in their respective countries, the early Black Panthers and the early Revolutionary Communist Party of America, etc.)

So yes, IMHO the vanguard party still has a bearing on modern Marxist politics today.

Comrade Jacob

25th August 2013, 16:11

On a national scale I do. But when it comes to isolated communes Leninism isn't necessary.

Imperius

25th August 2013, 19:00

Fourth Internationalist

25th August 2013, 19:10

I'm curious to know where would be members of the Marxist vanguard get their weird brand of evangelism from. I see little evidence that either the proletariat or the universe in general cares about your imaginary crusade. Are you bored bourgeois intellectuals looking for a sense of purpose? Are you Stalin wannabes seeking pure power? What are your motives, and what is the root of your ideology? Cut the crap comrades, stop the trolling and let's have a serious discussion please. Thank you.

The irony is overwhelming. If I wanted pure power, I'd use my middle class power to become a Republican or Democrat politician. I'd make millions collaborating with businesses and then I'd go on to run some position in some private bank to make even more millions of dollars.

Thirsty Crow

25th August 2013, 19:21

I'm curious to know where would be members of the Marxist vanguard get their weird brand of evangelism from. What evangelism is that?

I see little evidence that either the proletariat or the universe in general cares about your imaginary crusade.

It would be very hard for neutrinos and nebulae to care about communism. And as far as the working class as a whole is concerned, yes you're right, not that many fellow workers care or think about the communist project. That's something that needs to be examined seriously and without prejudice, such as "oh yeah sure, the uneducated masses simply can't understand things, so we'll do it for them and we'll tell them what to do".

But what's the "imaginary crusade" you're referring to? Surely, it is very misleading to refer to contemporary communism as a "crusade". We don't have an ideological axe to grind - we're part of the working class and, as workers (of course, that doesn't mean that all communists are workers), are affected just as any other worker who isn't militant.

And "imaginary"? Does that mean something like "a product of illusion(s)"?

Are you bored bourgeois intellectuals looking for a sense of purpose? Are you Stalin wannabes seeking pure power? What are your motives, and what is the root of your ideology? Cut the crap comrades, stop the trolling and let's have a serious discussion please. Thank you.Why do you assume that personal psychological background and motives form the "root" of an ideology? I don't think this is the case. And I don't think that interrogating such reasons of a person's acceptance of specific politics actually says anything of the validity of the positions taken up, and its relevance. But okay, let's play your little game.

Nope, I'm not a bourgeois intellectual. It's safe to say that I won't be in a position to exploit labor in the future. And I don't consider myself as an intellectual, though probably you'd say that I am since I'm finishing college. Most probably I'll end up employed by an enterprise dealing with language - interpreting or teaching. I might end up working in a public school. But really, I'd take any job offered since I'm in no position to do otherwise.

A Stalin wannabe? Yeah, right. As if communism is exhausted with Stalinism. Nope, what I hope for, and what I wish to contribute to, is proletarian self-emancipation. Why? Since I do not want to live as a subject of the pressures and tangible consequences of this social order. The threat of unemployment, competition and the degradation of human bonds, exploitation and workplace stress, existential insecurity and humiliation, all of that doesn't appeal to me, but sure, what also doesn't appeal to me is to advance myself by means of hustling for the social position of a capitalist or manager. It's boring, degrading in its own right, and definitely not appealing to me, to the way I understand myself and my capacities and aims in life.

sixdollarchampagne

25th August 2013, 20:30

This will undoubtedly be criticized as simplistic, but here goes: Leninism, a definite approach to building a revolutionary party, was absolutely necessary to preserve Marxism, because the European social democracies showed their true pro-war, chauvinist character in 1914, when the various traditional mass parties of the workers (are you listening, Grantists?) repudiated proletarian internationalism and voted in favor of funding the anti-worker, inter-imperialist First World War.

robbo203

25th August 2013, 22:15

As in Blanquism, which IMHO wasn't integral to Lenin's thought process in relation to the vanguard party (in fact, Lenin fervently denied that he was practicing Blanquism when he was urging his party to launch an immediate insurrection, most notably in his article entitled Marxism and Insurrection)

Your post still doesnt quite hit the mark as far as vanguardism is concerned which, as I say, is the argument that a small enlightened minority have to capture power first in order be in a position then to persiuade or educate the majority to socialism.

I agree with argument that has been presented by others that Lenin & Co wanted a mass party along the lines of the German SPD even if conditions under Tsarist Russia prevented that. I agree also that millions of Russian workers supported the Bolsheviks (even if the Russian working class amounted to perhaps only 10% of the population at the time) although that support was predicated essentially on the Bolsheviks refromist programme and its opposition to the war which to its credit it stuck to on princi0led grounds.

Nevertheless the basic point is that you cant have socialism/communism without a majority wanting and understanding it . Lenin himself was quite candid about the fact that most Russian workers were very far being socialist and said so on several occasions. Whatever his intentions to the contrary he and the Bolsheviks had only one course of action open to them which was to operate and develop capitalism since you cannot impose socialism on a non socialist majority

This what the Bolsheviks did and the rest, as they say, is history. The emergence of a party-state and and an ascendant state capitalist class in the shape of the nomenklatura spelt the complete end of any prospect of progressing to socialsim if there ever was one. The vanguard party was thus the very instrument by which a dictatorship over the Russian proletariat was put in place

Brotto RÃ¼hle

25th August 2013, 22:29

A vanguard party presupposes that the working class needs its "consciousness raised".

bluemangroup

26th August 2013, 01:04

Your post still doesnt quite hit the mark as far as vanguardism is concerned which, as I say, is the argument that a small enlightened minority have to capture power first in order be in a position then to persiuade or educate the majority to socialism.

I agree with argument that has been presented by others that Lenin & Co wanted a mass party along the lines of the German SPD even if conditions under Tsarist Russia prevented that. I agree also that millions of Russian workers supported the Bolsheviks (even if the Russian working class amounted to perhaps only 10% of the population at the time) although that support was predicated essentially on the Bolsheviks refromist programme and its opposition to the war which to its credit it stuck to on princi0led grounds.

Nevertheless the basic point is that you can have socialism/communism without a majority wanting and understanding it . Lenin himself was quite candid about the fact that most Russian workers were very far being socialist and said so on several occasions. Whatever his intentions to the contrary he and the Bolsheviks had only one course of action open to them which was to operate and develop capitalism since you cannot impose socialism on a non socialist majority

This what the Bolsheviks did and the rest, as they say, is history. The emergence of a party-state and and an ascendant state capitalist class in the shape of the nomenklatura spelt the complete end of any prospect of progressing to socialsim if there ever was one. The vanguard party was thus the very instrument by which a dictatorship over the Russian proletariat was put in place

IMHO you're forgetting that that's not what a vanguard party is. It's not exactly a "small enlightened minority," nor does the theory of the vanguard party presuppose that the masses be educated until the majority believes in or supports socialism (as if socialism can simply be introduced, which it can't)

The Bolshevik Party may have not been a mass party at all times, but waxed and waned as the situation changed and as it grew in strength electorally (i.e. in the Moscow and Petrograd Soviets).

Furthermore, they didn't want a mass party "along the lines of the German SPD," as the SPD and the Second International were both considered politically bankrupt by 1917 (1914 at the earliest). In his April Thesis, Lenin called for the formation of a Third International (which indeed finally came into being in 1919). They wanted a new revolutionary international, and they wanted a revolution first against the Czarist regime and later against the Provisional Government (when the latter government had destroyed its credibility amongst the people of Russia).

Lenin may have been very candid on the point that many Russian workers were backwards in their thinking, but that in no way presupposed the impossibility of socialism (even if in only one country, which had been the case since the failure of the European revolutions).

The Red Guard, as an arming of the whole people, had largely been achieved by 1918. A new Red Army was in the process of being formed as a way to defend the revolution adequately (despite the Bolsheviks' firm belief in an armed urban working-class, the primarily peasant-based Red Army proved to be a practical necessity). The soviets had successfully been defended, with periodic Soviet congresses being held on a regular basis.

John Adams once remarked that 'the revolution was effected before the war commenced. the revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people.'

Likewise, the socialist revolution was in the hearts and minds of the Russian people long before the civil war had begun. It was there in February as well as in October.

The vanguard party wasn't a dictatorship over the Russian proletariat, far from it. The Soviet regime may have been "state-capitalist" under the New Economic Policy, but was thoroughly socialist during and after 1928 and until the 1950's.

IMHO your conclusions are flawed, and showcases a serious lack of understanding towards basic Marxist (Leninist) theory.

robbo203

26th August 2013, 07:59

IMHO you're forgetting that that's not what a vanguard party is. It's not exactly a "small enlightened minority," nor does the theory of the vanguard party presuppose that the masses be educated until the majority believes in or supports socialism (as if socialism can simply be introduced, which it can't)

Thats not quite what I said. You can use the term vanguard in a descriptive sense to mean a small enlightened minority and I have no problem with that. Vanguardism as a theory, howerever signifies much more - that this minority
must capture power first in order then to educate the masses into socialism. It can't happen like that. What will assuredly happen is that this vanguard , forced to manage capiutalism by default (since socialism cannot be imposed on a non socialist majority) will in fact become a new emergent ruling class whose interests are opposed to the majority.

There is no argument that a majority has to want and understand socialism before you can have socialism and even vanguardists would agree that the majority need to be educated into socialist thinkjing as they would put it. Trotsky for example was crystal clear on this point. Its just that vanguardists believe they should get into power first before the process of educatiing the masses can begin. That is what dooms the vanguardist project from the start

Furthermore, they didn't want a mass party "along the lines of the German SPD," as the SPD and the Second International were both considered politically bankrupt by 1917 (1914 at the earliest). In his April Thesis, Lenin called for the formation of a Third International (which indeed finally came into being in 1919). They wanted a new revolutionary international, and they wanted a revolution first against the Czarist regime and later against the Provisional Government (when the latter government had destroyed its credibility amongst the people of Russia).

I think you sare mistaken there. Yes they considered the SPD politically bankrupt by 1917 and that it gone over to the side of opportunism - Lenins term for reformism but the organisational form of the SPD was something they aspired even if as Lenin said the political circumstances under Tsarist Russa prevented this. Dont forget the Bo;sheviks came out of the whole social democratic tradition

Lenin may have been very candid on the point that many Russian workers were backwards in their thinking, but that in no way presupposed the impossibility of socialism (even if in only one country, which had been the case since the failure of the European revolutions).

The absence of a socialist majority was not the only factor that made socialism impossible in Russia at the time but it was one of the factors. You cannot have socialism without a majority wanting and understanding it.

Likewise, the socialist revolution was in the hearts and minds of the Russian people long before the civil war had begun. It was there in February as well as in October.

No the great bulk of the population had no inkling of socialism. Lenin himself candidly admitted this. Support for the Bolsheviks was based on its reform programme and its opposition to the war - not socialism

The vanguard party wasn't a dictatorship over the Russian proletariat, far from it. The Soviet regime may have been "state-capitalist" under the New Economic Policy, but was thoroughly socialist during and after 1928 and until the 1950's.

IMHO your conclusions are flawed, and showcases a serious lack of understanding towards basic Marxist (Leninist) theory.

Well Im an anti-leninist Marxist and in my opinion you are just engaging in word games . Socialism in traditional Marxian usage was a synonym for communism - a classless stateless wageless system of society based on the common (not state) ownership of the means of production. By no stretch of the imagination was there ever socialism in Russia at any point in time

bluemangroup

26th August 2013, 21:03

that this minority
must capture power first in order then to educate the masses into socialism. It can't happen like that. What will assuredly happen is that this vanguard , forced to manage capiutalism by default (since socialism cannot be imposed on a non socialist majority) will in fact become a new emergent ruling class whose interests are opposed to the majority.
which would be Blanquism, which isn't the same thing as the vanguard party.

The Bolshevik Party by October 1917 an in the ensuing months after the October Revolution was a mass party composed of intellectuals, workers, etc.

Nor IMHO was socialism "imposed" on the Russian masses; rather, socialism and socialist polices had become popular to a large degree and by 1917 (or 1918, or even further into 1919 and 1920) the bulk of the urban working-class had been won over to the side of the revolutionaries. no doubt the same can not be said of the peasantry (a class wherein the Bolsheviks' presence was weak in)

The absence of a socialist majority was not the only factor that made socialism impossible in Russia at the time but it was one of the factors. You cannot have socialism without a majority wanting and understanding it.Socialism did exist in the Soviet Union (during and after 1928) but yes the USSR did go through a temporary stage during the New Economic Policy wherein the state practiced a form of state-capitalism.

Otherwise, the Soviet Union with all of its contradictions was socialist at a certain point in time.

Well Im an anti-leninist Marxist and in my opinion you are just engaging in word games . Socialism in traditional Marxian usage was a synonym for communism - a classless stateless wageless system of society based on the common (not state) ownership of the means of production. By no stretch of the imagination was there ever socialism in Russia at any point in timeWhich explains why you fail to IMHO look at history from an alternate viewpoint; you accuse me of "word games" (when in truth I was only trying the illustrate the difference in the USSR between the NEP period and that of the five-year plan period of Soviet history)

Furthermore, socialism is not by definition a synonym for communism; the two words denote their own distinct stages of human society and are not interchangeable IMHO.

robbo203

27th August 2013, 06:42

which would be Blanquism, which isn't the same thing as the vanguard party.

The Bolshevik Party by October 1917 an in the ensuing months after the October Revolution was a mass party composed of intellectuals, workers, etc.

Nor IMHO was socialism "imposed" on the Russian masses; rather, socialism and socialist polices had become popular to a large degree and by 1917 (or 1918, or even further into 1919 and 1920) the bulk of the urban working-class had been won over to the side of the revolutionaries. no doubt the same can not be said of the peasantry (a class wherein the Bolsheviks' presence was weak in)

Socialism did exist in the Soviet Union (during and after 1928) but yes the USSR did go through a temporary stage during the New Economic Policy wherein the state practiced a form of state-capitalism.

Otherwise, the Soviet Union with all of its contradictions was socialist at a certain point in time.

Which explains why you fail to IMHO look at history from an alternate viewpoint; you accuse me of "word games" (when in truth I was only trying the illustrate the difference in the USSR between the NEP period and that of the five-year plan period of Soviet history)

Furthermore, socialism is not by definition a synonym for communism; the two words denote their own distinct stages of human society and are not interchangeable IMHO.

This is a humpty dumpty approach to the argument and therefore sterile. You define socialism as what existed in the Soviet Union; I dont. In my book what existed in the Soviet Union was state run capitalism, no more no less

In traditional Marxian usage socialism meant the same thing as communism. The idea that socialism was a transitional stage between capitalism ond communiusm is nowhere to be found in Marx and Engels. If you can cite anything to suggest otherwise then lets see the evidence. I can assure you no such evidence exists. It was Lenin who invented this idea although arguably Kautsky en route to becoming a reformist offered some pointers in that direction

The traditional Marxian usage equating socialism with communism was pretty much widespread in the 19th century and early 20th century. Socialism, like communism, meant a classless stateless moneyless society based on common ownership of the means of production. This was the definition generally used within the social democratic movement and even the Bolsheviks who emerged out of that movement conformed to this definition in the early days

A key text called A Short Course of Economic Science, written by A Bogdanoff, talked of socialism being “the highest stage of society we can conceive”, in which such institutions as taxation and profits will be non-existent and in which “there will not be the market ,buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution.”. This book was published in 1897 and a revised edition, published in August 1919, was used as a textbook in schools and study circles of the Russian Communist Party (Russia 1917-1967: A Socialist Analysis, Socialist Party of Great Britain 1967). Stalin, too, in this early period talked of socialism in this way. For instance, in his book Anarchism or Socialism (1906) he wrote that "Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed -- there will be only free workers". In socialism, argued Stalin, "Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.". (Anarchism or Socialism?J. V. Stalin,Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954, Vol. 1, pp. 297-391) It was this same Stalin who in the 1930s claimed that the Soviet Union was now a fully formed "socialist state" controlled by the working class when he had previously excluded both the state and classes from his conception of socialism. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm).

So "socialism" was not imposed from above on the Russian working class - not in the Marxian sense. What was imposed was state run capitalism. You assert that "by 1917 (or 1918, or even further into 1919 and 1920) the bulk of the urban working-class had been won over to the side of the revolutionaries." but concede that "no doubt the same can not be said of the peasantry (a class wherein the Bolsheviks' presence was weak in" Given that the Russian working class constituted only about 10 per cent of the population at the times I fail to see how your version of "socialism" cannot be construed as a form of imposition from aboven when a clear majority by your own admission, had little enthusiasm for it.

The Russian workers certainly gave significant support to the Bolsheviks, I dont deny that. But that support was essentially predicated on the Bolshevik reform programme - not socialism - and above all , the Bolsheviks opposition to the war

In the years following the revolution we see the emergence of an authoriitarian dictatorship ,the centralisation of power in the hands of the party state, the crushing or co-option of workers bodies like the trade unions and the factory committtees and the banning of opposition to the Party both within and without. To suggest that this not the actions of a ruthless state apparatus imposing its wishes upon the population is an abuse of the very meaning of the word. It is utterly indefensible and yet there are still people today who pathetically wheel out the same old tired and discredited arguments in their bid to defend this discredited state capitalist regime

Baseball

28th August 2013, 22:59

There is no argument that a majority has to want and understand socialism before you can have socialism and even vanguardists would agree that the majority need to be educated into socialist thinkjing as they would put it.

The vanguard would argue, correctly, that there are many differing interpretations as to what is, and what is not, socialism and socialist thinking. As such, their role is to guide the workers down the correct path. Such efforts will require distinguishing between differing thoughts of socialism, as well avoiding traces of counterrevolution.

Trotsky for example was crystal clear on this point. Its just that vanguardists believe they should get into power first before the process of educatiing the masses can begin. That is what dooms the vanguardist project from the start

And does conflict amongst the socialist parties doom socialism from the start? How about counter-revolution?

Baseball

28th August 2013, 23:04

In traditional Marxian usage socialism meant the same thing as communism. The idea that socialism was a transitional stage between capitalism ond communiusm is nowhere to be found in Marx and Engels. If you can cite anything to suggest otherwise then lets see the evidence. I can assure you no such evidence exists. It was Lenin who invented this idea although arguably Kautsky en route to becoming a reformist offered some pointers in that direction

But so what? Marx himself sought to distinguish between his ideas and others whom he labeled utopians.

Unlike Marx, Lenin actually had responsibility to create a socialist community- it was not a theoretical undertaking for him.

The traditional Marxian usage equating socialism with communism was pretty much widespread in the 19th century and early 20th century. Socialism, like communism, meant a classless stateless moneyless society based on common ownership of the means of production. This was the definition generally used within the social democratic movement and even the Bolsheviks who emerged out of that movement conformed to this definition in the early days

As above-- it was entirely theoretical for the Bolsheviks-- until they found themselves n charge and actually had to govern-- to create socialism. Furthermore, they needed to distinguish between themselves and socialists of other parties who disagreed with the path the Bolsheviks were taking.

tuwix

29th August 2013, 06:36

But so what? Marx himself sought to distinguish between his ideas and others whom he labeled utopians.

Unlike Marx, Lenin actually had responsibility to create a socialist community- it was not a theoretical undertaking for him.

As above-- it was entirely theoretical for the Bolsheviks-- until they found themselves n charge and actually had to govern-- to create socialism. Furthermore, they needed to distinguish between themselves and socialists of other parties who disagreed with the path the Bolsheviks were taking.

It seems you don't understand to what you refer.
Those quotes above are trying to say that Lenin has made unforgettable errors in terms of Marx's ideology. And actually he has.

bluemangroup

30th August 2013, 21:08

This is a humpty dumpty approach to the argument and therefore sterile. You define socialism as what existed in the Soviet Union; I dont. In my book what existed in the Soviet Union was state run capitalism, no more no less

You blindly state that the Soviet Union was "state-capitalist," as if you are right and I am wrong.

I understand that we both as individuals can have widely differing opinions, but rather then attempt to argue with me you simply state that the Soviet Union was state-capitalist. case closed in other words.

In my humble (and strong) opinion, the USSR was state-capitalist under the New Economic Policy but was socialist owing to the creation of a planned economy during and after 1928 with all of the contradictions inherent in the Stalin-era (the attempts to collectivize agriculture, the struggle against kulaks, rapid industrialization as to catch up with the west esp. Europe, etc.)

In traditional Marxian usage socialism meant the same thing as communism. The idea that socialism was a transitional stage between capitalism ond communiusm is nowhere to be found in Marx and Engels. If you can cite anything to suggest otherwise then lets see the evidence. I can assure you no such evidence exists. It was Lenin who invented this idea although arguably Kautsky en route to becoming a reformist offered some pointers in that direction

IMHO no, socialism is not the same thing as communism by definition. Socialism is the transitional stage appearing after the destruction of capitalism but prior to the final stage of communism. It is characterized by the existence of a state and thus class struggle still goes on under socialism (i.e. a proletarian dictatorship).

Communism is a stateless, classless society arriving just as socialism and the subsequent state under socialism withers away over time.

The traditional Marxian usage equating socialism with communism was pretty much widespread in the 19th century and early 20th century. Socialism, like communism, meant a classless stateless moneyless society based on common ownership of the means of production. This was the definition generally used within the social democratic movement and even the Bolsheviks who emerged out of that movement conformed to this definition in the early days

No, this isn't the case in the 19th or 20th centuries. Marx, Engels, and later Lenin never stated that socialism and communism were one and the same thing. To think so is absurd as it hasn't been the case theoretically or practically. Socialism and communism are two separate stages of society.

o "socialism" was not imposed from above on the Russian working class - not in the Marxian sense. What was imposed was state run capitalism. You assert that "by 1917 (or 1918, or even further into 1919 and 1920) the bulk of the urban working-class had been won over to the side of the revolutionaries." but concede that "no doubt the same can not be said of the peasantry (a class wherein the Bolsheviks' presence was weak in" Given that the Russian working class constituted only about 10 per cent of the population at the times I fail to see how your version of "socialism" cannot be construed as a form of imposition from aboven when a clear majority by your own admission, had little enthusiasm for it.

The Bolsheviks did enlist the peasantry into the struggle, through the spreading of soviet power and early attempts at actual land reform. Soviet power meant the creation of rural soviets, while land reform unlike under the Provisional Government (which resisted land reform tooth-and-nail according to Orlando Figes in his book Peasant Russia Civil War) was actually carried out under the new Soviet government extensively.

Without the peasantry (and even Orlando Figes says this) the urban workers' revolution couldn't have been consolidated in the cities assuming that the countryside refused to cooperate with the new Soviet government.

Hence Lenin's constant insistence that the Russian (October) Revolution rested on two classes: (urban) workers and peasants, who in turn were represented by the ruling communist party and through the soviets, non-party trade unions, and other forms of local power.

In the years following the revolution we see the emergence of an authoriitarian dictatorship ,the centralisation of power in the hands of the party state, the crushing or co-option of workers bodies like the trade unions and the factory committtees and the banning of opposition to the Party both within and without. To suggest that this not the actions of a ruthless state apparatus imposing its wishes upon the population is an abuse of the very meaning of the word. It is utterly indefensible and yet there are still people today who pathetically wheel out the same old tired and discredited arguments in their bid to defend this discredited state capitalist regime

How un-Marxist of you IMHO to label the future Soviet Union as a "authoritarian dictatorship."

Fairly open and free elections to rural soviets still occurred in the Volga countryside according to Orlando Figes in 1919, even as War Communism was implemented, and the same can be said of the urban soviets (primarily the main Petrograd and Moscow Soviets).

Sure, as numerous historians have mentioned (such as Alexander Rabinowitch, Mary McAuley, etc.) the soviets had become bureaucratized from 1918 onwards but that in no way eliminated their role in the Russian Revolution and Civil War as popular and elected bodies of workers and peasants.

IMHO the Soviet Union in the 1920's, 1930's, and into the early 1950's until Stalin's death was a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, although one with notable flaws and setbacks throughout the decades mentioned.

Red_Banner

30th August 2013, 22:00

"How un-Marxist of you IMHO to label the future Soviet Union as a "authoritarian dictatorship."

But what is ment by "autoritarian"?

Have you read Engels' "On Authority"?

robbo203

31st August 2013, 23:37

You blindly state that the Soviet Union was "state-capitalist," as if you are right and I am wrong.

I understand that we both as individuals can have widely differing opinions, but rather then attempt to argue with me you simply state that the Soviet Union was state-capitalist. case closed in other words.

In my humble (and strong) opinion, the USSR was state-capitalist under the New Economic Policy but was socialist owing to the creation of a planned economy during and after 1928 with all of the contradictions inherent in the Stalin-era (the attempts to collectivize agriculture, the struggle against kulaks, rapid industrialization as to catch up with the west esp. Europe, etc.)

The so called "planned" economy (GOSPLAN's were more a wishlist of production targets that were routinely motified to make it look like the plan was being fulfilled) is not at all the same thing as a socialist economy. I dont simply state that Soviet Union was state capitalist and leave it at that. Trying reading what I said for a change instead of inventing trumped charges. My point is that the fundamental core features of capitalism were all present in the Soviet Union - wage labour, prof'it/surplus value, commodity exchange etc - and this is what made the Soviet economy a capitalist economy. While at a fundamental level the economy was capitalist there were neverthless important differences between soviet style state capitalism and say, American capitalism or for that matter Japanese capitalism which was different again

IMHO no, socialism is not the same thing as communism by definition. Socialism is the transitional stage appearing after the destruction of capitalism but prior to the final stage of communism. It is characterized by the existence of a state and thus class struggle still goes on under socialism (i.e. a proletarian dictatorship).
Communism is a stateless, classless society arriving just as socialism and the subsequent state under socialism withers away over time.

But your opinion in this regard is a Leninist opinion. It is Lenin who made this distinction between socialism and communism , not Marx. This is the point I was making.

No, this isn't the case in the 19th or 20th centuries. Marx, Engels, and later Lenin never stated that socialism and communism were one and the same thing. To think so is absurd as it hasn't been the case theoretically or practically. Socialism and communism are two separate stages of society.

Excuse me, but I have quoted from texts which directly refute what you claim here. Have you nothing to say about that? Socialism and communism were almost universally held to be interchangeable terms up until the early 20th century within the broad social democratic movement from which the Bolsheviks emerged and this explains why even people like Stalin in the early days defined socialism in exactly the same way as communism

The Bolsheviks did enlist the peasantry into the struggle, through the spreading of soviet power and early attempts at actual land reform. Soviet power meant the creation of rural soviets, while land reform unlike under the Provisional Government (which resisted land reform tooth-and-nail according to Orlando Figes in his book Peasant Russia Civil War) was actually carried out under the new Soviet government extensively.

Without the peasantry (and even Orlando Figes says this) the urban workers' revolution couldn't have been consolidated in the cities assuming that the countryside refused to cooperate with the new Soviet government.

Hence Lenin's constant insistence that the Russian (October) Revolution rested on two classes: (urban) workers and peasants, who in turn were represented by the ruling communist party and through the soviets, non-party trade unions, and other forms of local power.

Not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. All I said was the Russian working class was a small minority of the population - 10% - while the great majority were still the peasantry. It was you who said that "by 1917 (or 1918, or even further into 1919 and 1920) the bulk of the urban working-class had been won over to the side of the revolutionaries. no doubt the same can not be said of the peasantry (a class wherein the Bolsheviks' presence was weak in) Draw your own conclusions. If the Bolsheviks were a weak presence in the peasantry that constituted the great majority then it would seem to be not an unreasonable inference to make tbat the Boslsheviks were a fairly weak presence in the population as a whole, no?

How un-Marxist of you IMHO to label the future Soviet Union as a "authoritarian dictatorship."

Oh come now. So you dont think the kind of things I talked about are indicative of an authoritarian dictatorship. Ill repeat here what I said

In the years following the revolution we see the emergence of an authoriitarian dictatorship ,the centralisation of power in the hands of the party state, the crushing or co-option of workers bodies like the trade unions and the factory committtees and the banning of opposition to the Party both within and without

Fairly open and free elections to rural soviets still occurred in the Volga countryside according to Orlando Figes in 1919, even as War Communism was implemented, and the same can be said of the urban soviets (primarily the main Petrograd and Moscow Soviets).

Sure, as numerous historians have mentioned (such as Alexander Rabinowitch, Mary McAuley, etc.) the soviets had become bureaucratized from 1918 onwards but that in no way eliminated their role in the Russian Revolution and Civil War as popular and elected bodies of workers and peasants.

I did not suggest political dictatorship commenced upon the Bolsheviks gaining power. In fact the party machine had little control even over its own memberhship in the first few turbulent years, post revolution. The accumulation and consolidation of state power in the hands of the Party , the centralisation of power within the Party itself and the elimination of all opposition inside and outside the Party was a gradual incremental process that took place over a number of years. It was not a one-off event and it culminated in - lets not be mealty mouthed about it - an authoritarian dictatroship. You can bury your head in the sand if you like but you cannot deny the plain historical facts in this case

IMHO the Soviet Union in the 1920's, 1930's, and into the early 1950's until Stalin's death was a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, although one with notable flaws and setbacks throughout the decades mentioned.

Genuine dictatorhip of the proletariat, my arse. It was a dictatorship of the Party over the proletariat who were alienated from the means of production and had no say at all in the important decisions affecting the soviet economy. The red bourgeoisie - the nomenklatura - enjoyed a privileged way of life wholly removed from the experience of ordinary Russian workers. Some amongst this red bourgeoisie accumulated considerable personal wealth in their own right during the Stalin years according to a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, Bishop proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success. How ironic!

bluemangroup

1st September 2013, 19:34

The so called "planned" economy (GOSPLAN's were more a wishlist of production targets that were routinely motified to make it look like the plan was being fulfilled) is not at all the same thing as a socialist economy. I dont simply state that Soviet Union was state capitalist and leave it at that. Trying reading what I said for a change instead of inventing trumped charges. My point is that the fundamental core features of capitalism were all present in the Soviet Union - wage labour, prof'it/surplus value, commodity exchange etc - and this is what made the Soviet economy a capitalist economy. While at a fundamental level the economy was capitalist there were neverthless important differences between soviet style state capitalism and say, American capitalism or for that matter Japanese capitalism which was different again

So by your definition, an economy that is planned (and hence not based on the free-market and/or capitalism in-general) is different from that of a socialist economy (which IMHO is the same thing as a planned economy and vice versa)

But your opinion in this regard is a Leninist opinion. It is Lenin who made this distinction between socialism and communism , not Marx. This is the point I was making.That and Marx and Engels repeatedly talked about socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat (in relation to the Paris Commune) as a transitional stage prior to communism, whose writings Lenin quoted from in his The State And Revolution to substantiate the fact that socialism comes/came before communism.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges

...But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
-Marx, from his Critique of the Gotha Programme

Hence socialism, and hence Lenin's instance that socialism as a transitional stage was still birth marked by 'the birth of the old society from whose womb it it emerges.'
You seem to be suggesting as an alternative to socialism full-scale communism, which is impossible IMHO after a revolution owing to the fact that the new society still manages to retain numerous elements of the old and overthrown society (In revolutionary China there was a struggle to put women on an equal footing with men, the rural village society having been male-dominated even as women were given farmland and housing to combat such views)

Unless, of course, your suggesting that we try to implement communism immediately after a revolution (i.e. Cambodia, which didn't end well)

Not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. All I said was the Russian working class was a small minority of the population - 10% - while the great majority were still the peasantry. It was you who said that "by 1917 (or 1918, or even further into 1919 and 1920) the bulk of the urban working-class had been won over to the side of the revolutionaries. no doubt the same can not be said of the peasantry (a class wherein the Bolsheviks' presence was weak in) Draw your own conclusions. If the Bolsheviks were a weak presence in the peasantry that constituted the great majority then it would seem to be not an unreasonable inference to make tbat the Boslsheviks were a fairly weak presence in the population as a whole, no?
My point is that despite the Bolsheviks' weaknesses in terms of peasant support, considerable efforts were taken early on and during the civil war to win the peasantry over to the side of the revolution (hence the worker-peasant alliance, hence trying to broaden the revolution to incorporate the vast majority of the population)

Oh come now. So you dont think the kind of things I talked about are indicative of an authoritarian dictatorship. Ill repeat here what I said

In the years following the revolution we see the emergence of an authoriitarian dictatorship ,the centralisation of power in the hands of the party state, the crushing or co-option of workers bodies like the trade unions and the factory committtees and the banning of opposition to the Party both within and withoutSo you just repeat the same (erroneous) info as if that makes you right (again) and me wrong?

You're not refuting my argument, as you're simply repeating what you said earlier verbatim as if that makes it any more right.

Genuine dictatorhip of the proletariat, my arse. It was a dictatorship of the Party over the proletariat who were alienated from the means of production and had no say at all in the important decisions affecting the soviet economy. The red bourgeoisie - the nomenklatura - enjoyed a privileged way of life wholly removed from the experience of ordinary Russian workers. Some amongst this red bourgeoisie accumulated considerable personal wealth in their own right during the Stalin years according to a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, Bishop proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success. How ironic! I'm not denying the existence of a bureaucracy under socialism, which IMHO is a very real thing (in any society, be it capitalist or socialist) that should be combated.

I'm also not denying that a handful of bureaucrats prospered due to their key governmental positions.

In a revolution, as well as in a revolutionary society, there's always going to be opportunists who don't care about anyone except themselves (and who disregard the will of the people)

I look at the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, etc. from a practical and dialectical materialist viewpoint.

robbo203

1st September 2013, 23:48

So by your definition, an economy that is planned (and hence not based on the free-market and/or capitalism in-general) is different from that of a socialist economy (which IMHO is the same thing as a planned economy and vice versa)

All economies involve planning. The free market version of capitalism is full of plans. Entrepeneurs plan their investment strategies. These plans spontaneously interact with each other although the overall pattern of allocation is not planned. Central planning is the proposal to replace these millions of plans with one single plan or , what amounts to the same thing, to plan the interactions between these separate plans instead of allowing them to interact on a spontaneous basis and thus in effect absorbing them into a single societywide plan.

This concept is not only completely impracticable but I would say totally at variance with the nature of a socialist or communistic economy. I dont at the moment have the time to elaborate on this point right now - its way beyond my bedtime - though we can look at it later. But my main point is simply that a socialist/communist mode of production, like any other mode of production, is defined by its structure of relations to the means of production and not by the way in which production is planned

That and Marx and Engels repeatedly talked about socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat (in relation to the Paris Commune) as a transitional stage prior to communism, whose writings Lenin quoted from in his The State And Revolution to substantiate the fact that socialism comes/came before communism.

Give me one single instance where Marx and Engels actually described socialism as a transitional stage prior to communism. You cant, can you?

-Marx, from his Critique of the Gotha Programme

Hence socialism, and hence Lenin's instance that socialism as a transitional stage was still birth marked by 'the birth of the old society from whose womb it it emerges.'

Nowhere does the Critique talk of socialism as the lower stage of communism. All Marx did was differentitate between lower and higher communism. I repeat again - this is Lenin's own misinterpretation of the Critique

You're not refuting my argument, as you're simply repeating what you said earlier verbatim as if that makes it any more right.

.

On the contrary you keep on missing the point which is that what you call "socialism" has nothing to do with what is meant by socialism in the traditional Marxian sense . It is simply state run capitalism and those revolutions that you refer to were simply capitalist revolutions dressed up in the political rhetoric of socialism.

I keep providing you with the evidence but you keep ignoring it and then accuse me of repeating what I said earlier. Thats a bit rich coming from you, frankly.