M-Ls: What would stop a modern M-L revolution from turning into a Russia/China 2.0?

[Skyhilist]

Obviously all of us, or at least the vast majority of us on here do not believe that modern day China or Russia are socialist or communist.

Marxist-Leninists however would say that the Russian Revolution (and also the Chinese Revolution for Maoists) brought about socialism/DoTP for at least some amount of time. But as we all know, this didn't last. What I mainly hear from Leninists as a reason for this is that the "material conditions" in Russia (and China for Maoists) caused the ultimate downfall of the USSR (and again, communist China, for Maoists).

At the time though, surely revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao did not recognize this, correct? Because if they did, then why would they carry out a revolution doomed to failure? Or if you believe that the material conditions at the time of the revolution were not ultimately dooming the revolution to failure, what do you see as the problem in why the revolutions were short-lived?

Moreover, (and this is only if your a M-L-ist who believes this is why the Russian and Chinese revolutions eventually fell to capitalism) if ultimately "material conditions" in that region at that time led to the eventual reinstating of capitalism but weren't foreseen at that time period, what leads you to believe that new unforeseen difficulties arising from modern material conditions wouldn't arise, dooming a modern M-L revolution?

Finally, as a Marxist-Leninist, what would you like to see done under a modern Marxist-Leninist revolution that would ensure that capitalism was not ultimately reinstated as with Russia, China, etc.?

Also, before any left-comms or fellow anarchists chime in: I know the anti-Leninist arguments about "state capitalism" and what not, and don't subscribe to Leninism myself at all, but am really looking to hear mainly from Leninists here so I can at least get both sides of the story before I say "this tendency will always fail" or "this tendency is always more practical", etc.

Thanks!

[DDR]

The material conditions that you are referring has to do with how the socialist power was constituted in those countries. The fall of the USSR and the path that Deng Xiao began in China is just counterrevolution, just like the burgeoise states had many in the XIXth Century.

[Skyhilist]

The material conditions that you are referring has to do with how the socialist power was constituted in those countries. The fall of the USSR and the path that Deng Xiao began in China is just counterrevolution, just like the burgeoise states had many in the XIXth Century.

Alright, fair enough. So how would a modern Deng Xiao be prevented from emerging in a modern M-L revolution then?

[DDR]

Alright, fair enough. So how would a modern Deng Xiao be prevented from emerging in a modern M-L revolution then?

Keep the class struggle, because classes stll exist in socialism.

[20ARM13]

We would simply have to put an end to "modern Deng Xiao's" before they came to fruition, Thanks to the lessons of yesteryear.

[Zealot]

Obviously all of us, or at least the vast majority of us on here do not believe that modern day China or Russia are socialist or communist.

Marxist-Leninists however would say that the Russian Revolution (and also the Chinese Revolution for Maoists) brought about socialism/DoTP for at least some amount of time. But as we all know, this didn't last. What I mainly hear from Leninists as a reason for this is that the "material conditions" in Russia (and China for Maoists) caused the ultimate downfall of the USSR (and again, communist China, for Maoists).

At the time though, surely revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao did not recognize this, correct?

They did recognise this.


Because if they did, then why would they carry out a revolution doomed to failure?

Why? What would have been the point in saying "pack up guys, we'll try again in another hundred years or so." There were legitimate gains made during these revolutions but the struggle was to retain them in such backward regions of the planet while also defending against counterrevolution and the advances of imperialism.


Moreover, (and this is only if your a M-L-ist who believes this is why the Russian and Chinese revolutions eventually fell to capitalism) if ultimately "material conditions" in that region at that time led to the eventual reinstating of capitalism but weren't foreseen at that time period, what leads you to believe that new unforeseen difficulties arising from modern material conditions wouldn't arise, dooming a modern M-L revolution?

Russia and China have modernised; they are no longer under feudalism. Moreover, both are nuclear powers with modern armies and equipment capable of defending from imperialism and counterrevolution. In China, however, there does still exist a large peasantry and the success of its economy currently depends on the US to continually buy its exports made with wage slavery.


Finally, as a Marxist-Leninist, what would you like to see done under a modern Marxist-Leninist revolution that would ensure that capitalism was not ultimately reinstated as with Russia, China, etc.?

I'm not sure why you focus in so much on "modern M-L revolution" since the problems in Russia and China are and would have been the same regardless of tendency. These aren't just our problems but problems to be considered by all.

[Skyhilist]

I'm still a bit confused on what specific actions (short of just killing any dissidents) you guys would actually propose to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the possibilities of a counterrevolution. Just because issues of not being modernized would be behind us, who's to say that different unmanageable and/or unpredictable problems wouldn't arise in a future M-L revolution that would sabatoge it and cause it's downfall (similarly as in the past)? If your revolutionary strategy is just going to lead to failure like in China, then why choose that strategy? Especially when there are going to be so many dissidents who hate it, leaving the majority of historians to label your revolution as "repressive" when action has to be taken against them to stop a "counterrevolution". Seems like all that past revolutions have accomplished that still stands in modern times is the alienation of most people from communism (in other words, the people who think communism can only be brutal and repressive because of nations like the USSR and China that had to be repressive because of the strategy they chose).

[Let's Get Free]

The right people would have to win the power struggle after the great leader dies.

[20ARM13]

Violence is and has always been the last resort. The key in any Communist revolution is Education. You say in your question "unpredictable" which sums itself up. We are not going to be able to treat an "unpredictable" situation until that situation arises.

[Riveraxis]

ML's dont have enough faith in the proletariat to lead their own revolution.

If the proletariat isn't strong enough to lead their own revolution, I don't see any point to a revolution. Why go half way? An authoritarian regime will never "transform" into a communism. It will continuously fight against it's own contradictions through more and more authoritarian measures. Nobody wants that, besides the ruling class I guess.

[DDR]

I'm still a bit confused on what specific actions (short of just killing any dissidents) you guys would actually propose to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the possibilities of a counterrevolution.

There was some discussion about it in this thread from the other day:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoism-t179408/index.html?t=179408


Just because issues of not being modernized would be behind us, who's to say that different unmanageable and/or unpredictable problems wouldn't arise in a future M-L revolution that would sabatoge it and cause it's downfall (similarly as in the past)? If your revolutionary strategy is just going to lead to failure like in China, then why choose that strategy?

The Paris Commune also failed, does it means that we shouldn't fight for socialism because it's a failed strategy?


Especially when there are going to be so many dissidents who hate it, leaving the majority of historians to label your revolution as "repressive" when action has to be taken against them to stop a "counterrevolution". Seems like all that past revolutions have accomplished that still stands in modern times is the alienation of most people from communism (in other words, the people who think communism can only be brutal and repressive because of nations like the USSR and China that had to be repressive because of the strategy they chose).

Read what the conservatives, monarchist and other counterrevolutionaries said about the French Revolution at the end of the XVIIIth century and begining of the XIXth. Same happens with socialism, it doesn't matter how democratic it is, it will be called athoritarian (Chaves was an evil dictator for the media, even he won 13 elections). No matter how the political dissidence is handled always the country will be a brutal represive regime (see Cuba and the gusanera).

Ultil cultural hegemony hasn't been achieved the risk of counterrevolution and the slandering by burgeoise "historians" and media will exist.

[Nevsky]

Material conditions were not the only reason for socialism's fall in Russia and China (and the eastern bloc). Modern revisionism contributed a lot, too. Nikita Khrushchev effectively stopped socialist development in the USSR when his clique took power.

I'm not saying that with him the USSR magically turned capitalist over night, however, he caused some major irreversible damage. On the one hand he confused and split the once united and enthusiastic soviet population (and the whole communist movement) with his inconsiderate denunciation of Stalin and on the other hand he caused severe economic problems by trying to imitate imperialist nation's living standards.

By the time that Brezhnev came to power, the USSR could only have stagnated the way it did due to both the lost genuine socialist identity of the people and the deviation from scientific marxism. Therefor, M-L in the future needs to prevent Opportunists from getting into a too powerful position within the proletarian state (in fact the "General Secretary" office was abolished by the 19th Congress of the CPSU).

[ind_com]

ML's dont have enough faith in the proletariat to lead their own revolution.

If the proletariat isn't strong enough to lead their own revolution, I don't see any point to a revolution. Why go half way? An authoritarian regime will never "transform" into a communism. It will continuously fight against it's own contradictions through more and more authoritarian measures. Nobody wants that, besides the ruling class I guess.

A proletariat that is being starved to death by capitalism does not think that much about going half way of full way. Even if they are not ready for spontaneous uprisings, they have two choices; either they accept the leadership of the vanguard party and militarily overthrow the ruling classes, or they starve to death. Waiting until the pre-conditions of revolution reach an imaginary perfection, is the line of middle-class idealists who never stand at the extreme receiving end of capitalism.

[Skyhilist]

There was some discussion about it in this thread from the other day:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoism-t179408/index.html?t=179408



The Paris Commune also failed, does it means that we shouldn't fight for socialism because it's a failed strategy?

I didn't say socialism itself is a failed strategy. My question was, why choose Marxism-Leninism as the strategy for achieving socialism when it's been so prone to failure in the past? In other words, if this formula for achieving socialism is already known to fail such a high percentage of the time in the end (as we see by the downfall of the USSR, DoTP China, etc.), why continue on with the same formula instead of pursuing a different one hasn't already shown itself to have a high percentage of failure?


Read what the conservatives, monarchist and other counterrevolutionaries said about the French Revolution at the end of the XVIIIth century and begining of the XIXth. Same happens with socialism, it doesn't matter how democratic it is, it will be called athoritarian (Chaves was an evil dictator for the media, even he won 13 elections). No matter how the political dissidence is handled always the country will be a brutal represive regime (see Cuba and the gusanera).

Ultil cultural hegemony hasn't been achieved the risk of counterrevolution and the slandering by burgeoise "historians" and media will exist.

It seems to me actually that history class just tends to ignore the less authoritarian versions of socialism to be honest. How can we accurately speculate though on what the general historical perspective would be on a mass strategy of revolution that has never taken place (i.e. large scale libertarian socialism)? Certainly things like The Great Purge are never going to win people over to communism, at the very least, even if conservative historians would portray any form of communism negatively.

I mean, when I see revolutions of the past, I think are they really worth it? Millions of people died protecting what seems to me as ultimately a failed formula with nothing being done to protect the revolution after the deaths of leaders within the vanguard party. Surely there is at least some measures Marxist-Leninists would like to see taken in the future to stop a counterrevolution from occurring after the death of the first revolutionary leader (again, short of just killing everyone who doesn't agree with the leadership)?

[ind_com]

I didn't say socialism itself is a failed strategy. My question was, why choose Marxism-Leninism as the strategy for achieving socialism when it's been so prone to failure in the past? In other words, if this formula for achieving socialism is already known to fail such a high percentage of the time in the end (as we see by the downfall of the USSR, DoTP China, etc.), why continue on with the same formula instead of pursuing a different one hasn't already shown itself to have a high percentage of failure?

There can be thousands of proposed formulae that haven't been implemented and hence have not failed in practice. Why don't you implement whatever formula you have in mind to convince us that it fails less than the ML model?

[Yuppie Grinder]

The intellectual bankruptcy of Stalinism is made naked whenever you people are asked a perfectly reasonable question like this. What you spout is just pure ideology, you have no class struggle analysis when discussing the liberalization of the USSR and PRC, just a no-true-scotsman argument. History is not made by great men.
There is never going to be another Marxist-Leninist "revolution" and we should all be glad.

[ind_com]

There is never going to be another Marxist-Leninist "revolution" and we should all be glad.

Sorry to disappoint you there, but ML or 'Stalinist' revolutions are advancing and will soon end your gladness of enjoying a middle class life in an imperialist country.

[DDR]

I didn't say socialism itself is a failed strategy. My question was, why choose Marxism-Leninism as the strategy for achieving socialism when it's been so prone to failure in the past? In other words, if this formula for achieving socialism is already known to fail such a high percentage of the time in the end (as we see by the downfall of the USSR, DoTP China, etc.), why continue on with the same formula instead of pursuing a different one hasn't already shown itself to have a high percentage of failure?

You know, if I was a bloody sectarian, I could turn the whole question arround and ask why should we employ any other way to achieve socialism since no other tendency has achieved anything nor has become any kind of threat to global capitalism. But just out of respect I don't go arround the forum posting that kind of crap. And yes, I know that answering a question with another question is rude, I'm sorry.


It seems to me actually that history class just tends to ignore the less authoritarian versions of socialism to be honest. How can we accurately speculate though on what the general historical perspective would be on a mass strategy of revolution that has never taken place (i.e. large scale libertarian socialism)? Certainly things like The Great Purge are never going to win people over to communism, at the very least, even if conservative historians would portray any form of communism negatively.

It is just like Robespierre's terror, it's not to win people, but to assert hegemony in the early stages of a post revolutionary society.


I mean, when I see revolutions of the past, I think are they really worth it? Millions of people died protecting what seems to me as ultimately a failed formula with nothing being done to protect the revolution after the deaths of leaders within the vanguard party. Surely there is at least some measures Marxist-Leninists would like to see taken in the future to stop a counterrevolution from occurring after the death of the first revolutionary leader (again, short of just killing everyone who doesn't agree with the leadership)?

Better to have thousand practical failures, than one perfect theory with any kind of practical implications. Your tone is defeatist, what would us do then? Just stay home until the perfect theory comes in the perfect time to achieve an everlasting perfect society?


The intellectual bankruptcy of Stalinism is made naked whenever you people are asked a perfectly reasonable question like this. What you spout is just pure ideology, you have no class struggle analysis when discussing the liberalization of the USSR and PRC, just a no-true-scotsman argument. History is not made by great men.
There is never going to be another Marxist-Leninist "revolution" and we should all be glad.

Cool story bro.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Sorry to disappoint you there, but ML or 'Stalinist' revolutions are advancing and will soon end your gladness of enjoying a middle class life in an imperialist country.

I'm shaking in my middle class boots.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Sorry to disappoint you there, but ML or 'Stalinist' revolutions are advancing and will soon end your gladness of enjoying a middle class life in an imperialist country.
I thought we recognised only proletarian revolutions (yeah and bourgeois political ones), class struggle being the driving force and not ideology.

Anyway, when you write of advancing revolutions today, are you just talking about the Naxalite insurgency in India or are there other examples you have in mind?

[Let's Get Free]

Sorry to disappoint you there, but ML or 'Stalinist' revolutions are advancing and will soon end your gladness of enjoying a middle class life in an imperialist country.

Unfortunately, the Marxist Leninist approach to revolution always, always, always leads to the perpetuation of capitalism. If any of your Marxist Leninist guerrilla groups succeed in their 'people's war,' I don't need a crystal ball to tell you that this will be the outcome.

[Skyhilist]

Well this is frustrating. It seems instead of actually dealing with the obvious problems I mentioned (e.g. Effectively replacing leadership once the first great leader dies without killing all people who disagree with the leadership) people have just retorted "Well what makes your ideas so much better?!" You guys obviously misunderstand why I made this thread. I honestly wanted to understand how Leninists would propose dealing with these problems, not try to prove how other tendencies are always better than Leninism. If you read my first post in its entirety, this should have been clear. Yet instead of getting clear answers, all I get is "well what makes your tendency so awesome?!" I would be happy to discuss my own viewpoints at a later time, but please, would you first just answer my questions. I seriously want to know how Leninists propose dealing with such things. Is that so much to ask?

[DDR]

Well this is frustrating. It seems instead of actually dealing with the obvious problems I mentioned (e.g. Effectively replacing leadership once the first great leader dies without killing all people who disagree with the leadership) people have just retorted "Well what makes your ideas so much better?!" You guys obviously misunderstand why I made this thread. I honestly wanted to understand how Leninists would propose dealing with these problems, not try to prove how other tendencies are always better than Leninism. If you read my first post in its entirety, this should have been clear. Yet instead of getting clear answers, all I get is "well what makes your tendency so awesome?!" I would be happy to discuss my own viewpoints at a later time, but please, would you first just answer my questions. I seriously want to know how Leninists propose dealing with such things. Is that so much to ask?

Your question is tendency slandering for the sake of it. You have asked why should anyone follow the ml path since it has been proven a failure. The answers is that counterrevolution happens when you dont have cultural hegemony, it happened in every revolution. How many counterrevolutions have faced the burgeoise only from 1789 onwards? If I recall correctly, after the french revolution only in france there has been, 5 republics, one empire, two monarchies, a socialist revolution and many other things.

What I try to tell you with this is that since revolutions and the stablisment of new societys are a really complex historical processes, and since I dont have a cristal ball I cannot forsee what be the outcome of any historical process. Therefore, judging a marxism leninism as a failure because the fall of the ussr is like saying that burgeoise liberalism is a failure because of the french restoration.

[JPSartre12]

The intellectual bankruptcy of Stalinism is made naked whenever you people are asked a perfectly reasonable question like this. What you spout is just pure ideology, you have no class struggle analysis when discussing the liberalization of the USSR and PRC, just a no-true-scotsman argument. History is not made by great men.
There is never going to be another Marxist-Leninist "revolution" and we should all be glad.

Even though I'm (and by the way that this thread looks, some others) very anti-Marxist-Leninist for purely ideological reasons, I'm honest enough to realize that the historical moment of the Russian and Chinese revolutions are extraordinarily different nowadays, and the differing material conditions may result in a ML revolution being different now. We can't pretend to know "what" a ML revolution (or a revolution of any kind, really) today would look like exactly.

[Skyhilist]

What I try to tell you with this is that since revolutions and the stablisment of new societys are a really complex historical processes, and since I dont have a cristal ball I cannot forsee what be the outcome of any historical process. Therefore, judging a marxism leninism as a failure because the fall of the ussr is like saying that burgeoise liberalism is a failure because of the french restoration.

Clearly you still aren't understanding what I'm asking. I'm not claiming that M-L-ism will always be a failure. I am asking what mechanisms modern-day M-Ls support putting in place to fix things that led to failure in the past (e.g. replacing one leader with another without "counterrevolutionaries" getting in the way and without killing everyone you don't agree with). I think it's obvious that these are issues that would face any Leninist revolution (unless you somehow think that leaders can be immortal), and issues that would need to be dealt with REGARDLESS of what the material conditions were at the time. So have you got any answers on how modern-day Leninism would deal with stuff like this or not?

Again, I am not saying (as of now) that Leninism is an automatic failure and that it will never work. I am simply asking how modern day Leninists would address the issues that led to the downfall of Leninism in the USSR, China, Albania, etc. to ensure that the same thing wouldn't happen in a modern-day Leninist revolution. Note that I am not referring to issues that would only arise at the time period when those revolutions took place. Leadership figures going to be immortal even under modern material conditions. Dissidents (often with perfectly reasonable grievances) are going to be present even under modern material conditions. Surely you've examined these issues and taken them into consideration and thought about ways of dealing with them before adopting such an ideology?

[Zealot]

I didn't say socialism itself is a failed strategy. My question was, why choose Marxism-Leninism as the strategy for achieving socialism when it's been so prone to failure in the past? In other words, if this formula for achieving socialism is already known to fail such a high percentage of the time in the end (as we see by the downfall of the USSR, DoTP China, etc.), why continue on with the same formula instead of pursuing a different one hasn't already shown itself to have a high percentage of failure?

You are only able to say such things since the ML method has proven itself to be successful time and again in initiating revolution. Sure, you can criticise what became of the revolutions but to dismiss ML strategy is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


It seems to me actually that history class just tends to ignore the less authoritarian versions of socialism to be honest. How can we accurately speculate though on what the general historical perspective would be on a mass strategy of revolution that has never taken place (i.e. large scale libertarian socialism)? Certainly things like The Great Purge are never going to win people over to communism, at the very least, even if conservative historians would portray any form of communism negatively.

"Great Purges" would have taken place had even Anarchists made a successful revolution in the USSR since material conditions necessitated them. It just so happens that the ML strategy, being the correct one, is in the firing line because ours was successful.


I mean, when I see revolutions of the past, I think are they really worth it? Millions of people died protecting what seems to me as ultimately a failed formula with nothing being done to protect the revolution after the deaths of leaders within the vanguard party. Surely there is at least some measures Marxist-Leninists would like to see taken in the future to stop a counterrevolution from occurring after the death of the first revolutionary leader (again, short of just killing everyone who doesn't agree with the leadership)?

Are you a liberal? It's not like we want to kill people but sometimes it's necessary. I would support measures that would reduce this as much as possible but I'm not an idealist pacifist either. And yes, they were absolutely worth it.

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable." - Neue Rheinische Zeitung

[DDR]

For fuck sake: Counterrevolution is defeated by achieving cultural hegemony.

[Skyhilist]

You are only able to say such things since the ML method has proven itself to be successful time and again in initiating revolution. Sure, you can criticise what became of the revolutions but to dismiss ML strategy is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

What has the "ML method" proven itself successful at in the past other than perpetuating capitalism after a temporary revolution?
In fact, lets compare M-L revolutions that didn't deal with the problems I brought up vs non-revolutions.
Either:
a) M-L revolution happens. Millions of communists, civilians, and dissidents die in the process. Capitalism reverts back within a few decades.
b) Capitalism continuously exists. As in option a), I still wind up under capitalism, only this time millions (many communists) aren't dead.

This has been the narrative of the past when the issues I've brought up (e.g. replacing leadership, stopping counterrevolution without killing every single non-M-L there is, etc.) aren't planned out in a rational manner in advance. So I'll ask again: Do modern day M-Ls actually have any plans to address these obvious issues of the past that would prevent society from reverting back to capitalism?


"Great Purges" would have taken place had even Anarchists made a successful revolution in the USSR since material conditions necessitated them.

I do not wish to debate anarchist theory in this thread, although this is false due to the nature of how an anarchist revolution would be carried out. I would like answers to my questions if there are any, not mere retorts such as "Well the others would have sucked too!" in response. My point about the Great Purges was a side point. The main issue at hand is the question of how M-Ls would fix obvious problems (like the aforementioned one on leadership) that would arise from such a strategy of carrying out revolution.


Are you a liberal? It's not like we want to kill people but sometimes it's necessary. I would support measures that would reduce this as much as possible but I'm not an idealist pacifist either. And yes, they were absolutely worth it.

No, I am not a liberal. I'm not going to entertain this idea any further because it would just provide another way to distract from actually getting to the questions that I am asking.

[Skyhilist]

For fuck sake: Counterrevolution is defeated by achieving cultural hegemony.

Well if cultural hegemony is enough to defeat counterrevolution, then how would a modern M-L revolution achieve such cultural hegemony better than past M-L nations where counterrevolution did occur?

[l'Enfermé]

Kill all the wanna-be Khruschevites and Dengists. Problem solved.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Kill all the wanna-be Khruschevites and Dengists. Problem solved.

*sigh* why does always boil down to the murder of those who think differently?

[Captain Ahab]

*sigh* why does always boil down to the murder of those who think differently?
I do believe he was joking, mate.

[Old Bolshie]

There are some important misconceptions in this thread which it would be appropriate to clear it right away:

- There isn't such thing as Leninist revolutions. You have proletarian revolutions like you had in Russia in 1917.

- Leninism isn't a political system but rather a Marxist theory developed by Lenin.

- Just because someone says he is Lenin's follower and successor putting pictures of him all over the country doesn't mean that he and his policy are Leninist. The truth is that USSR, China or Albania had very little resemblance with Lenin and his theory. Lenin's portrait is the most adulterated image of the XX Century.

Answering OP's question, I would say that material conditions and the geographic extent of the revolution would be determinant on the fate of any proletarian revolution and how it is shaped. No one can't really tell you how they would prevent a revolution to become another USSR or China since it would depend on many factors that you can't really count right now.

[DDR]

Well if cultural hegemony is enough to defeat counterrevolution, then how would a modern M-L revolution achieve such cultural hegemony better than past M-L nations where counterrevolution did occur?

When global capitalism is defeated then it would mean that cultural hegemony is achieved and therefore the risk of counterrevolution will be done. But this is for any tendency.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm, obviously, not a Marxist-Leninist but see if I can rectify some problems of Marxism-Leninism in practice, from my ultra-left perspective, and still have it fit the Marxist-Leninist paradigm.

A workers' state is a semi-state, yet the USSR, China, etc. were conventional states with a conventional (bourgeois) structure of ministeries, state secretaries, heads of state, conventional police, mayors, etc. This was due to, in my view, the these revolutions did not constitute socialism, but also we could not speak of a semi-state because of the immense bureaucracy.

The bureaucratisation of the economy was not accidental. The market economy self-regulates millions upon millions of transactions through self-directed, decentralised economic actors, and in the hands of conscious planners requires a surrogate for these transactions through the use of thousands upon thousands of managers. But these managers of firms had an incentive to manipulate statistics. Under Stalin, it was rewarded to exceed production quotas and targets so firm managers understated their productive capabilities for these quotas to be lowered so it was easier to exceed them. Such manipulation on multiple government levels meant the planners used flawed information.

The solution, I'd say, is not using central planning, but since that doesn't fit the Marxist-Leninist paradigm, use an artificial market for consumer goods, but not for intermediate and capital goods, as proposed by Takis Fotopoulos, and I think, by (revleft-user) Paul Cockshott as well.

Socialism should stand on its own merits. The petite-bourgeois socialism of the Spanish town Marinaleda enjoys near 100% support according to a Dutch/Flemish news report as it works relatively well. To insist that capitalist roaders direct a communist party, and therewith the revolution, to a capitalist direction seems inconceivable to me. But they shouldn't be awarded power to be able to do that. Thus, the same old implement actual workers' control. If actual workers' control had existed, Khrushchev and Deng couldn't have directed their nations into other directions.

The economic reforms were not devious conspiracies of capitalist restoration but grew logically out of the economic inefficiencies of Stalinist policies such as stakhanovism. It was economic inefficiency that lead to the economic reforms, anti-revisionists foolishing characterise as "capitalist restoration," not a capitalist inverse Blanquist conspiracy.

So two points Marxist-Leninists need to take into consideration if they do no wish to see a future revolution fail:

1. Do not implement central planning, or at least not for consumer goods
2. Implement actual workers' control, sovereign soviets, and participatory communes (which, I think, most Marxist-Leninists support, at least rhetorically).


*sigh* why does always boil down to the murder of those who think differently?

He was being sarcastic.


When global capitalism is defeated then it would mean that cultural hegemony is achieved and therefore the risk of counterrevolution will be done. But this is for any tendency.

This makes no sense. How do foreign powers excercise cultural hegemony over another territory if they have no access to mediums? The theory of cultural hegemony was meant to invoke that socialists seek cultural hegemony under capitalism even (if I'm not mistaken), you believe that cultural hegemony isn't even possible in the face of the complete destruction of the capitalist class on a continental scale?

[DDR]

This makes no sense. How do foreign powers excercise cultural hegemony over another territory if they have no access to mediums? The theory of cultural hegemony was meant to invoke that socialists seek cultural hegemony under capitalism even (if I'm not mistaken), you believe that cultural hegemony isn't even possible in the face of the complete destruction of the capitalist class on a continental scale?

No, what I'm saying is, like Another Boring Marxist explain very well in another thread, that there's the capitalist method of production, wich you get rid of by socialicing the means of production, and the method of capitalist reproduction (conditions that make capitalism posible) and that, which IMO biggest root of counterrevolution, you get rid only becoming cultural paradigma.

[Tim Cornelis]

No, what I'm saying is, like Another Boring Marxist explain very well in another thread, that there's the capitalist method of production, wich you get rid of by socialicing the means of production, and the method of capitalist reproduction (conditions that make capitalism posible) and that, which IMO biggest root of counterrevolution, you get rid only becoming cultural paradigma.

So how did the majority of workers support socialism and socialist revolution and then how did this change in a decade or two and the majority of workers started to support capitalism and capitalist counter-revolution?

That's not how the counter-revolution occurred in either China or the USSR is it? It was the change of power of one man that set off the chain reaction, which shows neither were a workers' state.

[DDR]

So how did the majority of workers support socialism and socialist revolution and then how did the majority of workers support capitalism and capitalist counter-revolution?

That's not how the counter-revolution occurred in either China or the USSR is it? It was the change of power of one man that set off the chain reaction, which shows neither were a workers' state.

That power is composed by people, who also are in contact with burgueoise culture.

[Tim Cornelis]

That power is composed by people, who also are in contact with burgueoise culture.

You're evading the issue. Is bourgeois culture (under socialism no less) so powerful that it turns a socialist supporting majority of workers (under capitalism or semi-feudalism) into a capitalist supporting majority (under socialism)?

The "capitalist restoration" by Khrushchev and Deng was implemented by... Khrushchev and Deng, not the workers. So surely that proves there was no workers' state in the first place?

[Skyhilist]

There are some important misconceptions in this thread which it would be appropriate to clear it right away:

- There isn't such thing as Leninist revolutions. You have proletarian revolutions like you had in Russia in 1917.

- Leninism isn't a political system but rather a Marxist theory developed by Lenin.

- Just because someone says he is Lenin's follower and successor putting pictures of him all over the country doesn't mean that he and his policy are Leninist. The truth is that USSR, China or Albania had very little resemblance with Lenin and his theory. Lenin's portrait is the most adulterated image of the XX Century.

Answering OP's question, I would say that material conditions and the geographic extent of the revolution would be determinant on the fate of any proletarian revolution and how it is shaped. No one can't really tell you how they would prevent a revolution to become another USSR or China since it would depend on many factors that you can't really count right now.

Thank you for being the one on here to actually attempt to answer my question, comrade (and also thanks to Tim Cornellis for the helpful answer as well).

Do you think you could maybe provide an example of what might have been done in your opinion to prevent reversion back to capitalism? For example, in retrospect, what would you say should have been done in Russia under Lenin to prevent a reversion back to capitalism after his death?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually think that VI Lenin's suggestions in "State and Revolution" are pretty good, in regards to making sure power-hungry despots & bureaucrats don't usurp power (of course, the eventual reality of the USSR turned out to be quite different, but that's another story!)

Namely, delegates who are subject to instant recall via a popular vote, and an educated body of voters who have a clear view of what their political, economic and social interests are. It goes without saying that at this point in time that's entirely theoretical, however.

[Old Bolshie]

Do you think you could maybe provide an example of what might have been done in your opinion to prevent reversion back to capitalism? For example, in retrospect, what would you say should have been done in Russia under Lenin to prevent a reversion back to capitalism after his death?

Well, capitalism was never really eliminated as it would have been impossible at the time to do it since the revolution failed to spread.

Your question would be more what should have been done to prevent the DOTP to revert back to an autocracy like it happen in Russia under Stalin.

I think the creation of the post of Secretary General of the Party was determinant for the reversion. It was given excessive political power and autonomy to that position within the party that was merging with the state. As you know Lenin recognized it in one of his last writings but it was too late to counter it.

So, one of my suggestions would be avoiding to give too much political and administrative power (or nothing at all) to a one-man post and place the most important political duties always in a fully autonomous and democratic collegial power organ like the CC was for the Bolshevik party during Lenin's leadership.This would prevent one man of taking control of the party like Stalin did.

[black magick hustla]

of middle-class idealists who never stand at the extreme receiving end of capitalism.

um, like you?

dude, like the narrative of maoism is pretty much that. a bunch of middle class philosophy students going to the countryside and "spreading the word".

[Zealot]

What has the "ML method" proven itself successful at in the past other than perpetuating capitalism after a temporary revolution?
In fact, lets compare M-L revolutions that didn't deal with the problems I brought up vs non-revolutions.
Either:
a) M-L revolution happens. Millions of communists, civilians, and dissidents die in the process. Capitalism reverts back within a few decades.
b) Capitalism continuously exists. As in option a), I still wind up under capitalism, only this time millions (many communists) aren't dead.

Millions of communists? :lol:

I said that the Leninist model has proven to be successful at carrying out revolution. It shouldn't have to take a genius to realise this. You can criticise what happened after, which is supposed to be the topic of this thread, but you're more interested in talking about the poor landlords and counterrevolutionaries that died in the struggle.


This has been the narrative of the past when the issues I've brought up (e.g. replacing leadership, stopping counterrevolution without killing every single non-M-L there is, etc.) aren't planned out in a rational manner in advance. So I'll ask again: Do modern day M-Ls actually have any plans to address these obvious issues of the past that would prevent society from reverting back to capitalism?

We aren't the Zeitgeist Movement. See here (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/)for idealist blueprints of the future and the Zeitgeist FAQ.


I do not wish to debate anarchist theory in this thread, although this is false due to the nature of how an anarchist revolution would be carried out. I would like answers to my questions if there are any, not mere retorts such as "Well the others would have sucked too!" in response. My point about the Great Purges was a side point. The main issue at hand is the question of how M-Ls would fix obvious problems (like the aforementioned one on leadership) that would arise from such a strategy of carrying out revolution.

That's not a retort, it's simply true. In Spain, for example, not only did Anarchists kill, not only did they not destroy the state, they actively participated in one. Even if we did have the answer to your question, what relevance would the ideas of a few internet posters have?


No, I am not a liberal. I'm not going to entertain this idea any further because it would just provide another way to distract from actually getting to the questions that I am asking.

Liberals often like to say "Well, if you had another chance, how are you going to stop dictators and save gazillions of people from dying????".

I would just like to point out again that your questions about Marxism-Leninism are, in fact, something that could apply to every tendency. So either you don't realise this or you're trolling.

[ind_com]

I thought we recognised only proletarian revolutions (yeah and bourgeois political ones), class struggle being the driving force and not ideology.

Anyway, when you write of advancing revolutions today, are you just talking about the Naxalite insurgency in India or are there other examples you have in mind?

Class struggle is the driving force, and the correct ideology is deduced as a result of correct evaluation of experience in class struggle itself.

The revolution is happening as a result of intensified class struggle, of which the highest form is the people's war. But it will be wrong to confine the whole revolution to the actions of the CPI(Maoist) and PLGA alone. Within the past few years, the Indian working classes have intensified class struggle nationwide. Strikes have been taking place even when the original strike-calling reformist leadership has backed down. Workers have killed capitalists and managers in some places. In some places, even before the Maoist leadership intervened and intensified struggle, the masses have attacked police stations and blocked roads to attack the government forces. In some places, they have even put up posters in the name of the CPI(Maoist) to scare the local tyrants. As a result of the increasing struggle in India, the nations which India occupies have also experienced an increased amount of struggle. In general the militant mood of the Indian working classes is rising, and it can be predicted that if the working classes organize and arm themselves properly, the Indian revolution can be complete within a decade or two.


I'm shaking in my middle class boots.

Good for you.

[ind_com]

um, like you?

Most Maoists in the cities, including myself, have been at the extreme receiving end of capitalism at some point in their lives. That is one of the reasons we choose Maoism and not any of the other leftist tendencies which are safe from state-crackdown.



dude, like the narrative of maoism is pretty much that. a bunch of middle class philosophy students going to the countryside and "spreading the word".It is quite different from what you claim. If anyone from the middle class joins the revolution, at some point he/she will be sent to the villages or slums to participate in militant struggles with the working classes. Unlike in certain other tendencies, if you are a middle class philosophy student and join a Maoist organization, you don't get to confine your activities within having debates in colleges or participating in peaceful demonstrations.

[black magick hustla]

Most Maoists in the cities, including myself, have been at the extreme receiving end of capitalism at some point in their lives. That is one of the reasons we choose Maoism and not any of the other leftist tendencies which are safe from state-crackdown.
I don't think most maoist cadre (or communist cadre) for that matter choose an ideology because of enlightened self-interest. Most of the time is for moral reasons, actually. Anyway, I doubt many people in India in the "extreme end of capitalism" have even an internet connection, but I'll stop.

Second, from my understanding, maoist influence in the urban centers is pretty much marginal.





If anyone from the middle class joins the revolution, at some point he/she will be sent to the villages or slums to participate in militant struggles with the working classes. Unlike in certain other tendencies, if you are a middle class philosophy student and join a Maoist organization, you don't get to confine your activities

Um, I never specified what middle class maoist students do. A lot of them are/where quite brave fighters. I'm simply stating that generally maoist movements start by middle class people "spreading" the word in the countryside. That's how the Shining Path started, and so did the Naxalites. I'm not sure about everywhere else but something tells me this is the norm.


within having debates in colleges or participating in peaceful demonstrations.
This is exactly what maoists in the first world generally do btw

[DDR]

You're evading the issue. Is bourgeois culture (under socialism no less) so powerful that it turns a socialist supporting majority of workers (under capitalism or semi-feudalism) into a capitalist supporting majority (under socialism)?

Yes, it is, as long as capitalism has cultural hegemony (in the whole word, not just in the "socialist paradise") counterrevolution will happen.


The "capitalist restoration" by Khrushchev and Deng was implemented by... Khrushchev and Deng, not the workers. So surely that proves there was no workers' state in the first place?

Our tendencies differ in what constitutes a worker's state, so that discussion is pointless, endless and unfruitful. Therefore, I must excuse myself for I don't want to go into that loop.

[Skyhilist]

Well, thank you to everyone who didn't retort with strawmen about anarchism and try to label me things I am not for asking such questions. I'm not going to reply to those posts because I've already got my answer. Thank you Old Bolshie for your useful answer. If previous posters before you would have just simply answered by questions the way you did, this thread would have been a hell of a lot more productive. Also thanks to Os, and Tim for giving me good answers within a Leninist framework, despite not being Leninist themselves.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, it is, as long as capitalism has cultural hegemony (in the whole word, not just in the "socialist paradise") counterrevolution will happen.

You can repeat this, but don't tell why. It's begging the question. How can bourgeois cultural hegemony be so powerful that a socialist majority under capitalism is turned into a capitalist majority under socialism? You keep reiterating that "it can happen" doesn't prove anything.



Our tendencies differ in what constitutes a worker's state, so that discussion is pointless, endless and unfruitful. Therefore, I must excuse myself for I don't want to go into that loop.

A workers' state is a state controlled by the workers. If an unelected, unaccountable leader can change the direction of a state to such an extent he restores capitalism, the state is not a workers' state. These are facts, which you evade by appealing to a discrepancy in definitions.

[DDR]

You can repeat this, but don't tell why. It's begging the question. How can bourgeois cultural hegemony be so powerful that a socialist majority under capitalism is turned into a capitalist majority under socialism? You keep reiterating that "it can happen" doesn't prove anything.


As long as the conditions to reproduce the capitalist system exist counterrevolution happens, so if there's global market it will be counterrevolution, if the idead that a person is woth by his belongings there will be counterrevolution, and so on. The conditions that made posible the feudal system are gone, not only because the feudal property system was erased, but also the mentaly, ideas, values, etc. have changed into another paradigma, that's why there isn't the risk of feudal counterrevolution in the western world.

[Nevsky]

You can repeat this, but don't tell why. It's begging the question. How can bourgeois cultural hegemony be so powerful that a socialist majority under capitalism is turned into a capitalist majority under socialism? You keep reiterating that "it can happen" doesn't prove anything.

Don't underestimate bourgeois cultural hegemony, it is indeed very powerful. Just look at the GDR's downfall. Its ruling party failed to unite the country under the banner of socialism and had to rely too heavily on its oppressive secret police apparatus to keep power. Many citizens had the vision of "free and prosperous" western Germany which made them extrmely prone to counterrevolution.

After socialism was fully deconstructed, the former GDR inhabitants began to realize that the "American Dream" is a myth and that capitalist way of life is ugly as shit for the most part. They began to miss all the great achievements of the GDR, which back in its time were not easy to see due to the SED's questionable way of ruling the country (completely failing to create enthusiasm for socialist construction among the people).

Running after imperialist nation's standards instead of building up socialism wasn't a GDR specific phenomenon, either. We all know about the khrushchevite dream to "bury the west", don't we? And we know how that turned out, too. Therefor, I come back to the original question and conclude that future marxist-leninist governments should focus on scientific marxist economics, not on adventurous races with imperialism. Furthermore M-L needs to unite the people under communism's cause, i.e. providing them with sophisticated education and include them in the process of socialist development. Here I think that considering some of Trotsky's criticisms of the Soviet Union could be helpful to improve a future M-L state (of course I still reject "troskyism" as a whole). After all, we wouldn't be in the harsh times of civil war then.

[Sasha]

Most Maoists in the cities, including myself, have been at the extreme receiving end of capitalism at some point in their lives. That is one of the reasons we choose Maoism and not any of the other leftist tendencies which are safe from state-crackdown.


was this being "at the extreme recieving end of capitalism" and under constant thread of "state crackdown" before or after you moved to northern America? now if you escaped a indian slum by hiding aboard a cargo ship for weeks i hereby already offer my deepest apologies but if not you shouldnt play that i'm proler than you game with ppl who can see your IP adresses. You have no clue how the lives of any user here has been and if and how they suffered under capital. Role playing the cool indian urban maoist from 7.000 miles away living safely under liberal-democracy is fine by me but dont insult other users you know nothing about. verbal warning for flaming.

[Zealot]

Well, thank you to everyone who didn't retort with strawmen about anarchism and try to label me things I am not for asking such questions. I'm not going to reply to those posts because I've already got my answer. Thank you Old Bolshie for your useful answer. If previous posters before you would have just simply answered by questions the way you did, this thread would have been a hell of a lot more productive. Also thanks to Os, and Tim for giving me good answers within a Leninist framework, despite not being Leninist themselves.

I did answer your OP questions but you are more satisfied with the answers of anti-ML's, confirming to me that you are a troll. The only reason I brought up Anarchism was to demonstrate that material conditions often leads us to do things we don't want to. But you're ideas about socialism are obviously constructed within a liberal framework, in which case it would be pertinent to start a new thread debating the values of liberalism.

[ind_com]

I don't think most maoist cadre (or communist cadre) for that matter choose an ideology because of enlightened self-interest. Most of the time is for moral reasons, actually.

Most communist cadre come from the working class, and they choose communism mainly because they realize its validity through their own experience in class struggle. It's not that their morals come from somewhere other than the material world.


Anyway, I doubt many people in India in the "extreme end of capitalism" have even an internet connection, but I'll stop.

You need not stop. Indeed, the Indian middle class person is almost always worse off than the average first world worker. All I meant was that most of us come from a proletarian background. Most of us have spent their childhood and teens in slums. But of course, what Maoists do in slums also includes spreading education, due to which can speak English or browse the internet in the first place.


Second, from my understanding, maoist influence in the urban centers is pretty much marginal.

Compared to the rural inluence, yes. But on absolute scales it is far from marginal.


Um, I never specified what middle class maoist students do. A lot of them are/where quite brave fighters. I'm simply stating that generally maoist movements start by middle class people "spreading" the word in the countryside. That's how the Shining Path started, and so did the Naxalites. I'm not sure about everywhere else but something tells me this is the norm.

The Naxalbari Movement started with a peasant uprising. There were worker's movements in the cities too, which were crushed by the state. We come to know more of middle class students through the mainstream media because the market of bourgeois newspapers is mostly within the middle class. If you look at the newspapers published during the 60s, you will only find reports of middle class student Naxalites engaging in action in the cities. But by research done by human rights' orgs and the Maoist parties own admission, much more intensified struggle was waged in that period by the working classes themselves.



This is exactly what maoists in the first world generally do btw

You are not entirely wrong, but at least the largest first world Maoist party concentrates on different kind of actions.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I've got a tip for some of you, especially the Maoists. People would be more open-minded to what you have to say if you weren't constantly spouting ideological slogans. Stop trying to write like a Chinese party official from 1960, write like an actual human being please. Writing really formally and like your opinions are established facts doesn't make you sound smart, it just makes you sound like you're playing leftism as a roleplaying game. It's made especially ridiculous when what you have to say is fucking inane.

[Skyhilist]

I did answer your OP questions but you are more satisfied with the answers of anti-ML's, confirming to me that you are a troll. The only reason I brought up Anarchism was to demonstrate that material conditions often leads us to do things we don't want to. But you're ideas about socialism are obviously constructed within a liberal framework, in which case it would be pertinent to start a new thread debating the values of liberalism.

No, you didn't give answers. You told me that the M-L problems I was describing are the case with every tendency, which isn't true. Many other tendencies don't have the problem of a central leader who wields immense power dying allowing a capitalist leader to take over. You can call me a troll and a liberal all you want, but in the end you are just using buzzwords to try to strengthen your argument. I'm sick of this yuh-huh, nuh-uh argument shit, and am hereby done with this thread. Have a nice life.

[ind_com]

was this being "at the extreme recieving end of capitalism" and under constant thread of "state crackdown" before or after you moved to northern America? now if you escaped a indian slum by hiding aboard a cargo ship for weeks i hereby already offer my deepest apologies but if not you shouldnt play that i'm proler than you game with ppl who can see your IP adresses. You have no clue how the lives of any user here has been and if and how they suffered under capital. Role playing the cool indian urban maoist from 7.000 miles away living safely under liberal-democracy is fine by me but dont insult other users you know nothing about. verbal warning for flaming.

I would have given you a piece of my mind if you hadn't acknowledged our coolness. I think an apology is due from your side, and I expect you to withdraw your allegations as well as your warning. As you are an admin of this very big forum, you should be knowing that IP addresses are usually not give-away signs of someone's location, if that person seeks to have some anonymity. And there is enough reason for maintaining anonymity, because at least one Maoist from India is supposed to remain wherever there is some Maoist presence, and what some sources say about certain attributes of this forum is not very inspiring from a revolutionary point of view.

To conclude, in case you or some other comrade has felt that I undermine your struggles in the western world, I apologize most sincerely for any offensive implications, and I clarify that my intention was not at all to mean that you are not exploited by capital. Imperialist capital is causing homelessness, malnutrition, health problems, insecurity and other miseries even within the imperialist countries. That is why we are positive about people's wars in the imperialist countries and are taking material initiatives for the same.

[Sasha]

Pull the other one, it got bells on it, your not using a proxy, you are not using tor and the only reason you are not banned yet for being a sockpuppet is because the person who banned your original account "prob" can't remember what you where banned for and forgot to log it.
So please don't test my patience.
I'm not going to out your exact location but the verbal stands..

[Yuppie Grinder]

Pull the other one, it got bells on it, your not using a proxy, you are not using tor and the only reason you are not banned yet for being a sockpuppet is because the person who banned your original account "prob" can't remember what you where banned for and forgot to log it.
So please don't test my patience.
I'm not going to out your exact location but the verbal stands..

Lemme guess, San Francisco? Portland?

[ind_com]

Pull the other one, it got bells on it, your not using a proxy, you are not using tor and the only reason you are not banned yet for being a sockpuppet is because the person who banned your original account "prob" can't remember what you where banned for and forgot to log it.
So please don't test my patience.
I'm not going to out your exact location but the verbal stands..

Don't try to act smart. I am not a fucking sockpuppet of any user. Before I was given the responsibility of keeping this account active, I was told that the Canadian comrade initially promoting our magazine here got banned without any reason. I did not bring that up because I was initially greeted by two very comradely mods/admins here. But since you seem to recall what that account was, I will now ask for an explanation for why it was banned. Do answer oh know-it-all overlord of revleft.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Of course he's Canadian.

[ind_com]

Of course he's Canadian.

tu pehle apne gaand se muh nikaal be behnchod. chudai ki bhi ek hudd hoti hai. saale itne saale gaanduo behthe hain iss paranoid forum mein. tere jaiso ko pehle laath mar ke bhagana chahiye varna kissi bhi desh mein koi kranti nahi ayegi.

[Yuppie Grinder]

tu pehle apne gaand se muh nikaal be behnchod. Chudai ki bhi ek hudd hoti hai. Saale itne saale gaanduo behthe hain iss paranoid forum mein. Tere jaiso ko pehle laath mar ke bhagana chahiye varna kissi bhi desh mein koi kranti nahi ayegi.

હું પણ ઇન્ટરનેટ અનુવાદકો વાપરી શકો છો.

[ind_com]

હું પણ ઇન્ટરનેટ અનુવાદકો વાપરી શકો છો.

abbe behnchod, google translate se gujrati pe anuvad karna bandh kar! nahi to tere gaand pe flamingo ka payer ghusake tujhe puri Kacch ki Rann ke charon oar bhagaunga.

[Captain Ahab]

According to Google Translate, Indcom is writing in Filipino. Rather curious derail we have going on here.

[Zealot]

No, you didn't give answers. You told me that the M-L problems I was describing are the case with every tendency, which isn't true.

I did give answers and the problems would have been the same with any other tendency. Just to make it simple:

"what leads you to believe that new unforeseen difficulties arising from modern material conditions wouldn't arise, dooming a modern Anarchist revolution?"

"Finally, as an Anarchist, what would you like to see done under a modern Anarchist revolution that would ensure that capitalism was not ultimately reinstated as with Russia, China, etc.?"


Many other tendencies don't have the problem of a central leader who wields immense power dying allowing a capitalist leader to take over.

That was a later question and the reason other tendencies don't have that problem is because they have no experience of carrying out a successful revolution. And yet again, material conditions led to capitalist leaders taking over. Not being able to reach the level of the imperialist and industrialised economies, rightists within the parties began to be seen as more practical and level headed. This would have also been a problem for Trotskyists, Left-coms and anyone else in a position of power in a fledgling socialist society.

[Let's Get Free]

That was a later question and the reason other tendencies don't have that problem is because they have no experience of carrying out a successful revolution. And yet again, material conditions led to capitalist leaders taking over. Not being able to reach the level of the imperialist and industrialised economies, rightists within the parties began to be seen as more practical and level headed. This would have also been a problem for Trotskyists, Left-coms and anyone else in a position of power in a fledgling socialist society.

I think the Marxist Leninist vanguardist approach to revolution inevitably leads to this outcome. The Vanguard did not change Russian society in a "socialist direction". Quite the opposite happened. The Soviet Union's essential capitalist core was progressively revealed over subsequent decades - rather like peeling an onion - as the whole ideological baggage of soviet " socialism" grew increasingly thin and threadbare.
Many of the Red fat cats, the soviet capitalist class, that enjoyed a measure of power and privilege way beyond what the ordinary Russian workers could even dream of , were to use their position of influence to mutate into that new breed of modern oligarchs in Russia today.

[Tim Cornelis]

According to Google Translate, Indcom is writing in Filipino. Rather curious derail we have going on here.

According to google translate it's Indonesian, then I deleted some text and it was German.