Libertarian Marxism - My Findings

[G4b3n]

Having dedicated an overwhelming amount of time this past year to the study of leftist politics and the history that surrounds this topic, I have come to a few philosophical and political conclusions which are by no means final.

*The materialist view of society and its history is the most fruitful in terms of logical consistency.

*The materialist dialectic is a method of study which allows one to see a bit deeper into a given phenomena.

*The state, while it is a tool of the ruling class, should not be seized by the proletariat. It should be dismantled immediately as bourgeois society needs the state like the human body needs oxygen, the same can not be said about proletarian, i.e socialist society.

*While adhering to the dialectical materialist concept that new things come into existence before the death of the old, the proletariat ought to use worker's institutions (Syndicates, councils, soviets or whatever) to challenge the bourgeoisie that is being forced out of power much like the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, and SRs used the power of the Russian soviets to challenge the power of the bourgeois government of the February revolution.

*All worker's institutions must be completely democratic from the bottom up.

*A revolution is essentially the sum of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the oppressed section of society and therefore needs to be carried out by a class conscious majority not lead or carried out by a vanguard party or "people's liberation" army.

*Restriction of personal liberty following the revolution is NOT a sufficient method of defending the it from counter-revolutionaries. All people ought to be free to do as they wish so long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of others. Marx bitterly condemned censorship and for good reason, we ought to as well.

*The bourgeoisie is not one huge class but a group of privileged classes whom are not only defined by their privilege but primarily by the abstract concept of private ownership.

While these are not all of my conclusions, I would still appreciate comments, questions, criticisms, or concerns. Thank you.

[Fourth Internationalist]

*The state, while it is a tool of the ruling class, should not be seized by the proletariat. It should be dismantled immediately as bourgeois society needs the state like the human body needs oxygen, the same can not be said about proletarian, i.e socialist society.

If then the proletariat builds their own state ie the dotp after smashing the bourgeois state.


*A revolution is essentially the sum of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the oppressed section of society and therefore needs to be carried out by a class conscious majority not lead or carried out by a vanguard party or "people's liberation" army.

Communists, ie the vanguard, need to lead the revolution towards a communist future rather than just let it change from one bourgeoisie state to a different one. A vanguard party is not meant to rule people but to lead people, which are two very different things.

[G4b3n]

If then the proletariat builds their own state ie the dotp after smashing the bourgeois state.



Communists, ie the vanguard, need to lead the revolution towards a communist future rather than just let it change from one bourgeoisie state to a different one. A vanguard party is not meant to rule people but to lead people, which are two very different things.

It would not be a "state", just union of worker's institutions, similar to the Marxist-Leninist concept of DOTP. A state doesn't have much usefulness in a socialist society unless you are advocating for "democratic" centralism and central planning which I believe all socialists should reject because these authoritarian concepts do not allow for worker's control.

A vanguard in the sense that all leftist/anti-capitalists are the vanguard, is productive and not a threat to liberty. However, a vanguard party is bound to establish an authoritarian rule, which is quite different from leadership, I agree.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It would not be a "state", just union of worker's institutions, similar to the Marxist-Leninist concept of DOTP. A state doesn't have much usefulness in a socialist society unless you are advocating for "democratic" centralism and central planning which I believe all socialists should reject because these authoritarian concepts do not allow for worker's control.
Socialist society cannot be established immediately, there needs to be a transitional period which Marx, Engels, and every other Marxist has called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dotp exists in the form of a non-socialist state (because socialism in one country is impossible).


A vanguard in the sense that all leftist/anti-capitalists are the vanguard, is productive and not a threat to liberty. However, a vanguard party is bound to establish an authoritarian rule, which is quite different from leadership, I agree.Saying a vanguard party will lead to authoritarian rule makes no sense. It's as absurd as saying eating a piece of bread will cause an atomic war. It makes no sense whatsoever but is regurgitated by anti-vanguardists who have no idea what a vanguard party is.

[G4b3n]

Socialist society cannot be established immediately, there needs to be a transitional period which Marx, Engels, and every other Marxist has called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dotp exists in the form of a non-socialist state (because socialism in one country is impossible).

Saying a vanguard party will lead to authoritarian rule makes no sense. It's as absurd as saying eating a piece of bread will cause an atomic war. It makes no sense whatsoever but is regurgitated by anti-vanguardists who have no idea what a vanguard party is.

If you take a look at the OP, I clearly stated that we ought to adhere to the core principles of dialectical materialism. A new society is born within the old, not after it. My assertion that we ought to dismantle the state immediatly does not contradict the core of Marxist thought, but it does however contradict the political means advocated for by past Marxists but to suggest that my assertion is invalid for this reason alone would be an appeal to authority fallacy.

No section of the proletariat should isolate power for itself. Party Vangarudism is inherently authoritarian as history as shown us. To assert that I have no idea what a vanguard party is, when I clearly do, is an ad hominem and also a fallacy. Your metaphor is also fallacious. Political conquest can lead to authoritarianism while consuming bread can not lead to nuclear war (depending on context of course).

There is clearly a problem if I can find 3 logical fallacies in your rebuttal.

[d3crypt]

I agree that no party should have power. But by vangaurd he simply mean that communists should educate and organize the proletariet for revolution. I agree with all your points though. But i would consider a union of workers institutions to be a state of sorts, however loose it may be. Also by bottom up do you mean let by direct democracy?

[The Feral Underclass]

Some might find this interesting.

A Libertarian Marx? (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/19xx/xx/libmarx.html) -- Daniel Guerin

[Fourth Internationalist]

If you take a look at the OP, I clearly stated that we ought to adhere to the core principles of dialectical materialism. A new society is born within the old, not after it. My assertion that we ought to dismantle the state immediatly does not contradict the core of Marxist thought, but it does however contradict the political means advocated for by past Marxists but to suggest that my assertion is invalid for this reason alone would be an appeal to authority fallacy.

Smashing the bourgeois state is not against Marxism at all, but smashing/not establishing a transitional state and going right into socialism and communism is. It's impossible to do that, but not just because Marx, Engels, and every other Marxist theorist agreed.


No section of the proletariat should isolate power for itself.

Except that is not the role of the vanguard. You don't know what a vanguard party does, clearly. No matter how much you say so does not make it true.


Party Vangarudism is inherently authoritarian as history as shown us.
This is no different from liberals saying socialism is authoritarian because of history. Both this and instances like that are the result of little to no knowledge on what socialism, or a vanguard party in this case, are.


To assert that I have no idea what a vanguard party is, when I clearly do, is an ad hominem and also a fallacy.

But you don't know what a vanguard party is if you think its a party that is trying to gain power for itself and not the working class.


Your metaphor is also fallacious. Political conquest can lead to authoritarianism while consuming bread can not lead to nuclear war (depending on context of course).

The purpose of my analogy was that it makes no sense just as yours makes no sense. Analogies are also not equivalents.


There is clearly a problem if I can find 3 logical fallacies in your rebuttal.
Or you just misunderstood the analogy. The problem is that you still don't understand the concept of the vanguard party. No vanguardist thinks that the party, and thus not the working class, should have all the power. If so, every single vanguardist would think that the dictatorship of the proletariat began under Stalin in the 1930's and ended with the end of the Soviet Union. But, of course, the none of us think that.

[The Feral Underclass]

There are many things wrong with your post, but I can only be arsed to address this:


But you don't know what a vanguard party is if you think its a party that is trying to gain power for itself and not the working class.

You are presenting this argument as a binary one when it isn't. It's not a choice between take power "for themselves" or take power "for the working class." What do these terms even mean anyway? What is power? What is taking power for someone else? These are questions you are not asking yourself, although these questions are somewhat beside the point.

What is missing from the ideas inherent in both phrases is the idea of the working class taking power for "itself." In both instances the class has been substituted and/or represented by a political entity outside of the working class. Either it is the vanguard taking power "for itself" or the vanguard taking power "for" the working class. I would argue that ultimately these are same thing.

How does the vanguard, i.e. the minority of workers who are most class conscious, take power "for" the working class without taking power "for itself"? If the vanguard wish to take political power from the ruling class on behalf of the workers then it has to take the power for itself in order for it to have power "for" the working class.

You are trying to make an argument that the vanguard taking power "for the working class" is somehow different and more "Marxist", but even by the choice of language, you can see that these two seemingly opposite ideas (at least in the way you try and present them as binary) are in fact the same thing. They are just worded differently.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'd say the "vanguard" neaders leads or rules the "people".
The proletariat is a revolutionary class. But they are revolutionary in the sense that they have the possibility of becoming revolutionaries. Consciousness of the proletariat is directly tied to economic development of society. From this it follows that in normal times only a small section, relatively small to the class as a whole since in absolute numbers it can still constitute big numbers, of the class are revolutionary. The non-revolutionary workers are more of a recruiting-ground.
To win other workers to that cause is an indispendable, and very hard, task.
This "elite" works in the workers movement for the purpose of intensifying class-struggle, since class-struggle is the direct link between revolutionary and non-revolutionary times.
However, they can never lead the proletariat. We know our goals can only be achieved by means of revolution. "We also know that it is just as little in our power to create this revolution as it is in the power of our opponents to prevent it. It is no part of our work to instigate a revolution or to prepare the way for it"(Kautsky).
So, no the "vanguard" cannot lead the proletariat in or towards a revolution. What it does when there are revolutionary times, ie. a rise in the class-consciousness of the proletariat, is to make use of this rise in popular-activity, by means of education and agitation, to rally the workers around a party. So the class organizes as a class. The class of course will bring forth leaders but those will not bring us to revolution. Not some elite that leads the workers to revolution, but the mass-organization of the proletariat as a class can and will in the end be able to overthrow capital.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I never said the vanguard party takes power for the working class. It works to gain power for the working class, to get the workig class power. The working class must take power for itself is one of Marx's greatest quotes.

[The Feral Underclass]

I never said the vanguard party takes power for the working class. It works to gain power for the working class, to get the workig class power.

That is essentially the same thing.

[Fourth Internationalist]

@Judas I never said the vanguard does lead towards revolution but during the revolution to try to get to a socialist future.

[Fourth Internationalist]

That is essentially the same thing.

One is substitution of the party in place of the workig class. The other is working towards giving the working class power. BIG difference.

[The Feral Underclass]

One is substitution of the party in place of the workig class. The other is working towards giving the working class power. BIG difference.

Not really. How can the working class be given power and take power at the same time? In order for the vanguard to "give" power "to" the working class it has to first "take" power "for" the working class, i.e. "for" itself. And in reality this pass-the-parcel power changing never really occurs because of the structural nature of "taking power." You cannot "take" power and then just hand it over. It doesn't work like that.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Not really. How can the working class be given power and take power at the same time?

The vanguard does not work to gain power then give it to the rest of the working class. It works to bring the entire working class to power.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

@Judas I never said the vanguard does lead towards revolution but during the revolution to try to get to a socialist future.

Lead towards what?
Even this definition I think is wrong. It seems to imply that there is a revolution going and this magical vanguard moves in and leads the workers.
It relies to much on spontaneity, as the revolution is apparently already going on and implies that workers need to be led for this revolution to end in socialism.

I think that's wrong. The only thing communists do in a revolutionary situation is make use of it, by education and agitation, to rally the workers around them. Not so it can lead them but so that the class organizes itself as a class and is capable of taking power. It is not capable of taking power because of a vanguard, but because it is a militant mass-organisation of the class.

[Fourth Internationalist]

@Judas What you said what you believe what they should do is exactly what I mean by leading.

[The Feral Underclass]

The vanguard does not work to gain power then give it to the rest of the working class. It works to bring the entire working class to power.

And how does it do this?

[Fourth Internationalist]

And how does it do this?

The last paragraph of Judas's last reply is how they should do it. The vanguard is the most radical of workers, so they should be constantly pushing for a socialist future.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The last paragraph of Judas's last reply is how they should do it. The vanguard is the most radical of workers, so they should be constantly pushing for a socialist future.

True, but they can only do this by pushing for proletarian organization.
That's why I have an issue with your use of the word "leading", because it doesn't imply that the liberation of the working class is an act of the working class, but to me it sounds like the liberation of the working class must be an act of a vanguard that drags the workers along them. If you mean the same things as me, I would suggest you refrain from using the word "leading". The word has, especially with the subject of vanguards, some nasty elitist implications.

[The Feral Underclass]

The last paragraph of Judas's last reply is how they should do it. The vanguard is the most radical of workers, so they should be constantly pushing for a socialist future.

I guess we can find some basic agreement then.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

*While adhering to the dialectical materialist concept that new things come into existence before the death of the old, the proletariat ought to use worker's institutions (Syndicates, councils, soviets or whatever) to challenge the bourgeoisie that is being forced out of power much like the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, and SRs used the power of the Russian soviets to challenge the power of the bourgeois government of the February revolution.


The Russian Soviets had no power, only a certain sense of legitimacy. The Bolshevik Party, the Black Hundred, SRs and Mensheviks and mass parties had power.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

If you want to see a good example for how a vanguard party should operate, I would point to the vanguard party of the American Revolution: The Sons of Liberty.

Now granted, the Sons were primarily of the middle class and petite-bourgeoisie (sense that was the primary revolutionary class in that moment in time), but that's not the point. The Sons openly agitated and distributed literature for the cause of independence, and took direct action when it was needed. That's it. They never attempted to become the sole ruling force of the colonies, thought some of its most prominent members (like Samuel Adams) were instrumental in constructing the ideological and philosophical basis for the revolution itself.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The Russian Soviets had no power, only a certain sense of legitimacy. The Bolshevik Party, the Black Hundred, SRs and Mensheviks did.

No formal power, but they did have de facto power.
The Bolshevik party did not have power in the period the poster you're replying to talks about, after the February revolution.

[G4b3n]

Smashing the bourgeois state is not against Marxism at all, but smashing/not establishing a transitional state and going right into socialism and communism is. It's impossible to do that, but not just because Marx, Engels, and every other Marxist theorist agreed.


Except that is not the role of the vanguard. You don't know what a vanguard party does, clearly. No matter how much you say so does not make it true.


This is no different from liberals saying socialism is authoritarian because of history. Both this and instances like that are the result of little to no knowledge on what socialism, or a vanguard party in this case, are.


But you don't know what a vanguard party is if you think its a party that is trying to gain power for itself and not the working class.



The purpose of my analogy was that it makes no sense just as yours makes no sense. Analogies are also not equivalents.

Or you just misunderstood the analogy. The problem is that you still don't understand the concept of the vanguard party. No vanguardist thinks that the party, and thus not the working class, should have all the power. If so, every single vanguardist would think that the dictatorship of the proletariat began under Stalin in the 1930's and ended with the end of the Soviet Union. But, of course, the none of us think that.

I have already explained to you how the anarchist notion of smashing the state immediately does not contradict the core principles of dialectical materialism, so long as the new society begins within the old. You are simply sticking to your appeal to authority fallacy, you have not explained to me why it is impossible.

Let us take a look at Russia in 1917, the vanguard of the October revolution, the Bolsheviks, certainly did isolate power for themselves. Lenin's theoretical works called for power to be taken in the name of the soviets, but his actions proved that slogan to be quite empty.

All I am seeing is more ad hominem about how I do not know what a vanguard party is. I never said the role of the vanguard was to isolate power for itself, that is simply what it does, it is not a professed course of action.

[G4b3n]

The Russian Soviets had no power, only a certain sense of legitimacy. The Bolshevik Party, the Black Hundred, SRs and Mensheviks and mass parties had power.

The soviets had direct influence over the bourgeois government after the establishment of the first coalition in which quite a few SRs were given positions of administration within the bourgeois government.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I have already explained to you how the anarchist notion of smashing the state immediately does not contradict the core principles of dialectical materialism, so long as the new society begins within the old.

I agree. But there is a difference between smashing the bourgeois state immediately and not going into a transitional period, which by the way is what I have been talking about.


You are simply sticking to your appeal to authority fallacy, I'm am not. I did not say its untrue simply because its a fundamental principle of Marxism.


you have not explained to me why it is impossible.Socialism can only occur after the workers have achieved power, not before, because socialism cannot develop within the confines of capitalism. Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary before socialism can be built.


Let us take a look at Russia in 1917, the vanguard of the October revolution, the Bolsheviks, certainly did isolate power for themselves. Lenin's theoretical works called for power to be taken in the name of the soviets, but his actions proved that slogan to be quite empty. The Bolsheviks won majorities in the workers' councils, they didn't take power for themselves, at least not in 1917.


All I am seeing is more ad hominem about how I do not know what a vanguard party is. I never said the role of the vanguard was to isolate power for itself, that is simply what it does, it is not a professed course of action.Isolating power for itself is simply what it does? Why? Because it just does? Why? Because. It is simply what it does.

[G4b3n]

I agree. But there is a difference between smashing the bourgeois state immediately and not going into a transitional period, which by the way is what I have been talking about.

I'm am not. I did not say its untrue simply because its a fundamental principle of Marxism.
Socialism can only occur after the workers have achieved power, not before, because socialism cannot develop within the confines of capitalism. Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary before socialism can be built.
The Bolsheviks won majorities in the workers' councils, they didn't take power for themselves, at least not in 1917.

Isolating power for itself is simply what it does? Why? Because it just does? Why? Because. It is simply what it does.

I never denied the need for a transitional period, simply the notion that the proletariat ought to seize the state in order to achieve this. If the state is not abolished following revolution, it will never be abolished. The nature of the state is to protect the ruling class, which in the case of state socialism is the bureaucratic party elite, under not conditions will it "wither away".

My entire point is that the worker's can establish power and thus socialism in the absence of the state if correctly organized worker's institutions establish their legitimacy. Socialism naturally takes roots within the confines of capitalism, if you adhered to dialectical materialism at all, I imagine you would agree.

The Bolshevik majority, which they had just recently obtained that year, does not justify their consolidation of power. Yes I realize that it did not happened right away in 1917.

The vanguard seizes state power, as I said before, the nature of the state is to protect those who are privileged by its power, therefore it can be expected that the vanguard will eventually consolidate this power and the worker's state will proceed to degenerate.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I never denied the need for a transitional period, simply the notion that the proletariat ought to seize the state in order to achieve this. If the state is not abolished following revolution, it will never be abolished. I agree. Marx even said "But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."


The nature of the state is to protect the ruling class, Yes, and in the case of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that class is the proletariat.


which in the case of state socialism is the bureaucratic party elite, under not conditions will it "wither away". There is no such thing as state socialism. Socialism can only be achieved after global revolution, and the abolition of classes and states.


My entire point is that the worker's can establish power and thus socialism in the absence of the state if correctly organized worker's institutions establish their legitimacy.Workers establishing power is not equivalent to socialism. The Paris Commune, a dictatorship of the proletariat (established workers' power), was not socialist nor could it have been. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the establishment of workers' power, is a state.


Socialism naturally takes roots within the confines of capitalism, if you adhered to dialectical materialism at all, I imagine you would agree.By capitalism I am referring to the stage of capitalism we are in now before the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the final stage of capitalism and the beginning of the building of socialism. Sorry for confusing you.


The Bolshevik majority, which they had just recently obtained that year, does not justify their consolidation of power.

Why not? The majority of the working class was supportive of the Bolshevik party, so they put them "in power" so to say (I can't think of a better term for it even though the working class was in power).


The vanguard seizes state power, as I said before, the nature of the state is to protect those who are privileged by its power, therefore it can be expected that the vanguard will eventually consolidate this power and the worker's state will proceed to degenerate.The vanguard does not seize state power. No vanguardist believes the vanguard should take state power and leave the rest of the working class which it is a part of behind. I will post the role of the vanguard party that was posted by a user named Judas whose post I believe you may have missed.


The only thing communists do in a revolutionary situation is make use of it, by education and agitation, to rally the workers around them [...] so that the class organizes itself as a class and is capable of taking power.

[The Feral Underclass]

I agree. Marx even said "But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

Only after he saw the libertarian nature of the Paris commune.

I take it you didn't read the link I provided?


No vanguardist believes the vanguard should take state power and leave the rest of the working class which it is a part of behind.

There are plenty of "vanguardists" who believe that.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Only after he saw the libertarian nature of the Paris commune.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing or what?


I take it you didn't read the link I provided?I read over it quickly but I didn't thoroughly study it yet. Why?


There are plenty of "vanguardists" who believe that.
Not ones who are communist. If they believe that, they are by definition not communist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is that supposed to be a bad thing or what?

No, but you are touting Marx's quotes willy-nilly as if quoting him verbatim is somehow an argument, and not really taking the historical context into consideration.

Let's remember that anarchists had been making these same arguments for decades before Marx changed his mind as a consequence of his ideas essentially being invalidated.


I read over it quickly but I didn't thoroughly study it yet. Why?

You need a reason for why you should read?


Not ones who are communist. If they believe that, they are by definition not communist.

Well, I think Lenin would disagree with you there.

[Fourth Internationalist]

No, but you are touting Marx's quotes willy-nilly as if quoting him verbatim is somehow an argument, and not really taking the historical context into consideration.

I'm showing how Marxism is not against smashing the bourgeois state. Quoting Marx about Marxism seems to be a logical thing to do.


Let's remember that anarchists had been making these same arguments for decades before Marx changed his mind as a consequence of his ideas essentially being invalidated.Are you referring to the overthrow of the bourgeois state?


You need a reason for why you should read?No, for why you asked.


Well, I think Lenin would disagree with you there.What you personally think and what Lenin thought, wrote about, and actually did are very different things. Sure he made mistakes, but making claims like that Lenin believed the vanguard should take power in place of the working class, essentially making Lenin no longer a socialist, requires much more evidence and materialistic analysis than just thinking.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm showing how Marxism is not against smashing the bourgeois state.

Some Marxism, sure.


Quoting Marx about Marxism seems to be a logical thing to do.

I wouldn't fall into the trap. Marxism has transcended Marx. Relying solely on what Marx said 150 years ago isn't really understanding where Marxism has come. Marx didn't see the Russian revolution or the 20th century, so you have no idea what Marx's opinions are.


Are you referring to the overthrow of the bourgeois state?

Of any state.


No, for why you asked.

Because the text goes into detail about your quote.


What you personally think and what Lenin thought, wrote about, and actually did are very different things.

And what he did was use the bourgeois state (which incidentally is what he wrote about) to centralise political authority into the hands of the political party he was the leader of.


Sure he made mistakes, but making claims like that Lenin believed the vanguard should take power in place of the working class, essentially making Lenin no longer a socialist, requires much more evidence and materialistic analysis than just thinking.

I genuinely admire the fact you have absolutely no qualms with patronising someone who is twice your age and who was part of the revolutionary socialist left before you were even born. (I guarantee I was reading and understanding State and revolution while you were still shitting in nappies.) But then again who are we old people to stand in the way of youth? All power to you!

Unfortunately my opinions are not predicated on some kind of instinct. I have, you'll be surprised to learn, done my fair share of reading and concluded my views based on two things a) what Lenin said and b) what Lenin did.

What he and the rest of them did was mimic bourgeois governmental institutions (the Congress of Soviets and the Sovnarkam both essentially took the form of bourgeois governments), established representative democracy (the grouping of representatives into a centralised governing body with legislative oversight -- alongside a strong executive) and established bourgeois structures of political control (the Cheka, the Red Guard for two examples).

In other words he did what he said was necessary to do in State and Revolution when he acknowledged that "...for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state [remains], without the bourgeoisie!"

[Fourth Internationalist]

Some Marxism, sure.


I'm pretty sure that Marxism is for communism not the bourgeois state.


I wouldn't fall into the trap. Marxism has transcended Marx. Relying solely on what Marx said 150 years ago isn't really understanding where Marxism has come. Marx didn't see the Russian revolution or the 20th century, so you have no idea what Marx's opinions are.
I'm not quoting him for a point about the Russian Revolution.



Of any state.
No. Marxism is pretty clear that communism is the end goal.



Because the text goes into detail about your quote.Are you expecting me to accept the text as correct?


And what he did was use the bourgeois state (which incidentally is what he wrote about) to centralise political authority into the hands of the political party he was the leader of.What does this statement have to do with what I have said about the vanguard party (in what it actually is)?


I genuinely admire the fact you have absolutely no qualms with patronising someone who is twice your age So you'd like me to stop discussing with you because I'm 15? :(


and who was part of the revolutionary socialist left before you were even born. (I guarantee I was reading and understanding State and revolution while you were still shitting in nappies.) Someone's getting angry. :mellow:


But then again who are we old people to stand in the way of youth? All power to you!Aren't you twice my age?

Unfortunately my opinions are not predicated on some kind of instinct. I have, you'll be surprised to learn, done my fair share of reading and concluded my views based on two things a) what Lenin said and b) what Lenin did.I'm sure someone else has done more research than you have on Lenin and has drawn different conclusions from you. If you're so confident, why do you feel the need to bring up my age? To tell me how long you've been a leftist? Why did you, out of nowhere, get so angry?


What he and the rest of them did was mimic bourgeois governmental institutions (the Congress of Soviets and the Sovnarkam both essentially took the form of bourgeois governments), established representative democracy (the grouping of representatives into a centralised governing body with legislative oversight -- alongside a strong executive) and established bourgeois structures of political control (the Cheka, the Red Guard for two examples).

In other words he did what he said was necessary to do in State and Revolution when he acknowledged that "...for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state [remains], without the bourgeoisie!"Sure he made some mistakes, in fact many mistakes, but there was significant progress for the working class in his time. I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore Leninist, even the amazing Rosa Luxemburg whose quote is in your signature recognised the achievements of the Bolsheviks in a severely backwards Russia.

- - - - - - - -

It's clear from your use of personal attacks this discussion has brought out emotions in you, for some reason. If you'd like to continue, have a nap before replying, and don't use personal attacks, especially ones based on my age. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm pretty sure that Marxism is for communism not the bourgeois state.

It's not really a question of being "for" communism or "for" the bourgeois state. Lenin wasn't "for" the bourgeois state, he was "for" communism, but he still used the bourgeois state to centralise political authority into the hands of the "vanguard"...Something you are arguing Marxists don't believe in doing.


I'm not quoting him for a point about the Russian Revolution.

Why not? The Russian revolution was a Marxist one, was it not? It's all fine and well to say "Marx said this" and "Marx said that" 150 years ago, but what about what Marxists are saying now or have said and done since Marx died...?

One has to take a holistic understanding to Marxist history and ideas. You can't just say "Marx said this in 1871, ergo I am right." You're ignoary 150 years of Marxism...


No. Marxism is pretty clear that communism is the end goal.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused about what you're saying...


Are you expecting me to accept the text as correct?

You haven't even read the text! Had you done so you would see that it presents two positions looking at what Marx said originally and then how Marx changed his mind.

I'm not here to convince you of anything. I don't care if you accept the text or not (though it isn't really a text for which you can accept something -- or at least there are two options for you). The link was meant to help people get a wider reading and understanding, and because I assumed it would be of interest to people discussing these issues, since it's relevant.

If you don't want to read it, then don't read it. I was merely trying to he helpful.


What does this statement have to do with what I have said about the vanguard party (in what it actually is)?

Because the CPSU was a vanguard and did exactly what you said a vanguard shouldn't be doing...


So you'd like me to stop discussing with you because I'm 15? :(

I have no idea how you have inferred this from what I said...


Someone's getting angry. :mellow:

Erm, no I'm not...


Are you sure you're twice my age? :grin:

Well unless you're lying about your age then I'm quite sure.


I'm sure someone else has done more research than you have on Lenin and has drawn different conclusions from you.

So are you saying that somewhere, someone has done research that has concluded Lenin didn't write State and Revolution, didn't use the CPSU to centralise political authority into a legislative body and executive (of which he was the head) or created the cheka, or estalished representative democracy?

If there is such research I would very much like to see it.


If you're so confident, why do you feel the need to bring up my age? To tell me how long you've been a leftist? Why did you, out of nowhere, get so angry?

Firstly I'm not angry. Secondly I don't think my comment about your attitude towards me is a substitute for an argument, and thirdly I brought it up because you are being rude (which is perfectly acceptable if that's how you want to handle your interactions with me).


Sure he made some mistakes, in fact many mistakes, but there was significant progress for the working class in his time. I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore Leninist, even the amazing Rosa Luxemburg whose quote is in your signature recognised the achievements of the Bolsheviks in a severely backwards Russia.

So you think Soviet government system was a mistake? Then we are in agreement.


It's clear from your use of personal attacks this discussion has brought out emotions in you, for some reason. If you'd like to continue, have a nap before replying, and don't use personal attacks, especially ones based on my age. :)

No where in my post did I make a personal attack against you. If you have taken offence by anything I have said I would suggest being less sensitive, or alternatively, read what people are saying and try and understand their meaning, rather than applying your own meaning.

[The Feral Underclass]

I genuinely admire the fact you have absolutely no qualms with patronising someone who is twice your age and who was part of the revolutionary socialist left before you were even born. (I guarantee I was reading and understanding State and revolution while you were still shitting in nappies.) But then again who are we old people to stand in the way of youth? All power to you!

This wasn't sarcasm.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It's not really a question of being "for" communism or "for" the bourgeois state. Lenin wasn't "for" the bourgeois state, he was "for" communism, but he still used the bourgeois state to centralise political authority into the hands of the "vanguard"...Something you are arguing Marxists don't believe in doing.

But he didn't use the bourgeois state to centralise authority into the vanguard nor did he believe in doing that.



Why not? Because it's not what I quoted him for.


One has to take a holistic understanding to Marxist history and ideas. You can't just say "Marx said this in 1871, ergo I am right." You're ignoary 150 years of Marxism...I never said because I quoted Marx this I'm right. Point out where I said, "Marx said this in 1871, ergo I am right." I used his own words to show Marxism's view on a particular subject.


You haven't even read the text! Had you done so you would see that it presents two positions looking at what Marx said originally and then how Marx changed his mind.I read it over but I didn't study it closely.


Because the CPSU was a vanguard and did exactly what you said a vanguard shouldn't be doing...The Bolsheviks were a vanguard but that does not meaning any action they did define vanguardism.



So are you saying that somewhere, someone has done research that has concluded Lenin didn't use the CPSU to centralise political authority into a legislative body and executive (of which he was the head) or created the cheka, or estalished representative democracy?

If there is such research I would very much like to see it.No that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about your clearly overall negative opinion of him.


Firstly I'm not angry. Secondly I don't think my comment about your attitude towards me is a substitute for an argument, and thirdly I brought it up because you are being rude (which is perfectly acceptable if that's how you want to handle your interactions with me).Yes I'm being rude when you're the one talking about how rude I am (disagreement and debate is not rude), and bringing age into this by talking about how you've read more about this than before I was out of diapers. But of course, those random comments involving those things were just merely observations and had no actual purpose?


So you think Soviet government system was a mistake? Then we are in agreement.Not all of it. There were parts that were good, parts that were bad. The whole thing is not just "bad" or "good"

[Fourth Internationalist]

This wasn't sarcasm.


I genuinely admire the fact you have absolutely no qualms with patronising someone I was not patronising.



who is twice your ageWhy even bring this up?


and who was part of the revolutionary socialist left before you were even born. Fascinating.



(I guarantee I was reading and understanding State and revolution while you were still shitting in nappies.) Oh yes clearly not rude at all, but yet I was rude.



But then again who are we old people to stand in the way of youth? All power to you! What does any of this have to do with anything, at all?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Some might find this interesting.

A Libertarian Marx? (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/19xx/xx/libmarx.html) -- Daniel Guerin

Sorry I just find this to be historically inaccurate to label some split between the Marx of the Manifesto as authoritarian while the Civil War in France is libertarian Marx. Where exactly is this split? It notes that between the events of 48-71 Marx changed his position saying that the working class needs to smash the state machinery and create ones anew, but this isn't some big difference when it comes to the whole authoritarian/libertarian debate. Marx says the first step in the revolution was for the proletariat to take the political power as a class to "win the battle of democracy" and then to put into effect legislation that would help the working class in the struggle against the capitalist system and would fight back against counter-revolution. Is this some big break from what happened? It's not like Marx didn't have his criticism, like how they should have taken the bank, how they should have taken Versailles, etc, etc.

Also falsely claims that the Commune abolished the state, which is funny because the Commune passed decrees, had a standing fighting force, kept people prisoners, etc, etc, did things that states do.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry I just find this to be historically inaccurate to label some split between the Marx of the Manifesto as authoritarian while the Civil War in France is libertarian Marx. Where exactly is this split? It notes that between the events of 48-71 Marx changed his position saying that the working class needs to smash the state machinery and create ones anew, but this isn't some big difference when it comes to the whole authoritarian/libertarian debate. Marx says the first step in the revolution was for the proletariat to take the political power as a class to "win the battle of democracy" and then to put into effect legislation that would help the working class in the struggle against the capitalist system and would fight back against counter-revolution. Is this some big break from what happened? It's not like Marx didn't have his criticism, like how they should have taken the bank, how they should have taken Versailles, etc, etc.

Also falsely claims that the Commune abolished the state, which is funny because the Commune passed decrees, had a standing fighting force, kept people prisoners, etc, etc, did things that states do.

I'm not defending Daniel Guerin. I provided the link out of interest for people. Okay?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'm not defending Daniel Guerin. I provided the link out of interest for people. Okay?

Well when I provide a link to someone saying it might be of interest I make sure it's accurate. If its an inaccurate article, and you know this, why would you link it? That doesn't make sense...

[The Feral Underclass]

Well when I provide a link to someone saying it might be of interest I make sure it's accurate.

That's clearly a matter of opinion, isn't it?


If its an inaccurate article, and you know this, why would you link it? That doesn't make sense...

Your opinion about the accuracy of the article is just that: An opinion. I don't have to seek permission from you to link to an article just because you may or may not end up disagreeing with it.

I thought the article was interesting so I linked it because I thought other people may think so too.

Stop being a fucking dick.

[The Feral Underclass]

But he didn't use the bourgeois state to centralise authority into the vanguard nor did he believe in doing that.

I'm afraid you're simply wrong about that. The Congress of Soviets was a centralised legislative that rubber-stamped the executive decisions of the Sovnarkom, made up of CPSU leadership who were picked by the party into their positions. The Sovnarkom had executive, central power over the state and employed a very severe security apparatus to keep it in power. The institutions of the state were seized and employed for the purposes of the Sovnarkom. The only difference, which we are supposed to accept as legitimate justification for all this, is that it had communists running them -- or in Lenin's own words "the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!"


Because it's not what I quoted him for.

That's beside the point I was making.


I never said because I quoted Marx this I'm right. Point out where I said, "Marx said this in 1871, ergo I am right." I used his own words to show Marxism's view on a particular subject.

But the point I am making is that you cannot talk for "Marxism," since "Marxism" isn't one single thing.


The Bolsheviks were a vanguard but that does not meaning any action they did define vanguardism.

What?


No that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about your clearly overall negative opinion of him.

But my "negative" opinion of Lenin stems directly from the things I described, so...


Not all of it. There were parts that were good, parts that were bad. The whole thing is not just "bad" or "good"

Then what are the mistakes you're referring to?

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry I just find this to be historically inaccurate to label some split between the Marx of the Manifesto as authoritarian while the Civil War in France is libertarian Marx.

Out of interest, are you saying that the ideas that were expressed in the Manifesto are completely and utterly the same as the ideas expressed in the Civil War in France? I'm not entirely sure you can legitimately make that claim, since Engels and Marx themselves said they had revised their opinions (either through a change of heart of political expedience).

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That's clearly a matter of opinion, isn't it?



Your opinion about the accuracy of the article is just that: An opinion. I don't have to seek permission from you to link to an article just because you may or may not end up disagreeing with it.

I thought the article was interesting so I linked it because I thought other people may think so too.

Stop being a fucking dick.
I'm sorry, but it seemed like you said you weren't defending him(thus thinking the article was inaccurate) while not prefacing that you thought it had no merit. Hence the confusion from your reply.

Either way it should be pointed out how it's innacurate.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Out of interest, are you saying that the ideas that were expressed in the Manifesto are completely and utterly the same as the ideas expressed in the Civil War in France? I'm not entirely sure you can legitimately make that claim, since Engels and Marx themselves said they had revised their opinions (either through a change of heart of political expedience).

If you read what I typed you'd see I said there was no libertarian/authoritarian split between these times, not that there hadn't been changes of opinions on anything.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you read what I typed you'd see I said there was no libertarian/authoritarian split between these times, not that there hadn't been changes of opinions on anything.

I read what you typed and I am trying to understand what you mean. You say there is no authoritarian split, but then also say that the ideas did change. Does this then mean you don't think the initial ideas were authoritarian?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I don't think the initial ideas were authoritarian or libertarian.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why not?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Relevancy?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It was more Marx learning lessons from the experiences of worker movements, most notably of course the Commune.

It was not so much Marx becoming "authoritarian", whatever that means, as it was him maturing and seeing what was needed in reality. Something which the anarchists were reluctant to do.

[The Feral Underclass]

Relevancy?

I'm not really sure that makes any sense. The authoritarian vs libertarian debate is firmly defined and the parameters of that definition include the centralised political authority vs federalism debate...

[The Feral Underclass]

It was not so much Marx becoming "authoritarian", whatever that means, as it was him maturing and seeing what was needed in reality.

You mean libertarian...

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'm not really sure that makes any sense. The authoritarian vs libertarian debate is firmly defined and the parameters of that definition include the centralised political authority vs federalism debate...

Because I thought we were talking about the article which you linked. The article which purports Marx to be an authoritarian pre-1871 and a libertarian post 1871.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because I thought we were talking about the article which you linked. The article which purports Marx to be an authoritarian pre-1871 and a libertarian post 1871.

It doesn't actually purport anything, it proposes a question. But whatever, if you're saying that there was no such split in ideas then presumably the ideas must have been consistent. Given that Marx and Engels both agreed that they revised their 1848 views in line with the 1871 Paris Commune, and that those opinions softened on the role of the state (i.e. an authoritarian position), I am trying to understand how you are coming to this conclusion.

You say that the initial ideas were neither authoritarian or libertarian, a position that is tenuous when you consider the framework for the authoritarian vs libertarian debate. You said the reason for your views is "relevancy," but I am struggling to understand how any of this is making sense.

Can you please help me understand?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You mean libertarian...

Neither, actually.
Marx said more force was needed in the Commune while Marx and Engels also praised the democratic institutions that arised in the Commune but the conclusion also was that force was needed to make it last, among other reasons.

My conclusion is that they weren't more libertarian or more authoritarian. But they recognized that in that case authority against the old rulers and their institutions would be libertarian for the new forms of rule.

The question is not authoritarian vs libertarian, but authority/liberty against/for what class.

[G4b3n]

I agree. Marx even said "But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

Again, I realize this and I am not contradicting Marx in that sense. A revolution is a continuing struggle, not just one act of insurrection.



Yes, and in the case of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that class is the proletariat.

I will ask you what I ask all authoritarians. Can you show me an example of worker's control? If worker's control does not exist, then the ruling class is not the proletariat, it is more than likely the party elite.



There is no such thing as state socialism.

When the proletariat lead by a vanguard, seizes the state and establishes a transitional period in that manner, then it is state socialism. You can not reject that label simply because it makes the authoritarian elements within this dated method clear, you would need to actually prove how it is not in fact "state socialism".


Socialism can only be achieved after global revolution, and the abolition of classes and states.

My point exactly.



Workers establishing power is not equivalent to socialism. The Paris Commune, a dictatorship of the proletariat (established workers' power), was not socialist nor could it have been. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the establishment of workers' power, is a state.

Once worker's establish power, they can then establish socialism, I never said it was the same thing. The establishment of power is the sign of a new society coming into existence within the old (remember dialectics). A state will rob the worker's of power. Why? Because it is not actually managed by workers. It is an extremely simple concept to grasp, but that doesn't make it any less relevant.



By capitalism I am referring to the stage of capitalism we are in now before the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the final stage of capitalism and the beginning of the building of socialism. Sorry for confusing you.


That is what I figured.



Why not? The majority of the working class was supportive of the Bolshevik party, so they put them "in power" so to say (I can't think of a better term for it even though the working class was in power).


Even if a majority of worker's supported them, that does not justify any consolidation of power. "All Power to the Soviets!" Not "All power to the Bolsheviks!". The working class was in power at the time yes, and they would have continued to stay in power had Lenin not proceeded to tear down the functions of the soviets as institutions of power.



The vanguard does not seize state power. No vanguardist believes the vanguard should take state power and leave the rest of the working class which it is a part of behind. I will post the role of the vanguard party that was posted by a user named Judas whose post I believe you may have missed.

That is literally what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did. Like many friends here, I have been studying revolutionary politics for quite some time and I am more than aware of the theoretical functions of the vanguard, what I am concerned about is practical application my friend. You can preach your politics under the veil of some benevolent Marxian leadership, but I will not slip into that tragedy that destroys what it seeks to create.

[The Feral Underclass]

Neither, actually.

Why did you say authoritarian then?


The question is not authoritarian vs libertarian, but authority/liberty against/for what class.

But this, of course, ignores the history of the First International and the debates that existed between authoritarians and anti-authoritarians.

I can accept that this is an anarchist framed debate, but nevertheless, this does refer to the centralised state as envisioned in 1848 being revised on on more anti-authoritarian principles (or at least rhetoric) in 1871.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Why did you say authoritarian then?


I wrongly thought you implied that. However I said that I wouldn't call him more authoritarian.