What am I?

[RO17]

Hello!

I am wondering what tendency am I? I have been researching leftist ideologies for several months now and I am very, very much interested and I would love to know what exactly am since I only have a very limited knowledge of leftist theories compared to you all :).

What I believe in:

Capitalism has reversed society, hurt the family, it is profit driven to and capitalist will stop at nothing to exploit workers to maximize labour and profits

I do not think a 'commune' can really work without some sort of government or it will lack any organization seen in Mao's communes during the great leap forward where many died due to confusion and bad weather.

I do not like Stalin's statist capitalistic society where the state controls everyone's lives and has no regard for them - that is state capitalism

I do not like Castro's cuba where the state jails people for political dissonance (which arguably might be from the CIA trying to undermine his regime for years)

In a communal society who decides who gets what? Who decides the justice of crimes? Is there direct democracy? Would someone hoard the resources and who would monitor this? Would technological advancements stop? Should people be free to do as they please and not participate in said commune?

I never thought that Marxist Leninism was also what Stalin supported. I always thought that Marxist Leninism is a small decentralized government with limited power. I thought that Maoism was just Stalinism (totalitarian rule over people's lives).

What am I? Feel free to ask any questions that would help you help me!

[Sam_b]

Why do you feel the need to pigeonhole yourself into a specific tendency? That would be the first question I would ask.


hurt the family

Could you also expand on this please? I (and I suppose others) would probably argue that the concept of the nuclear family has been exceptionally damaging, especially in enforcing gender roles and the like.

I'll let others jump in about the idea of government and so on.

[Queen Mab]

Depending on what you mean by 'hurt the family', you might be a paleoconservative traditionalist. Maybe sympathetic to fascist corporatism or Bismarckian state capitalism. But really, the idea of the nuclear family as separate from capitalism is incoherent. You can't oppose capitalist social relations while defending capitalist family relations.

[Sabot Cat]

It' hard to tell you what you are because I don't know what your theory of governance or economics is, although it seems as though you might be misconstruing what some things are (such as the communes and how they function). I'll wait for more knowledgeable users to explain stuff, but I believe I concur with you in that capitalism hurts families. It's harder for people who love each other to share time as a whole when the moments of their lives are used up at every turn so that the rich may accrue yet more wealth. With a more democratic economy, you would have families teach each other trades and work in the same cooperatives if they so chose, strengthening their bonds and expanding the role of love in the community.

[RO17]

Why do you feel the need to pigeonhole yourself into a specific tendency? That would be the first question I would ask.

I do not want to pin myself to an ideology, but I do want to know what ideology I lean towards.



Could you also expand on this please? I (and I suppose others) would probably argue that the concept of the nuclear family has been exceptionally damaging, especially in enforcing gender roles and the like.

Capitalism, like marx has said, has reduced the family to monetary relations in most cases. Rarely does one find a family tight together whom also owns large amounts of capital. It has decided which gender is to do what and it has brought on the stereotypes of women and denied them rights for hundreds of years.
[/quote]

[RO17]

Depending on what you mean by 'hurt the family', you might be a paleoconservative traditionalist. Maybe sympathetic to fascist corporatism or Bismarckian state capitalism. But really, the idea of the nuclear family as separate from capitalism is incoherent. You can't oppose capitalist social relations while defending capitalist family relations.
As marx has put it:

"The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation."

I am in, no way conservative. I believe that the workers need absolute control over the mode/means of production and that the dictatorship of capitalist should be done away with. There should be no homeless, starving people and everyone deserves the right to a quality of life. I am consider myself as a marxist leninist, however I disagree with the NEP - that was purely capitalism and it could have had never been repealed as Lenin died and Stalin (after battling for power against trotsky and others) continued the policy and oppressed the society. Every person in the party needs to democratically voted in. I disagree with statism - I believe that Lenin had an honest ideal of a better russia but Stalin corrupted it and oppressed russia, I know he did not killed 192203203920390230293023 people but he had it an authoritarian and oppressive society, the exact thing communism opposes.

[Geiseric]

It was undeniable that the NEP was enacted due to the economic isolation of Russia, it was literally do that or starve as the peasants only made enough food for themselves. The idea of when it should of been ended was originally whenever the food production was at pre war levels, which it was by 1925. However as that was attained, the gap between the kulak controlled countryside and the revolutionary classes, namely the poor peasantry and working class revealed themselves.

[Blake's Baby]

At the risk of being accused of defending Stalin here, what choices were there, RO17?

Do you think Lenin, or Stalin, or anyone else (inside or outside the Bolshevik Party), could have 'established communism' in Russia (and Russia alone)? Was there any viable alternative to the state capitalist dictatorship that you identify?

Is the good will of Lenin, and the bad faith of Stalin, a sufficient explanation for what went wrong in Russia?

[Brotto Rühle]

You are.....someone who needs to read Marx.

[Alonso Quijano]

Rosa is for you.

[Stalinist Speaker]

You know i'm not sure, but i'm pretty sure your an leftist.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Read some Bakunin.

[RO17]

It was undeniable that the NEP was enacted due to the economic isolation of Russia, it was literally do that or starve as the peasants only made enough food for themselves. The idea of when it should of been ended was originally whenever the food production was at pre war levels, which it was by 1925. However as that was attained, the gap between the kulak controlled countryside and the revolutionary classes, namely the poor peasantry and working class.
I understand that the Russian economy was on the brink of collapse after the government destroyed it during the war and excessive spending leading to massive inflation, and then not raising any wages causing no one to be able to buy any goods and in particular, food.

But if communism is a currency-less state then why do we need an 'economy'? However I understand that currency is much more efficient than bartering.

[RO17]

At the risk of being accused of defending Stalin here, what choices were there, RO17?

Do you think Lenin, or Stalin, or anyone else (inside or outside the Bolshevik Party), could have 'established communism' in Russia (and Russia alone)? Was there any viable alternative to the state capitalist dictatorship that you identify?

Is the good will of Lenin, and the bad faith of Stalin, a sufficient explanation for what went wrong in Russia?
The last part said it perfectly, Lenin did have the good will whilst Stalin wanted to destroy it.

But I still do not understand the logistics of a collective? What if people do not want to work? What if people commit crimes, etc? I have read some of marx but I still do not understand this.

[Remus Bleys]

The last part said it perfectly, Lenin did have the good will whilst Stalin wanted to destroy it.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
This is so wrong. This is so fucking wrong. I cannot tolerate how wrong this was.
Lenin was fantastic - a true revolutionary. And at some point, Stalin too was a good communist (he later went on to be just a romantic revolutionary, but that's besides the point). However, these men were not driven to be "good" or "bad" simply by nefarious plans.
The course that Russia took was not determined by stalin going "okay guise, lets destroy the dictatorship of the proletariat." Such an analysis is liberal hogwash.
We can have no doubt in our minds that had Lenin lived, he would have done the same things Stalin had done. Had Trotsky been in power instead of Stalin, Trotsky would have done the same things Stalin did.
I'll just leave this here...
That which moves man is not opinions, or beliefs or faiths, nor any phenomena whatsoever of so-called thought, which inspires their will or action.

[RO17]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
This is so wrong. This is so fucking wrong. I cannot tolerate how wrong this was.
Lenin was fantastic - a true revolutionary. And at some point, Stalin too was a good communist (he later went on to be just a romantic revolutionary, but that's besides the point). However, these men were not driven to be "good" or "bad" simply by nefarious plans.
The course that Russia took was not determined by stalin going "okay guise, lets destroy the dictatorship of the proletariat." Such an analysis is liberal hogwash.
We can have no doubt in our minds that had Lenin lived, he would have done the same things Stalin had done. Had Trotsky been in power instead of Stalin, Trotsky would have done the same things Stalin did.
I'll just leave this here...
Lenin was a man of what could have been, and all we can do is speculate - but we knew what Stalin did - and we oppressed the people in the most fascist way, the very thing (I believe) communism is against. He caused the deaths of millions (from famine) and hundreds of thousands from executions (somewhere around 700,000).

I still reject Stalin as someone who really cared about marxist thought, it seems he went after his own interest rather the people's.

[Blake's Baby]

So you think it's the willpower of talented or determined individuals that make history?

'Lenin was a genius, he wrestled history in the right direction, Stalin was a bad man so he made it go wrong'?

No.

'The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle'.

'Men make history, but not in circumstances of their chosing'.

'Will' is such a paltry excuse for historical events. The revolution didn't fail because Stalin was bad, Stalin was bad because the revolution failed.

[Alan OldStudent]

I know exactly what/who you are. You are a (A) human being (B) asking sincere questions who is (C) willing to listen intelligently and critically to different ideas.

My only suggestion is to keep asking intelligent questions. I think you're probably typical of a lot of young folks beginning to radicalize, although I have no idea if you're young or not.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[RO17]

So you think it's the willpower of talented or determined individuals that make history?

'Lenin was a genius, he wrestled history in the right direction, Stalin was a bad man so he made it go wrong'?

No.

'The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle'.

'Men make history, but not in circumstances of their chosing'.

'Will' is such a paltry excuse for historical events. The revolution didn't fail because Stalin was bad, Stalin was bad because the revolution failed.
I do agree that where the individual is and the circumstance they are really determines his/her fate ultimately, so why did the revolution fail? Was it because they skipped the transitional phase? Was it because the bourgeoisie still controlled the political affairs? Or was it because Lenin instituted NEP, but it was needed to get the economy back on track, I do not know why it is failed. It was well intentioned and I do not see how it could have had besides mass political corruption.

Why did Mao's communes fail besides their famines? They did it as Marx said it, no state, no laws, no nothing and everyone is to participate as their own - so why did it fail? Would this be empirical evidence completely undermining all Marxist theories?

[Blake's Baby]

I do agree that where the individual is and the circumstance they are really determines his/her fate ultimately, so why did the revolution fail? Was it because they skipped the transitional phase? Was it because the bourgeoisie still controlled the political affairs? Or was it because Lenin instituted NEP, but it was needed to get the economy back on track, I do not know why it is failed. It was well intentioned and I do not see how it could have had besides mass political corruption...

It failed because it only spread to Hungary and Bavaria and it was defeated in months there, primarily by military force. So, none of the answers you supplied. You do know that the revolution is intended to be worldwide, don't you?


Why did Mao's communes fail besides their famines? They did it as Marx said it, no state, no laws, no nothing and everyone is to participate as their own - so why did it fail? Would this be empirical evidence completely undermining all Marxist theories?

I don't think Mao's guerilla war and its aftermath have anything to do with Marx's theories. Why do you think they have?

[RO17]

It failed because it only spread to Hungary and Bavaria and it was defeated in months there, primarily by military force. So, none of the answers you supplied. You do know that the revolution is intended to be worldwide, don't you?

I guess, but this was not an excuse to have a elite running the country, I understand it is meant to be worldwide (which is a bit far fetched as people living in wealthy countries would be oppose to this movement). I feel like when you have a military force you organize the masses into the same hierarchal formation and in turn when the revolution ends there is the same elite governing the country, how would you possibly stop this? It seems every 'revolution', China, Korea, Cuba, CCCP, Albania, etc all had brutal elitist governments that were no better than the last - so what is the different approach to this problem?



I don't think Mao's guerilla war and its aftermath have anything to do with Marx's theories. Why do you think they have?

Was Marx against guerrilla warfare? The way I see it is that war is war, people die either way and sometimes for the wrong cause. What is wrong is a peaceful transition of power (which would be more stable) as appose to a violent revolution where the people cannot decide their leaders and it seems that they elect themselves (military leaders)?

I thought Mao followed Marx by making those communes, they had industry, agriculture, etc and they still failed and many died - what went wrong?

[Ele'ill]

RO17, I think you should browse the forum and continue to read what interests you.

[Blake's Baby]

I guess, but this was not an excuse to have a elite running the country, I understand it is meant to be worldwide (which is a bit far fetched as people living in wealthy countries would be oppose to this movement). I feel like when you have a military force you organize the masses into the same hierarchal formation and in turn when the revolution ends there is the same elite governing the country, how would you possibly stop this? It seems every 'revolution', China, Korea, Cuba, CCCP, Albania, etc all had brutal elitist governments that were no better than the last - so what is the different approach to this problem? ...

So, what you are saying every 'revolution' that just changed the government and hoisted a red flag, failed to bring about communism?

'what went wrong' is people thinking that changing the government and hoisting a red flag brings about communism.


...
Was Marx against guerrilla warfare? The way I see it is that war is war, people die either way and sometimes for the wrong cause. What is wrong is a peaceful transition of power (which would be more stable) as appose to a violent revolution where the people cannot decide their leaders and it seems that they elect themselves (military leaders)? ...

Was Marx in favour of a guerilla war?

'Workers of the world unite'.

Doesn't say anything about hiding in forests blowing shit up. It is the working class that will launch, and fight, and win, the world revolution. Not dirty men hiding in caves..


...I thought Mao followed Marx by making those communes, they had industry, agriculture, etc and they still failed and many died - what went wrong?

Why do you think that had anything to do with Marx?

I know I just asked that, but you didn't answer me.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Capitalism, like marx has said, has reduced the family to monetary relations in most cases. Rarely does one find a family tight together whom also owns large amounts of capital. It has decided which gender is to do what and it has brought on the stereotypes of women and denied them rights for hundreds of years.

This isn't the same as saying that capitalism has "hurt the family". It's merely saying that with capitalism, the family has been given a different, distinct role.

[RO17]

So, what you are saying every 'revolution' that just changed the government and hoisted a red flag, failed to bring about communism?
'what went wrong' is people thinking that changing the government and hoisting a red flag brings about communism.

Yes but these 'revolutions' I thought were intended to bring about communism, but it ended up just being a different government with a red flag.




Was Marx in favour of a guerilla war?

'Workers of the world unite'.

Doesn't say anything about hiding in forests blowing shit up. It is the working class that will launch, and fight, and win, the world revolution. Not dirty men hiding in caves..

True, he wanted the masses to fight for themselves, not a few people using terrorist tactics to destabilize the government.



Why do you think that had anything to do with Marx?

I know I just asked that, but you didn't answer me.
I thought that Marx advocated for communes? Hence communism - he wanted communities to work together for the common benefit of all. I thought that Mao attempted to do this but failed during the great leap forward.

[RO17]

This isn't the same as saying that capitalism has "hurt the family". It's merely saying that with capitalism, the family has been given a different, distinct role.
That is what I meant, I meant that it has given a different role and that people care so much as how much money there is in another's wallet.

[Remus Bleys]

That is what I meant, I meant that it has given a different role and that people care so much as how much money there is in another's wallet.
fucking - damnit- *other jumbled phrases*
Abolish the "family"
You need to read some Kollontai

[Fourth Internationalist]

I understand that the Russian economy was on the brink of collapse after the government destroyed it during the war and excessive spending leading to massive inflation, and then not raising any wages causing no one to be able to buy any goods and in particular, food.

But if communism is a currency-less state then why do we need an 'economy'? However I understand that currency is much more efficient than bartering.

Communism is not a currency/money-less state, it is moneyless and stateless as well as absent of private (not personal) property. The USSR, before it's eventual degeneration into statified capitalism, was not communist but rather it was a transitional workers' state, a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (the working class), transitioning towards socialism from capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes but these 'revolutions' I thought were intended to bring about communism, but it ended up just being a different government with a red flag...

And alchemy intended to turn lead into gold and make alchemists immortal. Is everything that someone intends to do possible?



...
True, he wanted the masses to fight for themselves, not a few people using terrorist tactics to destabilize the government...

Right, now we're getting somewhere. So, what is (if any) the connection between Marxism and guerilla war?


...
I thought that Marx advocated for communes? Hence communism - he wanted communities to work together for the common benefit of all. I thought that Mao attempted to do this but failed during the great leap forward.

Not really.

Marx didn't 'advocate for communes'. He tried to describe a social movement - one that would, if pursued to its conclusion, result in all things being held communally (in common).

His theory, if we can call it that, was that it class conflict that would result in this 'common' society, not conflict among 'communities'.

Back to 'attempts' again... what has Mao 'attempting' anything got to do with Marx?

[Q]

You are.....someone who needs to read Marx.
Infracted.

I seriously recommend you adjust your behaviour. 3 Infractions within 24 hours isn't a healthy rate. I know you can post better.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

It certainly is nonsense to say that Stalin was pure evil and Lenin was a perfect revolutionary. However, it is equally nonsensical to claim that you KNOW that Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky all would have done the same things, or to be more specific, that governments led by them would have done the same things. And actually, all this is beside the point. We should strive for a system in which the 'governement' is run in a way that's actually democratic, I don't think putting a small group in charge would be conducive to democracy.

[Blake's Baby]

But circumstances constrain our actions. Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, were they all in the same position, would only have the same range of choices. Certainly, they may have made different choices, but only from the same suite of options. 'Make a world revolution and establish socialist society' wouldn't have been an option for any of them.

[Anti-Traditional]

'Make a world revolution and establish socialist society' wouldn't have been an option for any of them.

True, but Trotsky might not have led the entire World Communist Movement astray with SIOC nonsense. He might not have declared Russia to be Socialist and thus make Socialism stink to the world working class.

[Blake's Baby]

He probably would have had to come up with some justification for the situation of the isolated revolution. My guess is that he would have been saying 'just wait a little longer, the proletariat in Germany will be revolting any day now!' - for 35 years. That wouldn't do the World Communist Movement any good either.

[RO17]

Communism is not a currency/money-less state, it is moneyless and stateless as well as absent of private (not personal) property. The USSR, before it's eventual degeneration into statified capitalism, was not communist but rather it was a transitional workers' state, a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (the working class), transitioning towards socialism from capitalism.
It seemed like the USSR skipped the transitional phase because there were still bourgeoisie controlling the state affairs - and eventually making it turn into a state capitalistic system where they were no better off than before (maybe a little).

But how could Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin all let their vision fail and succumb to state capitalism and allow the same elite to rule the masses once again, the very thing they fought against. I understand that they needed to rebuild the economy, but what good is a capitalist economy in a socialist society?

[RO17]

And alchemy intended to turn lead into gold and make alchemists immortal. Is everything that someone intends to do possible?

I just do not see out of the dozens of revolutions that even once they never achieved their ultimate goal.



Right, now we're getting somewhere. So, what is (if any) the connection between Marxism and guerilla war?

There is no connection, I simply thought that people use guerrilla warfare to overpower a government better equipped than them.



Not really.

Marx didn't 'advocate for communes'. He tried to describe a social movement - one that would, if pursued to its conclusion, result in all things being held communally (in common).

True, he never directly advocated for communes, but he did, like you said, laid down the foundations of which such a society would exist.



His theory, if we can call it that, was that it class conflict that would result in this 'common' society, not conflict among 'communities'.

Yes, according to marx when the worker/masses and realize that they have been held in bondage to the bourgeoisie they will fight back and eventually lead to the ideal, classless, stateless society. I still do not know how a stateless society can exist.



Back to 'attempts' again... what has Mao 'attempting' anything got to do with Marx?
Mao was attempting to form a society that marx laid the foundations for I think

[RO17]

But circumstances constrain our actions. Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, were they all in the same position, would only have the same range of choices. Certainly, they may have made different choices, but only from the same suite of options. 'Make a world revolution and establish socialist society' wouldn't have been an option for any of them.
Why is communism or socialism not possible in a single country besides the borders and military issues?

[Blake's Baby]

Because communism is a stateless, classless, communal society. By definition, if a society is bordered by another, it cannot be classless and communal, as what is 'over the border' is not part of the society. It's not 'communal' if 7/8 of the world is not part of the community.

There must be a state if there are borders, else the territory over the border will just take over. There must be a power to resist, both militarily, and to organise production. This is a state. It might be a state of the working class - a type of state that's never before existed as far as we know, a state of the majority - but that still means that there is a working class, so there are classes too.

Communism is only possible if property has been collectivised everywhere, if capitalism has been suppressed everywhere, if classes and the state have had their material roots cut away everywhere.

You are arguing, I think, that no revolution has succeeded in creating communism. I agree. But that this doesn't Marx was wrong (he might be, but we can't prove it like this). This doesn't mean we shouldn't make the attempt; just that no attempt has yet succeeded. Just like, no attempt to make an internal combustion engine succeeded before 1881, or no attempt at heavier than air flight succeeded before 1903, or no expedition manage to climb Everest before 1953 or whatever. Saying 'we've tried and failed and that means it can't be done' is not adequate. Learning from our mistakes, learning why we failed, will help equip us for the next attempt.

[RO17]

Because communism is a stateless, classless, communal society. By definition, if a society is bordered by another, it cannot be classless and communal, as what is 'over the border' is not part of the society. It's not 'communal' if 7/8 of the world is not part of the community.

There must be a state if there are borders, else the territory over the border will just take over. There must be a power to resist, both militarily, and to organise production. This is a state. It might be a state of the working class - a type of state that's never before existed as far as we know, a state of the majority - but that still means that there is a working class, so there are classes too.

Communism is only possible if property has been collectivised everywhere, if capitalism has been suppressed everywhere, if classes and the state have had their material roots cut away everywhere.

You are arguing, I think, that no revolution has succeeded in creating communism. I agree. But that this doesn't Marx was wrong (he might be, but we can't prove it like this). This doesn't mean we shouldn't make the attempt; just that no attempt has yet succeeded. Just like, no attempt to make an internal combustion engine succeeded before 1881, or no attempt at heavier than air flight succeeded before 1903, or no expedition manage to climb Everest before 1953 or whatever. Saying 'we've tried and failed and that means it can't be done' is not adequate. Learning from our mistakes, learning why we failed, will help equip us for the next attempt.
I understand what you are saying, I agree that Marx is most likely right and capitalism is doomed to cave in on itself (it is already, the entire system needs government intervention ever couple years to pump more money into it and it them afloat). I believe that humans are inclined to work together, it is really in our nature as aristotle said, political beast.

I just never have seen any offering of a post capitalistic economy (maybe palecon).

Also, what is the difference on rightist-communist and leftist-communst (left leaning or right leaning is another way to put it)?

I remember either reading Marx or Lenin where they said that the perception of humane nature is mirrored about the top level of society, that is, people will think that we are greedy, violent, unforgiving, etc. I keep trying to find where he wrote that but I can't find it, do you know where he might have had written that?

[Zukunftsmusik]

That is what I meant, I meant that it has given a different role and that people care so much as how much money there is in another's wallet.

I meant more in relation to production and reproduction of labour power.

[RO17]

I meant more in relation to production and reproduction of labour power.
I know I keep revising myself, but I meant like Marx said, it simply reduced everyone from genuine love/feelings for each other (humanity as a whole) to a just monetary gain relations.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I know I keep revising myself, but I meant like Marx said, it simply reduced everyone from genuine love/feelings for each other (humanity as a whole) to a just monetary gain relations.

I think this is problematic because a) people genuinely love their family in capitalism as well as in other societies, and b) during feudalism the family was used for the most vicious fights for power, forced marriages and worse simply in order to build alliances etc. But simply because people love their family doesn't make the family any less of a bourgeois institution, reproducing gender roles etc., as well as the fact that the family being used for alliances/dynasty building and so on doesn't necessarily contradict the people subjectively felt/feels something towards their family members.

I know I might not be making myself incredibly clear here, but I think one should read the bit on the family's changing role in relation to the overall organisation of production and reproduction in society, and especially with regards to the children's and women's role in this. In other words, maybe a paragraph in the manifesto isn't the best place to look for definite theory on this.

[Blake's Baby]

I understand what you are saying, I agree that Marx is most likely right and capitalism is doomed to cave in on itself (it is already, the entire system needs government intervention ever couple years to pump more money into it and it them afloat). I believe that humans are inclined to work together, it is really in our nature as aristotle said, political beast...

I was thinking of that very remark last night. There are various ways to translate it. My understanding is that his point was that man is an animal of the city (polis).

But, I don't think capitalism will just collapse of its own accord. The working class needs to take decisive action to destroy it.


...I just never have seen any offering of a post capitalistic economy (maybe palecon)...

There is no 'post-capitalist economy'. There is production for human needs.


...
Also, what is the difference on rightist-communist and leftist-communst (left leaning or right leaning is another way to put it)? ...

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean 'Left Communism'?

The Left Communists/Communist Left were communist groups expelled from the Third International and/or their national parties in the 1920s. Lenin polemicised against them in 'Left Wing communism: an Infantile Disorder'.

[RO17]

I was thinking of that very remark last night. There are various ways to translate it. My understanding is that his point was that man is an animal of the city (polis).

I think that too.



But, I don't think capitalism will just collapse of its own accord. The working class needs to take decisive action to destroy it.

Capitalism continues to need to be revived by governments, when the main doctrine of capitalism is no government interference, and what we see today is that it would not suffice without government interference.



There is no 'post-capitalist economy'. There is production for human needs.

By economy, I meant the organizational structure of the production.



Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean 'Left Communism'?

The Left Communists/Communist Left were communist groups expelled from the Third International and/or their national parties in the 1920s. Lenin polemicised against them in 'Left Wing communism: an Infantile Disorder'.
I just read up on left communism and agree a lot with Rosa Luxemburg, Bordiga, etc.

I like the idea of a vanguard party, but so long as it only maintains the control of the proletariat or you end up in the USSR situation.

[Blake's Baby]

No, it's not the party escaping from the control of the proletariat that gives you a 'USSR-like situation', it's the world revolution being defeated and leaving only an isolated 'proletarian basition' that gives you a 'USSR-like situation'.

I've said it before, if Lenin had been Father Christmas and Trotsky was made of kittens, you'd still have ended with a 'USSR-like situation' because there weren't a lot of choices after the defeat of the revolutionary wave. You can't build socialism in an isolated country, no matter how much the party remains under the control of the proletariat. If you're referencing Rosa, you should know that she said 'the question (of revolution) has been posed in Russia; it cannot be answered there'.

[Blake's Baby]

sorry, weird double-post going on.

[Slavic]

Capitalism continues to need to be revived by governments, when the main doctrine of capitalism is no government interference, and what we see today is that it would not suffice without government interference.

Capitalism to put it simply is an economic system in which surplus value is obtained through commodity production. Capitalism can flourish in states that have minimal government interference as well as states who's economy is controlled by the government. What truly matters is if there is a surplus value being derived from a working class. What a socialist society seeks to acheive is the elimination of the production of surplus value and gearing the economy for the production of use-value commodities.

By "Capitalism continues to need to be revived by governments" I think you are alluding to recent crises of capitalism that are occurring and the various states attempts to "legislate" the economy back in order. The capitalist economy by its very nature is bound to experience crisis, but sadly crisis alone will never destroy capitalism since there will always profiteers during a crisis.

[Thirsty Crow]

Capitalism continues to need to be revived by governments, when the main doctrine of capitalism is no government interference, and what we see today is that it would not suffice without government interference.

In a very real way, capital has no doctrine and doesn't need one - what it needs are the conditions for its own expanded reproduction, i.e. accumulation. Don't mistake naked ideologies for the practical, day to day requirements of the accumulation cycle - and here the role of the state is crucial. Not only as the orthodox Marxist variant of the theory of the state contends, that the state is the repressive power of the ruling class in its concentrated form, but also in light of the fact that the state is another capitalist enterprise in its own right, so to speak.



By "Capitalism continues to need to be revived by governments" I think you are alluding to recent crises of capitalism that are occurring and the various states attempts to "legislate" the economy back in order.
There's no legislation here - there are attempts at fueling the cycle anew by throwing cash at capitalists. This is as much an economic function as it is a political one.

Of course, I'm simplifying things here by referring to throwing cash at capitalists.

[The Jay]

Depending on what you mean by 'hurt the family', you might be a paleoconservative traditionalist. Maybe sympathetic to fascist corporatism or Bismarckian state capitalism. But really, the idea of the nuclear family as separate from capitalism is incoherent. You can't oppose capitalist social relations while defending capitalist family relations.

What the hell is wrong with you? If someone is admittedly new and seems willing to learn then you have no god damn business implying that they're a fascist for liking the nuclear family, especially since they probably are trying to say that alienation breaks up relationships and the like. I'm surprised that nobody said anything about this yet since you're crossing the line here. Fascism is not a buzzword to be thrown around lightly - especially on those that won't even understand why you are thinking that like this new user.

If you wanted to address the actual issue you would have explained yourself instead of thinly veiled hazing.

[Anti-Traditional]

He probably would have had to come up with some justification for the situation of the isolated revolution. My guess is that he would have been saying 'just wait a little longer, the proletariat in Germany will be revolting any day now!' - for 35 years. That wouldn't do the World Communist Movement any good either.

I guess it's impossible to know. However even if we admit that the revolution failed because it was isolated, I don't think that means the Bolsheviks are absolved (not saying this is your position). Even if the revolution was isolated it doesn't necessarily follow that the Soviets had to be suppressed- someone had to consciously make that decision.

Saying 'just wait a little longer' wouldn't do any good, but I don't think it'd do any harm. I don't think Trotsky would have told the Chinese Communists to team up with the KMT, or tell the Spanish Workers to 'defend democracy'.

What I'm saying is, yes the revolution was isolated, but the Stalinists who controlled the Communist Parties ensured it remained so.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not exactly well-versed in the defence of Stalin but I'm rather of the opinion that the degeneration of the revolution a long time before Stalin secured control.

If Trotsky had been in control of the Soviet Union after 1924, the Soviets would still have been empty shells and the German revolution would still have been defeated. Perhaps things would have occurred differently in China, yes; perhaps this would have re-juvinated the world revolution. Who knows? My guess is that Trotsky would have presided over a militarised state-capitalist 'red bastion', and that his foreign policy would have been very similar to that pursued by Stalin. Stalin derived a good eal of his policy from Trotsky anyway.

But, it is only a guess.

In the end, the Bolsheviks determined the shape of the degeneration, not the fact of it. The counter-revolution was happening. The revolution was degenerating, with or without the Bolsheviks, with or without Stalin.

And I think you're wrong about Spain, I think Trotsky would have very much wanted the Spanish wokers to 'defend democracy', for very much the same reasons Stalin did.

[Anti-Traditional]

And I think you're wrong about Spain, I think Trotsky would have very much wanted the Spanish wokers to 'defend democracy', for very much the same reasons Stalin did.

It's hard to know I guess. Trotsky the statesman and Trotsky the revolutionary probably would have very different views. As you say it's only guessing.

I know you don't have a crystal ball, but how do you think things might have been different if the demands of the Kronstadter's had been met?

[Blake's Baby]

I think the contours would be different but I also think the suppression of Kronstadt was more a symptom of degeneration than a cause. The suppression of Kronstadt didn't cause the failure of the revolution in Germany.

[Anti-Traditional]

Regarding Spain, my position is that Stalin told the Spanish CP to 'defend democracy' because he was after the anti-fascist pact with Britain and France, rather than a desire to suppress socialism, so it was a case of real-politik to advance the interests of the state. I'm not sure Trotsky would do the same. If we look at Brest-Litovsk, Trotsky's opposition to said treaty indicates a willingness to subordinate the Russian state to the world revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

Ah, well, I think the Left Comms were wrong at Brest-Litovsk, and I think Trotsky's position was clever, but also wrong. I'm still a Leninist in 1918. And I don'ty think that was subbordinating the world revolution to the russian state, I think Lenin's position - stop the war immediately, and in six months Luxemburg and Liebknecht would have torn up the Brest-Litovsk treaty - is the 'internationalist' position.