Marxists,is Stalinism,Maoism,Titoism,Juche and Castroism not real marxism?

[Mrcapitalist]

So far from what I kind see its all an extreme distortion of what Marx and Engels actually thought.

[Manic Impressive]

Yep. For socialism to be possible it must have the informed support of "the vast majority". When these revolutions happened they overthrew terrible oppressive regimes. They had the support of the people, but not the informed support. When these regimes came to power the support they had was for the overthrow of an oppressive regime. Not for the overthrow of world capitalism. Lenin's slogan was "peace, land and bread". That's all well and good but it's not a Marxist policy. If he'd said "for the abolition of the wages system" that would have been a Marxist slogan! As such the people didn't know what they were fighting for, so they could not take over for themselves even if these dictators had been benevolent enough to hand over power, which lets face it probably wouldn't have happened. That I think, is the most important difference. For Marx socialism was a moneyless stateless society where the means of production were owned in common by the people and run democratically by the people. Not by some tiny oligarchy of academics.

[motion denied]

If the Bolshevik slogan were "for the abolition of the wage system" there would not have been a revolution.

But yeah, the ones you listed, OP, are based on the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and its ideological justification.

[Manic Impressive]

Oh no there would have been a revolution for certain. The Russians had been trying to overthrow the Tsar for 40 years previous to 1917. It was just a matter of when, and who. It wouldn't have been a socialist revolution, but as I said it couldn't have been a socialist revolution anyway, it was impossible. It's debatable whether it was a revolution at all in the Marxist sense, but if it was it was most certainly a change from feudal production to capitalist production.

[Manic Impressive]

oh yeah and fun facts about some of the others mentioned.

Kim Il Sung didn't speak Korean when he was installed as dictator.

Fidel Castro started his revolution with a boat load of 20 men.

[NGNM85]

So far from what I kind see its all an extreme distortion of what Marx and Engels actually thought.

Yes, all of these warped ideologies, and the defectives who inspired them, represent appalling bastardizations of Marx's ideas. Oh, and you can add Lenin to that list.

[Remus Bleys]

Yes, all of these warped ideologies, and the defectives who inspired them, represent appalling bastardizations of Marx's ideas. Oh, and you can add Lenin to that list.

And then add NGNM85

[Mrcapitalist]

v
Yes, all of these warped ideologies, and the defectives who inspired them, represent appalling bastardizations of Marx's ideas. Oh, and you can add Lenin to that list.

How did Lenin distort marxism?

[NGNM85]

And then add NGNM85

I've never claimed to be a Marxist, only a Marxian, at most, not that it makes much difference. However, you're hardly one to talk.

[Remus Bleys]

I've never claimed to be a Marxist, only a Marxian, at most, not that it makes much difference. However, you're hardly one to talk.

What's that mean?
And your terrible. You take liberalism and give it a Marxist rhetoric and when people call you out you say "Nah I'm only marxian" which is so annoying because you aren't even that. You take a handful of quotes and twist and derange them to stuit your liberal needs and then have the audacity to proclaim who deviated from marxism and who didn't.

[Radio Spartacus]

Despite being a polarizing figure among the left, you really can't throw Lenin in with the others mentioned in this thread

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yep. For socialism to be possible it must have the informed support of "the vast majority".


"The dictatorship advocated by marxism is necessary because it cannot be unanimously accepted and furthermore it will not have the naiveté to abdicate for lack of having a majority of votes, if such a thing were ascertainable. Precisely because it declares this it will not run the risk of being confused with a dictatorship of men or groups of men who take control of the government and substitute themselves for the working class. The revolution requires a dictatorship, because it would be ridiculous to subordinate the revolution to a 100 % acceptance or a 51 % majority. Wherever these figures are displayed, it means that the revolution has been betrayed."
-Bordiga, Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party

By what barometer shall we measure informed support?


When these revolutions happened they overthrew terrible oppressive regimes. They had the support of the people, but not the informed support.


The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. No social system, no mode of production has arisen due a competing vision of the future winning an argument. No revolution ever occurred as a result of a debate, hence there is no reason to believe that one will occur due to these circumstances. Or to put it another way, ideologies do not make revolutions, classes do. Ideologies are merely the natural reflection of class society and can not be seen as the driving force behind it.

Additionally, revolution is a process. The revolution does not begin when the arms are raised nor does it end when the guns fall silent. The act of a class establishing its rule over society will require a prolonged period of class struggle and can not happen spontaneously or instantaneously. So gauging the success of a revolution by the degree of literacy in Marxism or even any preset prerequisite at any period of the revolution is an inherently flawed because history is in constant motion and the revolution is continuous and the only way to measure the health of a revolution is the direction its going, not the place it is in.



For Marx socialism was a moneyless stateless society where the means of production were owned in common by the people and run democratically by the people. Not by some tiny oligarchy of academics.

For Marx, "Communism is the real movement which aims to abolish the present state of things" -The German Ideology. Communism is the result of a continuous historical process not a discussion at a dinner table. If I am going to engage the rest of what you have to say I'd like to hear about what you define as democracy

[NGNM85]

What's that mean?
And your terrible. You take liberalism and give it a Marxist rhetoric and when people call you out you say "Nah I'm only marxian" which is so annoying because you aren't even that.

Someone as snotty as you doesn't have much right to call anybody; `annoying.'


`-ian' Suffix.
1. Of, relating to, or resembling.

I share common beliefs, and ideas with Marx, hence; `Marxian.' I don't identify as a Marxist, because, A; My introduction to radical politics began with Emma Goldman, then to Bakunin, and Kropotkin, (with a smattering of some lesser lights; Rocker, Bookchin, etc.) to Howard Zinn, and Chomsky. So, Marx really wasn't a part of my political development, except insofar as he was filtered through assorted Anarchists. I had a very negative perception of Marx, from reading Bakunin's half of their squabble, which, as you probably know, got pretty nasty. That, and Marxist-Leninism. It wasn't until years later that I, reluctantly, read Terry Eagleton's; Why Marx Was Right. I was surprised to find that my perception of Marx had been almost entirely wrong. I went on from there, and as I went on I gained a new respect for Marx, as well as a number of Marxist thinkers, Rosa Luxemburg, for example. B; I don't like the idea of identifying as an; `-ist.' One of the things I like about Anarchism is that it doesn't live in anyone's shadow.


You take a handful of quotes and twist and derange them to stuit your liberal needs and then have the audacity to proclaim who deviated from marxism and who didn't.

No, that's total horseshit, and you know it. This is nothing more than the RevLeft equivalent of; `buttface', and displays about equal intelligence. This is not a serious criticism. It's particularly ridiculous in this case, because I'm really extremely ordinary, and conventional, in the spectrum of Libertarian Socialist thought. That's not because I'm particularly dogmatic, it's just the way I see things, what seems right to me.

It isn't clear what you are referring to. If I said something to that effect, it was because it was right. I suspect you're referring to my criticism of Chicken$hit's warped interpretation of the; `dictatorship of the proletariat', which I, correctly, pointed out, is directly antithetical to the way Marx, and Engels described it. That's not an opinion, that's a [i]fact. You might also be referring to my characterization of `dialectical materialism' as; `having nothing to do with Marxism.' (In this case, referring exclusively to Marx's thought, in case that was unclear.) Again; that's just true.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm anti dialectical materialism Twit. You are an annoying little shit who thinks voting Democrat is progressive and makes appeals to the dictionary of all places. I am referring to everything especially your liberal version of libertarian socialism, a degeneration of a degeneration. You spout this nonsense of a dotp being a democracy when you reject the dotp! Who are you to explain the concept of something you've never bothered to learn. You reject the dotp yet still try to act as if the dotp is your liberal utopia.

[liberlict]

Engels and Marx thought the working class would unite. So this hasn't happened. If it had happened there wouldn't be forums like this one arguing about what to do now.

[Manic Impressive]

"The dictatorship advocated by marxism is necessary because it cannot be unanimously accepted and furthermore it will not have the naiveté to abdicate for lack of having a majority of votes, if such a thing were ascertainable. Precisely because it declares this it will not run the risk of being confused with a dictatorship of men or groups of men who take control of the government and substitute themselves for the working class. The revolution requires a dictatorship, because it would be ridiculous to subordinate the revolution to a 100 % acceptance or a 51 % majority. Wherever these figures are displayed, it means that the revolution has been betrayed."
-Bordiga, Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party

By what barometer shall we measure informed support?

ewww Bordiga on democracy I Just threw up a little in my mouth. Since this is a discussion on Marx and how he has been distorted your appeal to authority here has missed the mark by some margin.

To answer your question though, the best way of gauging the current support for socialism is through an election. Certainly a strategy that Marx endorsed.



The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. No social system, no mode of production has arisen due a competing vision of the future winning an argument. No revolution ever occurred as a result of a debate, hence there is no reason to believe that one will occur due to these circumstances. Or to put it another way, ideologies do not make revolutions, classes do. Ideologies are merely the natural reflection of class society and can not be seen as the driving force behind it.

Additionally, revolution is a process. The revolution does not begin when the arms are raised nor does it end when the guns fall silent. The act of a class establishing its rule over society will require a prolonged period of class struggle and can not happen spontaneously or instantaneously.

So gauging the success of a revolution by the degree of literacy in Marxism or even any preset prerequisite at any period of the revolution is an inherently flawed because history is in constant motion and the revolution is continuous and the only way to measure the health of a revolution is the direction its going, not the place it is in.
Yes revolution is a process from the moment that capitalism fully developed material conditions have been progressing towards socialism.

One of the material conditions missing for socialism to become a reality is.....a class conscious proletariat. Without that prerequisite there will be no revolution. It is not about how much Marxism workers know, a ridiculous notion which I'm going to right off as ad absurdium. In fact all it requires is for them to understand their interests are inextricably linked to those of their class. That production is social. And that markets and the profit system are an unnecessary burden on the process of production.

That at this late hour is how I would define class consciousness. I'm intrigued though what you mean by "a long period of class struggle". Would this be code for campaigning for reforms?



For Marx, "Communism is the real movement which aims to abolish the present state of things" -The German Ideology. Communism is the result of a continuous historical process not a discussion at a dinner table. If I am going to engage the rest of what you have to say I'd like to hear about what you define as democracy
Democracy can take many forms and I'm not about to layout a blue print for how future society should be run. But it is commonly thought that with ownership over the means of production being held in common, by everyone, that people will have a say in how the process of production is carried out. Along with the rest of society. If you can think of a better system to use to make that feasible please do share.

I'm not too fussed whether you "engage" with me or not, it will be to your benefit not mine.

[robbo203]

I'm anti dialectical materialism Twit. You are an annoying little shit who thinks voting Democrat is progressive and makes appeals to the dictionary of all places. I am referring to everything especially your liberal version of libertarian socialism, a degeneration of a degeneration. You spout this nonsense of a dotp being a democracy when you reject the dotp! Who are you to explain the concept of something you've never bothered to learn. You reject the dotp yet still try to act as if the dotp is your liberal utopia.

This is a little unfair. It is quite possible to reject the concept of the DOTP as internally incoherent - how can a slave class dictate terms to a slaveowning class while still remaining a slave class? - while arguing in ideal terms that the DOTP would have to be a democracy. Engels after all identified the form of the DOTP as a democratic republic and Hal Draper in his study of the term noted that by "dictatorship" in the context of the DOTP was meant simply the ability of a class to "dictate" its terms in relation to the other class in society. It has nothing to do with the modern conception of dictatorship meaning a politically repressive regime.

I do however agree with your comment that voting Democrat is hardly "progressive". The so called "lesser evil" syndrome to which many on the Left has succumbed is one of the reasons why the Left is so weak today. It has opportunistically sold out on it principles in the hope of gaining influence but has lost even that

[NGNM85]

I'm anti dialectical materialism Twit.

That's the snottiness I was talking about.

I didn't say that you were. You accused me, among other things, of misrepresenting Marx. As you, typically, declined to qualify this accusation, I could only guess at what you are babbling about.


You are an annoying little shit who thinks voting Democrat is progressive...

That is, at best, an extraordinarily bad paraphrase. In any case, I'm not going to derail the thread with this bullshit, especially when there is already an open thread on that subject. Keep it on point.


...and makes appeals to the dictionary of all places.

To suggest that I am being somehow unfair, or dishonest by using words in the literal sense, in the way they are commonly understood, is not only wrong, but absurd. Again; `MarxIAN', as in; similar to, or associated with Marx. It's not my fault you ask stupid questions that you already know the answer to.


I am referring to everything especially your liberal version of libertarian socialism, a degeneration of a degeneration.

This is bullshit, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Again, in the spectrum of Libertarian Socialist thought; I am straight center. I'm totally orthodox. That's nothing special, on fact; my whole point is that it isn't special, or unique.


You spout this nonsense of a dotp being a democracy when you reject the dotp! Who are you to explain the concept of something you've never bothered to learn. You reject the dotp yet still try to act as if the dotp is your liberal utopia.

I'm not convinced you know, or care, what my views are, and you certainly can't know what I do, or do not know, which would be fine, if you didn't insist on making all of these bogus accusations. In any case, what I believe is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. As for Marx's concept of the; `dictatorship of the proletariat', that actually relates to the subject of this thread. This is also a matter of empirical fact, it can be definitively determined, like the atomic weight of cobalt, or something. This is especially easy because Marx, and Engels didn't write that much about it, so it's fairly easy to work that out. Getting to the point, Marx, and Engels always stressed the fundamentally democratic nature of the `dictatorship of the proletariat', Marx used the Paris commune as an example, Engels reiterated this; `You want to know what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like? It looks like the Paris commune.' Etc., etc. This is just an empirical fact. I don't particularly care what you believe, that's not germane, but there is absolutely no ambiguity, whatsoever, about how Marx conceived this.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

ewww Bordiga on democracy I Just threw up a little in my mouth.

Care to divulge why?


Since this is a discussion on Marx and how he has been distorted your appeal to authority here has missed the mark by some margin.


I am not a bordigist, you should know that by now. I am indifferent to appeals to authority. What I am trying to present is an argument which in my opinion Bordiga puts perfectly. Likewise, Marxism does not consist in what Marx said but in the methodological framework which Marx, Engels, and others have developed. It has no principles other than those which are the direct result of concrete analysis. However if you insist on arguements from authority then I am capable of providing:


Interviewer: “Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?”

“No great movement,” Karl answered, “has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.(Interview with the Chicago Tribune

I am fully aware of your response. It will be this:


"We know that heed must be paid to the institutions, customs and traditions of the various countries, and we do not deny that there are countries, such as America and England and if I was familiar with its institutions, I might include Holland, where the workers may attain their goal by peaceful means. That being the case, we must recognise that in most continental countries the lever of revolution will have to be force; a resort to force will be necessary one day in order to set up the rule of labour.”
(One of his speeches, my notes from it are in my note book but it is undated and I forgot to label the work)

To which I shall reply with this:


The leaders of the CPSU openly distort the works of Marx and Lenin and distort history too to cover up their betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and justify their revisionist line.

They argue: Did not Marx "admit such a possibility [peaceful transition] for England and America"?[17] In fact, this argument is taken from the renegade Kautsky who used the self-same method to distort Marx's views and oppose the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It is true that in the 1870's Marx said that in countries like the United States and Britain "the workers can reach their goal by peaceful means". But at the same time he stressed that this possibility was an exception. He said that "even if this be so, we must also recognize that in the majority of countries on the continent force must serve as the lever of our revolution". ("On the Hague Congress", Speech at a Mass Meeting in Amsterdam, Collected Works of Marx and Engels, 2nd Russian ed., Moscow, Vol. 18, p. 154.) What is more, he pointed out,

The English bourgeoisie has always shown its readiness to accept the decision of the majority, so long as it has the monopoly of the suffrage. But believe me, at the moment when it finds itself in the minority on questions which it considers vitally important, we will have a new slave-holders' war here. ("Record of a Talk Between K. Marx and the Correspondent of The World", Collected Works of Marx and Engels, 2nd Russian ed., Moscow, Vol. 17, p. 637.)

Lenin said in his criticism of the renegade Kautsky:

The argument that Marx in the 'seventies granted the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in England and America is the argument of a sophist, or, to put it bluntly, of a swindler who juggles with quotations and references. First, Marx regarded this possibility as an exception even then. Secondly, in those days monopoly capitalism, i.e., imperialism, did not yet exist. Thirdly, in England and America there was no military then--as there is now--serving as the chief apparatus of the bourgeois state machine. ("The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", Collected Works, International Publishers, New York, 1945, Vol. 23, pp. 233-34.)
Lenin said that, by virtue of its fundamental economic traits, imperialism is distinguished "by a minimum attachment for peace and freedom, and by a maximum and universal development of militarism". "To 'fail to notice' this" in the discussion of the question of peaceful or violent change is "to stoop to the position of a common or garden variety lackey of the bourgeoisie." (Ibid., p 357.)

(THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND KHRUSHCHOV'S REVISIONISM)





To answer your question though, the best way of gauging the current support for socialism is through an election. Certainly a strategy that Marx endorsed.

I am glad that you have answered this question at least. You are correct that elections are the best way to determine popularity among the pool of potential voters of the various means to measure support in the electoral system. Polls have always proven themselves inaccurate and we all remember that infamous blunder of 1936 when Literary Digest predicted that Alf London would get 57% over FDR. Though its considering that a small but notable section of the working class is unable to vote due to age limits, registration difficulties and racial discrimination, and legal difficulties; the pool of potential votes does include a larger percent of the working class than most other possible institutions. However a vote for socialism is a vote for capitalism, it signifies a recognition of the state and its institutions which are nothing more than a body of class rule. The parliament which appears at first to be the neutral arbiter of capitalist rule is little more than a Colosseum where the factions and parties of the bourgeoisie sort out their disputes. Majority rule in Parliamentary Democracy is simply one of many mechanisms used by the bourgeois legislator to function effectively with the existence of factions(Federalist 10, James Madison). The actual bourgeois state arises as a structure from capitalist relations themselves. "Capital is the governing body over labour" (Economic Manuscripts, page 36). As Engels brilliantly pointed out in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the Family, the state is the power structure which arises organically from alienated labor, capital itself is rule and the power relationship of capital takes its physical form in the state. Therefore when I speak of the state as an institution of class rule I am not speaking of some naive interpretation of Marxism which assumes that there exist some conspiracy of capitalists behind closed doors which governs the state but rather I am speaking of a state which is just a part of capitalism as the commodity and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

But enough theoretical abstraction lets return to the matter at hand, my point is that the state does not consist of the Parliament just as a school does not consist of the student council. A state is an institution which has its own internal bureaucracy, its own legal system, a military and educational apparatus. Even when one party wins over another, this does not change the orientation of the state because the party is not implementing policy, the apparatus is (on a tangential note this is partially why the lesser evilism in the other thread is absurd, because it is not the Republicans or Democrats who went to war in Iraq but the U.S military, and if the U.S Military wished to it could simply leave the country and start bombing the white house, but obviously it does not because that does not align with the interests of capital). So even if the Socialist Party won an election in the parliament, so what? The courts can call it invalid and reject their bills, the bureaucracy can ignore their laws and interpret their word as they like, the military can take their arms and point them at the capital building. As Marx said "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes" (Preface to the Communist Manifesto).


But to the question of consensus, perhaps I will concede that it would mean something if 51% of the proletariat voted for a red ballot, but such a goal is not worthy of Communist praxis. Rather it would be more meaningful if the proletariat ignored the parliamentary trappings of legality and lit fire to the ballot box. It would be better if the proletariat through the sods out of parliament not by winning a poll but by picking the bastards up by their ears and throwing them out of the capital onto the streets.


Yes revolution is a process from the moment that capitalism fully developed material conditions have been progressing towards socialism.


That isn't what I meant.


One of the material conditions missing for socialism to become a reality is.....a class conscious proletariat.

Class Consciousness isn't a material condition "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness". More on this later...


Without that prerequisite there will be no revolution. It is not about how much Marxism workers know, a ridiculous notion which I'm going to right off as ad absurdium. In fact all it requires is for them to understand their interests are inextricably linked to those of their class. That production is social. And that markets and the profit system are an unnecessary burden on the process of production.


When Marx said "Communism is not a vision we wish to impose on society, it is a real movement" he was able to realize that Communism is movement. The trajectory of the class is based on its movement. Hence when in measuring the capacity of the proletariat it is of lesser important to look at their opinions but absolutely paramount to observe their actions. Yes over the pass few years the amount that socialism has been searched on google has increase but if that of all things is what is on your mind then you have the wrong priorities!


That at this late hour is how I would define class consciousness. I'm intrigued though what you mean by "a long period of class struggle". Would this be code for campaigning for reforms?


No. The totality of capital, the omnipresence of capital's rule over labor, and the web of power structures attached to it can not be abolished in a single stroke. Nor can a revolution be evaluated by anything other than its trajectory. The initial stage of uprising may take the form of a minority of the class exerting its interests, it may be able to establish institutions of class rule before the majority of the class is capable of wielding them, it may heed none of that nonsense about the "revolutionary situation", class rule may establish itself in an indirect form as the first stage, as Engels said. to evaluate these moments by their form in a moment is to look through a static view. So to say that Russia wasn't ready for a revolution because the majority of people weren't sure of what that would entail is not the proper way of understanding the process. Ideas form through the class struggle, communism is a movement of history.


Democracy can take many forms and I'm not about to layout a blue print for how future society should be run. But it is commonly thought that with ownership over the means of production being held in common, by everyone, that people will have a say in how the process of production is carried out. Along with the rest of society. If you can think of a better system to use to make that feasible please do share.


A democracy by majority vote is meaningless. This is not to say that voting has no place, there will be matters that will be established by a vote simply because such a measure may prove itself appropriate in many circumstances, a majority or a minority, I do not know yet. However Marx described class rule as dictatorship not democracy. The rule exerted by the proletariat is that of collectively acting in the formation of its society, as i shall repeat ad nauseam, it is the movement of the class. The revolutionary criteria of movement is not determined by its degree of support, such a thing is irrelevant, the revolutionary criteria of movement is established by its role in abolishing capital.

And yes, much of the period of communism shall be a collective economy where the means of production are managed by the class as a whole which at a certain point ceases to exist as a class. However at the highest stage of Communism, "Full Communism" if I may ironically use Khrushchev's term, has nothing in common with such a state of affairs. The highest stage of communism conceivable will not only have labor alienated by capital absent but will eliminate alienation in full and shall not separate the product of labor from the laborer in the name of necessity. The laborer will be "a fisher at noon and a critic in the evening" as the old saying goes, the old division of labor shall be destroyed and under no circumstances will the worker bother with consulting his fellow workers about what he does with his time, be it outside of work or during the process of labor itself. Though obviously such a state will be a long time in the coming.


I'm not too fussed whether you "engage" with me or not, it will be to your benefit not mine.

ZkXsrz_Qrl8

[Art Vandelay]

Oh no there would have been a revolution for certain. The Russians had been trying to overthrow the Tsar for 40 years previous to 1917. It was just a matter of when, and who. It wouldn't have been a socialist revolution, but as I said it couldn't have been a socialist revolution anyway, it was impossible. It's debatable whether it was a revolution at all in the Marxist sense, but if it was it was most certainly a change from feudal production to capitalist production.

Unfortunately MI, this is just utter nonsense. While you are technically correct in pointing out that 'the Russians' were attempting to overthrow the Tsar for 40 years previous to '17, your characterization of October, as a bourgeois revolution, is unrelated to the historical facts. Not to mention characteristic of the stagist views that you uphold.

If it was a bourgeois revolution, as is the line that you and your party uphold, why were there proletarians and certain members of the poorest cross sections of Russia, forming soviets? Why was the revolution spearheaded by the industrial proletariat? Why were the Bolsheviks elected a majority in the soviets? The historical facts are, that the Bolsheviks (an explicitly Marxist/anti-capitalist/ revolutionary/etc...party) were supported by hundreds of thousands of proletarian communists and were the proletariat's leadership.

You would have been a Menshevik.

[NGNM85]

To which I shall reply with this:



Yeah. I've seen that bit where Lenn tried to walk back Marx's comments regarding the possibility of non-violent revolution in the United States, etc. The problem is that's total bullshit, and Lenin knew it.As Chris Harman illustrates; 'This is, unfortunately, false. Throughout the 19th century, the British state had a military machine which was used not only in the 'filthy, bloody morass' of endless colonial wars of conquest, but also to keep Ireland under British rule, and used, especially during the first half of the century, against workers in Britain, itself.' (Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, 195-96) Of course, as I already pointed ot, this was hardly the only time Lenin distorted Marx's views

[Manic Impressive]

If it was a bourgeois revolution, as is the line that you and your party uphold, why were there proletarians and certain members of the poorest cross sections of Russia, forming soviets? Why was the revolution spearheaded by the industrial proletariat?
The working class of every age has done the fighting in every revolution. Whether it's slaves, peasants, or proletarians. It was in the interests of the working class to support progressive social movements. The development of capitalism in Russia was a necessary progression. The working class supported the English revolution, the working class in France supported the French revolution. In both of these there are examples of the working class expressing communistic tendencies. This was the birth of what we now call socialism. Were they not bourgeois revolutions?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1895/cromwell/
http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/conspiracy-equals/index.htm


Why were the Bolsheviks elected a majority in the soviets?
Well that's a controversial claim. Another way of looking at it could be that they seized power. That they destroyed the experiments in participatory democracy and workers control by Russian workers. I suggest you read The Russian Revolution in Retreat by Simon Pirani. It's a very objective look at the early years of the Russian revolution. You'll be happy to know that he thinks it was a workers revolution. In my opinion he romanticizes and fetishizes the soviets. But at the same time he supplies some really great objective facts about the soviets and the Bolsheviks usurpation of power.

You can read some of it here
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=czMWmnYbXFIC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false


The historical facts are, that the Bolsheviks (an explicitly Marxist/anti-capitalist/ revolutionary/etc...party) were supported by hundreds of thousands of proletarian communists and were the proletariat's leadership.
You're absolutely right. Except for the bit about them being Marxists :grin:. They were supported by hundreds of thousands of workers. In 1921 they had a membership of 500,000. That's 500,000 out of 127,000,000. Less than 0.5% of the population. Hardly the "vast majority acting in the interests of the vast majority" as Marx envisaged.


You would have been a Menshevik.
I wouldn't have been in the RSDLP in the first place. You know I'd have been shot at Kronstadt :p

p.s. I think your post and now this reply is way off topic and if you want to discuss it further you should start your own thread rather than hijacking someone else's. I came to this thread not to start an argument with you and boring but to "engage" with the OP. I think the derailing of this thread has been very disrespectful to someone who asked an honest question. As he seems like he genuinely wants to learn. Unlike you and boring. So instead of carrying on this back and forth why not try putting across your own position about why these characters he mentioned distorted Marxism. You can tell him all your fairytales about how the USSR was not capitalist and let him decide for himself.

oh and boring not forgotten about you.

[Ember Catching]

This is a little unfair. It is quite possible to reject the concept of the DOTP as internally incoherent - how can a slave class dictate terms to a slaveowning class while still remaining a slave class?
The idea goes that the proletariat — and classes more generally — shouldn't be defined statistically — i.e. in terms of a relation to the means of production — but rather in terms of a specific historical trajectory.

The condition of wage slavery has no bearing on the logical consistency of proletarian dictatorship.

[NGNM85]

How did Lenin distort marxism?

That's a long story, and I haven't conducted a thorough enough study of Lenin's output to give you a really detailed account. These articles illustrate a number of examples;

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/lenin-v-marx-state

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1193-january-2004/lenin-socialist-analysis

You should also check out the Draper piece Robbo mentioned, which painstakingly demonstrates how Marx's concept of the; `dictatorship of the proletariat' has been twisted, and distorted;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1962/xx/dictprolet.html

I'm sure there are any number of other examples. The only one I can think of that wasn't mentioned was a letter Lenin wrote, shortly before he died;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm

The interesting part is towards the end where he suggests that the emergence of revolutionary movements in China, and India, etc., herald the ultimate victory of socialism ;

`In the last analysis, the outcome of the struggle will be determined by the fact that Russia, India, China, etc., account for the overwhelming majority of the population of the globe. And during the past few years it is this majority that has been drawn into the struggle for emancipation with extraordinary rapidity, so that in this respect there cannot be the slightest doubt what the final outcome of the world struggle will be. In this sense, the complete victory of socialism is fully and absolutely assured.'

From a classical Marxist standpoint, this is absurd. In fact, virtually all of these countries you mention had to overcome this glaring inconsistency. As such, all of these movements had to come up with various MacGuffins, `substitute proletariats', to paper over this glaring contradiction.

[Art Vandelay]

I suggest you read The Russian Revolution in Retreat by Simon Pirani. It's a very objective look at the early years of the Russian revolution. You'll be happy to know that he thinks it was a workers revolution. In my opinion he romanticizes and fetishizes the soviets. But at the same time he supplies some really great objective facts about the soviets and the Bolsheviks usurpation of power.

I'll give it a look when I have some time on my hands, have alot on my plate at the moment.


You're absolutely right. Except for the bit about them being Marxists :grin:.

Cheeky.


p.s. I think your post and now this reply is way off topic and if you want to discuss it further you should start your own thread rather than hijacking someone else's. I came to this thread not to start an argument with you and boring but to "engage" with the OP. I think the derailing of this thread has been very disrespectful to someone who asked an honest question. As he seems like he genuinely wants to learn. Unlike you and boring. So instead of carrying on this back and forth why not try putting across your own position about why these characters he mentioned distorted Marxism. You can tell him all your fairytales about how the USSR was not capitalist and let him decide for himself.

Oh the horror! The thread has gone off on a little tangent, such disrespect! Nah I'm fine, not interested in starting a new thread or engaging with the op, just couldn't bite my tongue when I saw you up to your old ways again. I'll show myself out.

[Remus Bleys]

Yeah. I've seen that bit where Lenn tried to walk back Marx's comments regarding the possibility of non-violent revolution in the United States, etc. The problem is that's total bullshit, and Lenin knew it.As Chris Harman illustrates; 'This is, unfortunately, false. Throughout the 19th century, the British state had a military machine which was used not only in the 'filthy, bloody morass' of endless colonial wars of conquest, but also to keep Ireland under British rule, and used, especially during the first half of the century, against workers in Britain, itself.' (Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, 195-96) Of course, as I already pointed ot, this was hardly the only time Lenin distorted Marx's views

I'm confused as to what you mean... so you honestly think violent revolution isn't necessary?

[NGNM85]

I'm confused as to what you mean... so you honestly think violent revolution isn't necessary?

I didn't express an opinion, either way, because it's not relevant. Since you asked; I think it's astronomically unlikely that the hegemony of the capitalist class could be overthrown without any violence , but that's not germane.

Again; Yet Another Boring Marxist quoted a segment of a speech Marx gave, in Amsterdam, in 1872, in which he says;

`Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.'

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

Boring Marxist then proceeded to quote Lenin's attempt to walk back these remarks, saying Marx absolutely did not mean what he literally said, and, it didn't matter, anyhow, because the world had changed so much, it was no longer applicable.

Lenin, as quoted by Boring Marxist;

`The argument that Marx in the 'seventies granted the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in England and America is the argument of a sophist, or, to put it bluntly, of a swindler who juggles with quotations and references. First, Marx regarded this possibility as an exception even then. Secondly, in those days monopoly capitalism, i.e., imperialism, did not yet exist. Thirdly, in England and America there was no military then--as there is now--serving as the chief apparatus of the bourgeois state machine.' ("The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", Collected Works, International Publishers, New York, 1945, Vol. 23, pp. 233-34.)

However, the problem is, as I, and Chris Harman, by extension, pointed out, that's total BS, as Lenin certainly knew.