Crypto-fascism within the left

[DOOM]

So I guess I'm not the only one, who observed this phenomena. What do you guys think about it, what are the causes?

I believe it's a mix of not understanding how capitalism works/why it's bad and not understanding what marxism actually is. I mean, struct. antisemitism is still a pretty big thing in the left. Capitalism is reduced to it's "players" (capitalists), like in Occupy or other movements and that's wrong. Adolf Hitler did the exact same thing, with his distinction of "schaffendes Kapital" (producing capital, "good capital") and "raffendes Kapital" ("grubbing capital", circulating sphere of capital).The second one was usually referred to as the jewish capital. So such a distinction is inherently anti-semitic.
And then, there are many self-proclaimed marxists, that have many reactionary misconception about homosexuality, nationalism, the patriarchy and so on.
Maybe I'll write more later, but I'd like to hear what you guys think about this.

[Rosa Partizan]

At first I think that you should do something about your commas :frog:

I'll chime in at some later point, you know my attitude anyway.

[QueerVanguard]

Reactionary "Marxists" have always been a problem, but it's not just racist, nationalist or sexists claiming the title that are a problem, but also a bunch of moralists who fit better within the Proudhon-Bakunin milieu than among the ranks of Marx and Engels.

[DOOM]

At first I think that you should do something about your commas :frog:

I'll chime in at some later point, you know my attitude anyway.

Yeah I was kind of in a hurry while writing the text. I need to watch the next GoT episode. Fucking addiction.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The legacy of national- liberation and the stalinist regimes perhaps?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I think it has more to do with some communists' inability to explain things. Fascism is a very simple ideology that works with peoples' natural urge to explain things in incorrect binaries.

Example. Communists and fascists both oppose zionism. Communists oppose it because it is a racist ideology comparable to manifest destiny and involves ethnic cleansing and imperialism of the bourgeoisie. But fascists just oppose it because Jews. So communists that have a hard time analyzing the world in regards to class struggle just get burned out. They still want to have some kind of "extreme" belief but one that is easier for their poor little brain to handle. So they turn to fascism where they can blame Jews, black people, Muslims, or anyone they want for the actions of the bourgeoisie.

[Thirsty Crow]

So such a distinction is inherently anti-semitic.

The fact that historical anti-semite forces have used the distinction between productive and financial, parasitic capital doesn't and cannot show that the distinction is inherently anti-semitic.

More than anything I'd say that self styled Marxists and radicals harping on about it are really crypto-socialdemocrats. Anyway, this is my experience, that this is the thing in born again social democracy circles, and not having anything to do with fascism or anti-semitism. Of course, that doesn't mean that anti-semites don't use the distinction as a codeword for...yeah, Jews.

[Smash Monogamy]

Reactionary "Marxists" have always been a problem, but it's not just racist, nationalist or sexists claiming the title that are a problem, but also a bunch of moralists who fit better within the Proudhon-Bakunin milieu than among the ranks of Marx and Engels.

What was moralistic about Proudhon or Bakunin?

[Broviet Union]

There is definitely a strong social conservative streak within the Tankie and anti-revisionist community. Mostly they don't care about a liberated society as much as they care about being against the status quo, and aren't brave enough to be actual fascists.

[QueerVanguard]

What was moralistic about Proudhon or Bakunin?

What wasn't moralistic about them? Both were reactionary idealists that believed Authoritarianism was rooted in our DNA and needed to be combated against with decentralized confederated little communes. They both believed it was ideas that gave rise to social relations instead of the other way around. Materialists understand that what Anarchists call "Authoritarianism" is just a product of Capitalism and will disappear with the arrival of Communism. Oh and in case you haven't heard, both hated the Jews because Jewish people worked in "bad Capitalist" professions while non-Jews worked "good/productive" Capitalist jobs, prefiguring the Nazi and Fascist obsession with separating Jewish from Aryan Capitalism. To Proudhon and Bakunin Capitalism was "unjust" and their Anarchism would bring about "justice", us Marxists don't give 2 shits about "Justice" or any other Liberal abstractions, we fight for our class interests full stop.

[Sasha]

Bakunins anti-semitism was mostly personal animosity with Marx, but proudhon did have some very questionable things to say on the subject (though very common ideas in his time)
The rest of your rant is beyond silly sectarian sloganeering...

[QueerVanguard]

Bakunins anti-semitism was mostly personal animosity with Marx, but proudhon did have some very questionable things to say on the subject (though very common ideas in his time)
The rest of your rant is beyond silly sectarian sloganeering...

All of what I wrote could be fact checked and verified in the lit. on the subject. And Bakunin wrote "This whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite, voracious" which seems to go beyond a little person conflict with Marx wouldn't you say?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Bakunin was an anti-Semite.

Anti-Semitism was incredibly common among political philosophers during that time period, though, even ones who came from a Jewish background.

[QueerVanguard]

Bakunin was an anti-Semite.

Anti-Semitism was incredibly common among political philosophers during that time period, though, even ones who came from a Jewish background.

So that makes it OK? Racism is "common" among a shit ton of white people today too, so is sexism and LGBTQ phobia, should we not criticize them for it?

[PhoenixAsh]

"The Jewish nigger Lassalle, who fortunately leaves at the end of this week, has happily again lost 5,000 Thaler in a fraudulent speculation. The fellow would rather throw money in the dirt than make a loan to a 'friend' even if interest and capital are guaranteed. He acts on the view that he must live like a Jewish baron or baronised (probably via the Countess) Jew." (Letter dated July 30, 1862; Vol. 3, Marx-Engels Correspondence, German edition, page 82.)


^ Marx


....you were saying?

[QueerVanguard]

"The Jewish nigger Lassalle, who fortunately leaves at the end of this week, has happily again lost 5,000 Thaler in a fraudulent speculation. The fellow would rather throw money in the dirt than make a loan to a 'friend' even if interest and capital are guaranteed. He acts on the view that he must live like a Jewish baron or baronised (probably via the Countess) Jew." (Letter dated July 30, 1862; Vol. 3, Marx-Engels Correspondence, German edition, page 82.)


^ Marx


....you were saying?

Marx was a cis gendered, hetero white male so it goes without saying he had prejudices of all sorts, but his seemingly racist remarks aren't even in the same league as Bakunin's and Proudhon's, they advocated the extermination of entire races and believed POCs and Jews were genetically inferior to non-Jewish whites, Marx never said anything even close to that.

[consuming negativity]

Marx was a cis gendered, hetero white male so it goes without saying he had prejudices of all sorts, but his seemingly racist remarks aren't even in the same league as Bakunin's and Proudhon's, they advocated the extermination of entire races and believed POCs and Jews were genetically inferior to non-Jewish whites, Marx never said anything even close to that.

lol

You've got to be a parody.

[PhoenixAsh]

Marx was a cis gendered, hetero white male so it goes without saying he had prejudices of all sorts, but his seemingly racist remarks aren't even in the same league as Bakunin's and Proudhon's, they advocated the extermination of entire races and believed POCs and Jews were genetically inferior to non-Jewish whites, Marx never said anything even close to that.


uhu. So there is classification of racism? And some racism isn't really that bad?

“Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other gods exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. Money is the self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world — both the world of men and nature. The god of the Jews has become secularised and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusionary bill of exchange”.

^ also Marx

[Tim Cornelis]

Marx was a cis gendered, hetero white male so it goes without saying he had prejudices of all sorts, but his seemingly racist remarks aren't even in the same league as Bakunin's and Proudhon's, they advocated the extermination of entire races and believed POCs and Jews were genetically inferior to non-Jewish whites, Marx never said anything even close to that.

"So that makes it OK?"
-- QueerVanguard

[Hrafn]

Are you people seriously doing the "your racist ideologue is more bigoted that my racist ideologue" bit?

[QueerVanguard]

lol

You've got to be a parody.

Why is that? Because I speak my mind and point out things about the history of Anarchism some people don't like?


uhu. So there is classification of racism? And some racism isn't really that bad?

I never said that. All racism is bad and needs to be combated but there is a hell of a difference between "Haha Lassalle is Jewish" and saying Jews need to be exterminated.


"So that makes it OK?"

Never said it was OK.

[blake 3:17]

Are you people seriously doing the "your racist ideologue is more bigoted that my racist ideologue" bit?

That seems how things are going. Very unfortunate.

[PhoenixAsh]

I never said that. All racism is bad and needs to be combated but there is a hell of a difference between "Haha Lassalle is Jewish" and saying Jews need to be exterminated.
.

Actually Bakunin and Marx were on the same page when it came to ascribing capitalism to Jews and describing Jews as being an inherent active part of international capitalism. Which was a dominant contemporary believe among socialists and communists of many different tendencies.

Something that is indefensible is indefensible. But do not pretend Marx wasn't a racist and anti-semite. His anti-Slavic opinions were well documented. And there is even some evidence to be found that him and Engels were sexist. A lot of early socialist and Marxists were. And hey...guess what...so were Bakunin and Poudhon.

I have also never read Bakunin say he wanted to exterminate the Jews. Mighty interested in being proven wrong though....

As for Proudhon. Seems fairly obvious:

December 26, 1847: Jews. Write an article against this race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand its expulsion from France with the exception of those individuals married to French women. Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It’s not without cause that the Christians called them deicide. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear.


But you know what....rather than defending Proudhon or denying it...he was at that time called out by other leading Anarchists.

[consuming negativity]

Why is that? Because I speak my mind and point out things about the history of Anarchism some people don't like?

Your behavior is inflammatory. You frequently misrepresent arguments and provide hyperbolic answers, many of which are not logically consistent with other things you say. You have and consistently push extreme, divisive viewpoints in your posts, which often read as caricatures of frequently-expressed opinions by persons on the mid-to-far left. It is readily apparent that you don't have a comprehensive understanding of the material that you're working with, and your behavior is consistently inconsistent with that of the kind of person who you're claiming to be. Not to mention that you're a new account doing all of this, which makes the behavior both more eccentric and more suspect.

In the future, you should try to take a longer time easing into your more ridiculous statements and try not to draw gobs of attention to yourself by making threads like this one. Fly under the radar or be identified and destroyed. Good luck!

[Dagoth Ur]

Neither antisemitism nor anti-homosexuality are inherently fascist. They are just part of the reactionary rainbow. Likewise when communists agree with these things we're just seeing reactionary culture shining through. Communist are not supermen and are just as likely to be a party to the reactionary cultural practices of their locale as anyone else. We may have some tools that help us extricate ourselves but that doesn't mean we are always able to.

Really the crypto-fascists among communists today are those ultra-leftists who support islamism in Syria and Libya and outright fascists in Kiev.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm more concerned when leftists in 2014 exhibit racism, sexism, homo/transphobia, etc.

[Dagoth Ur]

Most of these leftists are in places closer to Marx's time (socially) than our own. Things are a little different when there are actual fucking warlords around.

That said I am not happy about it either. I'm a transgirl and I would be killed by some of my own allies on this planet. However I don't use my own personal fear to cloud my judgment or to analyze a certain situation. My trans nature is irrelevant to my Marxism (excepting that Marxism is the only way to cast down the patriarchy).

[Rafiq]

There are definitely reactionary trends within the Left, but whether they are fascististic is another question all together. It's the same reason that CasaPound glorifies Che Guevara and holds praise for Hugo Chavez - this tacit solidarity between Fascists and the Left against neoliberalism and globalization. It's where we are going wrong. I have said it in another thread; we must struggle based on premises now in existence, rather than conditions which have previously existed.

[bropasaran]

What wasn't moralistic about them? Both were reactionary idealists that believed Authoritarianism was rooted in our DNA and needed to be combated against with decentralized confederated little communes. They both believed it was ideas that gave rise to social relations instead of the other way around.
Firstly, what does this have to do with moralism? Secondly, it's just not true. Myself being neither metaphysical materialist, nor a materialist in a sense of theory of political praxis (I find both positions either irrational or impossible depending of what conclusions a person makes from them), and being what marxists call an idealist (not that the term, like anything marxists say, has any sense) - I personally don't like the fact, but it is still a fact that both Proudhon and Bakunin were materialist in both of the mentioned meanings.

https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/materialism-and-idealism/

Concerning moralism, it's interesting that the OP mentions people not knowing why capitalism is bad, and you yourself later talk about something being bad and that is should be opposed. Something being bad is an ethical position. Saying that something should be abolished is also. Every imperative is a moral position, and ultimatelly based on some form of deontological, consquentialist or virtue ethics.

I will mention that it is preciselly the marxists that don't know why capitalism is bad, being that Marx gave a totally nonsensical analysis of capitalism, an analysis in many ways doesn't concur and is contingently incompatible with the original theory of socialism as the idea of the emancipation of the working people and establishment of workers' control over production as it's foundation.

Also, it is no surprise at all that various forms of authoritarianism have been the feature of various marxist movements being that Marx himself was an authoritarian and espoused no "moralistic" principles upon which one could reject authoritarianism. Note that statements like "homophobia is bad" or "patriarchy should be abolished" are in themselves moralistic statements, and everyone making them while posturing rejection of "moralism" is simply inconsistent.

Concerning the OP itself, IMO if there is any crypto-"fascism" on the left that is to be rejected it is the leninistic right-wing revision of marxim, which made Marx' relatively benign authoritarianism into a harsher and violent form. Already rationally incompatible with socialism, it also effects the mentioned contingency of the marxian theory making it totally opposed to socialism, as was seen in practice by it's perpetration and participation in the destruction of the only two instances in the history where people have actually succeeded in lighting the spark of revolution by abolishing oppression and exploitation in their midst, I am referring of course to anarchist Ukraine and Spain, leninists have been fanatical in their opposition to libertarian socialism as much as fascists.

[Thirsty Crow]

His anti-Slavic opinions were well documented.
Actually, probably the two ethnic groups of Slavs he regarded as most fucked up were the Russians and Croats.
But the basis for that wasn't any kind of a racialized ideology; instead, it had to do with what we would now call geopolitics. The latter with ban Jelačić were crucial in crushing the 1848 uprising in the Habsburg Monarchy, with him marching on Budapest (connected to the ruling class in Croatia tying its own interests to that of the continued survival of the Monarchy itself, based on crushing any democratic aspirations). The Russian autocracy he constantly viewed as the greatest threat for revolutionary development on the continent.

But, for example, he did have only the nicest words for Poles. That's hardly a characteristic of an anti-Slavic racist.

To clarify. I don't intend to defend the formulations put forward, especially that of the "non-historic peoples", but at the same time I don't think it's that simple as being anti-slavic really implies. However, I'm not interested in stupid discussions about who was more of a racist, Bakunin or Marx. It's all bunk - that kind of a discussion, I mean.


Concerning the OP itself, IMO if there is any crypto-"fascism" on the left that is to be rejected it is the leninistic right-wing revision of marxim, which made Marx' relatively benign authoritarianism into a harsher and violent form.Get the fuck out with your ahistorical views on fascism. Or "fascism".

[Doctor Hilarius]

So I guess I'm not the only one, who observed this phenomena. What do you guys think about it, what are the causes?

I believe it's a mix of not understanding how capitalism works/why it's bad and not understanding what marxism actually is. I mean, struct. antisemitism is still a pretty big thing in the left. Capitalism is reduced to it's "players" (capitalists), like in Occupy or other movements and that's wrong. Adolf Hitler did the exact same thing, with his distinction of "schaffendes Kapital" (producing capital, "good capital") and "raffendes Kapital" ("grubbing capital", circulating sphere of capital).The second one was usually referred to as the jewish capital. So such a distinction is inherently anti-semitic.
And then, there are many self-proclaimed marxists, that have many reactionary misconception about homosexuality, nationalism, the patriarchy and so on.
Maybe I'll write more later, but I'd like to hear what you guys think about this.

I think crypto-fascism on the left is in decline, at least in the Western World. Classical marxism died with the Soviet Union.

Now structuralist, autonomist and post-Marxist influences permeate the left, and these influences are in large part a direct reaction to the shortcomings of classical Marxist theory.

And classical Marxist theory, in my opinion, can be interpreted in ways that could be considered crypto-fascist, especially when considered with the totalitarian history of classical Marxism in practice.

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually, probably the two ethnic groups of Slavs he regarded as most fucked up were the Russians and Croats.
But the basis for that wasn't any kind of a racialized ideology; instead, it had to do with what we would now call geopolitics. The latter with ban Jelačić were crucial in crushing the 1848 uprising in the Habsburg Monarchy, with him marching on Budapest (connected to the ruling class in Croatia tying its own interests to that of the continued survival of the Monarchy itself, based on crushing any democratic aspirations). The Russian autocracy he constantly viewed as the greatest threat for revolutionary development on the continent.

But, for example, he did have only the nicest words for Poles. That's hardly a characteristic of an anti-Slavic racist.

To clarify. I don't intend to defend the formulations put forward, especially that of the "non-historic peoples", but at the same time I don't think it's that simple as being anti-slavic really implies. However, I'm not interested in stupid discussions about who was more of a racist, Bakunin or Marx. It's all bunk - that kind of a discussion, I mean.


That is the point I was trying to illustrate to QV. Dismissing ideology on the basis of inherent and quite prevalent prejudice of the ones establishing is requires proof that the ideology itself is aimed at this prejudice or solving it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Concerning the OP itself, IMO if there is any crypto-"fascism" on the left that is to be rejected it is the leninistic right-wing revision of marxim, which made Marx' relatively benign authoritarianism into a harsher and violent form. Already rationally incompatible with socialism, it also effects the mentioned contingency of the marxian theory making it totally opposed to socialism, as was seen in practice by it's [sic!] perpetration and participation in the destruction of the only two instances in the history where people have actually succeeded in lighting the spark of revolution by abolishing oppression and exploitation in their midst, I am referring of course to anarchist Ukraine and Spain, leninists have been fanatical in their opposition to libertarian socialism as much as fascists.

This is really Chomskyite mythology about Leninism. This one dimensional explanation of the degeneration of the Russian revolution is insufficient in explaining it -- the highly complex issue of the Russian revolution vs. this simple (I'd say simplistic) explanation should be an indication for critical reassessment of this critique. Leninism is not contrary to self-emancipation of workers, and Leninism certainly isn't 'authoritarian' in the sense that anarchists use. Bolshevik practice is another issue. Generally, the anarchist critique of Leninism is presuming the practice of the Soviet Union originated from Leninism, sometimes even without consulting Lenin's texts.

[Broviet Union]

I mean, you can't read the Civil War era letters of Lenin and not see a bit of his bloodthirst. Lenin was an ubercomplex figure, and one of the great men of the twentieth century, but I see no liberating potential in a theorist who believed that harsh discipline and violence was necessary for the creation of a "New Socialist Humanity."

[erupt]

I'm not going to quote any specific users, but I see a big increase in the "great-man" theory of history, whether it be Lenin or Stalin, or even non-Soviet leaders like Mao, and even someone I admire that was Marxist-Leninist like Che Guevara. Stalin was a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, and Lenin was far from perfect ( as was Che).

Remember, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Bradley, Clark, Patton, Churchill, Montgomery, Brooke, Wavell, Stalin, Zhukov, Budenny, etc., didn't win the war against fascism; foot soldiers, pilots, tank captains, partisans- in short the proletariat drafted/taking part in this war - won the victory over fascism.

It's just my ordinary, Rust Belt, factory worker opinion that the idolization and non-critical analysis of these leaders (capitalist or state-socialist), is the germination aid when it comes to national socialism, national syndicalism, national Bolshevism, Zionism, etc.

And this is coming from someone not completely adverse to socialism in comparison to anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism.

[DOOM]

The fact that historical anti-semite forces have used the distinction between productive and financial, parasitic capital doesn't and cannot show that the distinction is inherently anti-semitic.

More than anything I'd say that self styled Marxists and radicals harping on about it are really crypto-socialdemocrats. Anyway, this is my experience, that this is the thing in born again social democracy circles, and not having anything to do with fascism or anti-semitism. Of course, that doesn't mean that anti-semites don't use the distinction as a codeword for...yeah, Jews.

How so? There's a difference between Anti-judaism and antisemitism. You know, antisemitism isn't just one of many forms of racism, it's far more than that. Antisemitism has been the reaction to the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Anti-judaist stereotypes have been used to "explain" the abstract processes that came with capitalism, as for example accumulation of capital, compound interest and other capitalist functions. For every abstract phenomena that came with capitalism, there was one mysterious group of people, that pulls the strings: The jews.
So anti-semitism isn't just plain and stupid racism. It's a image of humanity, a (false) way to describe capitalist phenomenas.
The thing is, that over the time antisemites have stopped using the term "jew" explicetly in every sentence of their rubbish-texts. They're now using far broader terms like "they", "the capitalists", "the zionists", "the illuminati". However, one just needs to examine their theories superficially to find references to jews, people of jewish origin, or jewish sounding names.
We have the exact same problem in the left movement, maybe not as bad as within the right, but it's there. Our "jews" are the bankers, managers and CEOs. We give them attributes, like greediness, absence of emotions, hideosity and so on. We reduce their materialist class interest to some shitty human nature moralist stuff. We don't use the term jew explicitly, but this false criticism can function as a hotbed for real, primary antisemitism. That's the reason why on every fucking anti-globalization/occupy/Anti-WEF protest, one can easily observe antisemitic banners and right wingers infiltrating the protests. That phenomena is usually referred to as structural antisemitism.

I'll just quote myself, because I can't really express myself good in english, lol.


I think we have to be critical with the Occupy movement. The greatest problem with Occupy was, that there were actually no real intentions to abolish capitalism. I mean yeah, there was a fair amount of communists and anarchists at the protests, but if we just analize that famous slogan - "we are the 99%" - from a communist perspective, we can clearly see where Occupy failed. Instead of criticizing capitalism as a system, they criticized the bankers and politicians. This is a very simplistic way of criticizing capitalism and does more harm than good. They mixed up capitalists with capitalism (structural antisemitism -> "Judenkapital") and they additionally fell for the SocDem fallacy "b-b-but we can make it fair". Occupy ended up being overrun by self-proclaimed-communists-but-actually-SocDems.

[Raquin]

Bakunins anti-semitism was mostly personal animosity with Marx,
Bakunin was a life-long antisemite, even while he was on friendly terms with Marx.


but proudhon did have some very questionable things to say on the subject (though very common ideas in his time)
You are as disingenuous as ever. Antisemitism was common among the conservatives and the monarchists and their ilk, but not among the Republicans and the Socialists. It was extremely rare in French socialist circles. French socialists and republicans have been the primary proponents of full equality for the Jews since the late 18th century, in fact.

As far as Proudhon goes, his genocidal hatred of the Jews was some Final Solution level stuff, such murderous antisemitism wasn't common in even the most reactionary circles until the rise of the NSDAP.

[PhoenixAsh]

Bakunin was a life-long antisemite, even while he was on friendly terms with Marx.


You are as disingenuous as ever. Antisemitism was common among the conservatives and the monarchists and their ilk, but not among the Republicans and the Socialists. It was extremely rare in French socialist circles. French socialists and republicans have been the primary proponents of full equality for the Jews since the late 18th century, in fact.

As far as Proudhon goes, his genocidal hatred of the Jews was some Final Solution level stuff, such murderous antisemitism wasn't common in even the most reactionary circles until the rise of the NSDAP.

Are you freaking kidding me? They were freaking notorious anti-semites.

Charles Fourier, Prosper, Blanqui, Toussenil all described and denounced Jews in terms of anti-capitalism but also social, ethnic and racial terms. O and lets not forget Malon and Jaures. Merrick and Tridon of course can't be ignored either. Some of them even calling for violence against Jews or...simply cheering the Dreyfus affair which the French socialists distanced themselves from because the saving of one Jew would be exploited by the Jewish elite to whitewash their blame even though the state used on Jew for the guilt of all Jews. The first was more important. Among the socialists signing that statement were people who had taken anti-semitic positions or written anti-semitic literature.

And while I won't dispute the one entry Proudhon made was indefensible and really seriously fucked up...anti-semitism was extremely widespread (as was racism and sexism) among socialists of all tendencies and Jews were widely seen as religiously and ethnically linked to capitalism and denounced for it.

[erupt]

Bakunin was a life-long antisemite, even while he was on friendly terms with Marx.


You are as disingenuous as ever. Antisemitism was common among the conservatives and the monarchists and their ilk, but not among the Republicans and the Socialists. It was extremely rare in French socialist circles. French socialists and republicans have been the primary proponents of full equality for the Jews since the late 18th century, in fact.

As far as Proudhon goes, his genocidal hatred of the Jews was some Final Solution level stuff, such murderous antisemitism wasn't common in even the most reactionary circles until the rise of the NSDAP.

I'm more of a Marxist than an anarchist, but I've heard that Marx, although Jewish, used antisemitic language himself (which I'm not justifying, just adding a semi-known fact that is semi-relevant).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm not going to quote any specific users, but I see a big increase in the "great-man" theory of history
Ironically, most of those people claim to be Marxists.

[erupt]

Ironically, most of those people claim to be Marxists.

Of course, and they are the quickest to call others catch-words and segregate the Left.

[Thirsty Crow]

How so?


We have the exact same problem in the left movement, maybe not as worse as within the right, but it's there. Our "jews" are the bankers, managers and CEOs. We give them attributes, like greediness, absence of emotions, hideosity and so on. We reduce their materialist class interest to some shitty human nature moralist stuff. We don't use the term jew explicitly, but this false criticism can function as a hotbed for real, primary antisemitism.
Well, I explained the how so part.
A good deal of the anti-neoliberalism radical left, or born again social democracy, uses the distinction between parastic finance capital and productive capital while being neither anti-judaist (as in, prejudice against a religious group) nor anti-semitic in any way.

Reducing class interest and the particular ways financial capital operates to silly stuff like "greed" can't be reduced to any recognizable form or antisemitism whatsoever.

[erupt]

Let me ask this question: as far as users on here and their exposure to anti-semitism, what tendency are these Leftist groups usually, if they're anti-semites, that users have exposure to.

Are they tankies (please, I know all about Stalin's writings about how anti-semitism is bad, etc., so please, no-one post it for my sake), social democrats? I doubt Trotskyist (not because I'm sympathetic in any way, but because, as we all know, Trotsky's patriarchal surname was Bronstein if I'm not mistaken).

Point being is, did the anti-semitism yins (sorry, I'm from around Da 'Burgh) come across come from Stalinist camps who adopted their messiah's outlooks (again, no point in arguing between tendencies as far as proving to me he was a friend of the Jews in the long run), from naive Trotskyists, from social-democrats who adopted the anti-Jewish sect of the neo-conservative or neo-liberal line of mainstream socio-economy/politics, or was it libertarian socialists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc., or just moderate Leftists not loyal to any tendency or ideology, in general?

[DOOM]

Let me ask this question: as far as users on here and their exposure to anti-semitism, what tendency are these Leftist groups usually, if they're anti-semites, that users here have exposure to.

Are they tankies (please, I know all about Stalin's writings about how anti-semitism is bad, etc., so please, no-one post it for my sake), social democrats? I doubt Trotskyist (not because I'm sympathetic in any way, but because, as we all know, Trotsky's patriarchal surname was Bronstein if I'm not mistaken).

Point being is, did the anti-semitism yins (sorry, I'm from around Da 'Burgh) come across come from Stalinist camps who adopted their messiah's outlooks (again, no point in arguing between tendencies as far as proving to me he was a friend of the Jews in the long run), from naive Trotskyists, from social-democrats who adopted the anti-Jewish sect of the neo-conservative or neo-liberal line of mainstream socio-economy/politics, or was it libertarian socialists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc., or just moderate Leftists not loyal to any tendency or ideology, in general?

Antisemitism manifests itself in the whole (radical) left. But in my opinion, the stalinists, hardcore anti-imperialists and national-liberationists tend to have the most antisemits among them. But don't take this as a fact, it's really just an observation.

[fugazi]

Let me ask this question: as far as users on here and their exposure to anti-semitism, what tendency are these Leftist groups usually, if they're anti-semites, that users have exposure to.

Are they tankies (please, I know all about Stalin's writings about how anti-semitism is bad, etc., so please, no-one post it for my sake), social democrats? I doubt Trotskyist (not because I'm sympathetic in any way, but because, as we all know, Trotsky's patriarchal surname was Bronstein if I'm not mistaken).

Point being is, did the anti-semitism yins (sorry, I'm from around Da 'Burgh) come across come from Stalinist camps who adopted their messiah's outlooks (again, no point in arguing between tendencies as far as proving to me he was a friend of the Jews in the long run), from naive Trotskyists, from social-democrats who adopted the anti-Jewish sect of the neo-conservative or neo-liberal line of mainstream socio-economy/politics, or was it libertarian socialists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc., or just moderate Leftists not loyal to any tendency or ideology, in general?

personally, I think that 'Stalinism' can follow the basic logic of anti-Semitism (in its insistence upon the elimination of foreign entities etc. - I know I'm 'asking' but don't want to go into a tendency war about this...)
As far as early revolutionary ideology goes, its pretty rampant throughout.
Chalk it up to l'espirit du temps

In America, its more overt forms stem from the conspiratorial worldview. (although, to me, this seems to waning - granted my social sphere isn't necessarily representative of the general American populace)

as far as anti-Semitism is concerned, tbh, a I think that a lot of it stems from Israel-Palestine (I'm not taking the hardline-Zionist stance here - all criticisms of the state of Israel are necessarily anti-Semitic - just pointing out an issue that everyone likes to dance around...)

The issue for me is in (at least, what I perceive as) a conflation of ideas or mixing up the metaphors i.e. the comparison between the policies of the State of Israel and things that it has nothing to do with like gentrification or the border wall in Arizona.

All of these issues need to be taken on their own terms (in their own historical/ whatever-context)

anti-Semitism aside, as far as 'Red' or 'Social-Fascism' is concerned - I think it stems from a problem of militancy. (I haven't fully developed this idea - when and if I do, I'll try and elaborate more...)

[Dagoth Ur]

Jesus Christ. Stalin was such an enemy of the Jews that he was accused of being in their employ. Lenin was party jewish so it is doubly strange that an anti-semite would spend so much time praising him.

The only thing that could seem like antisemitism is the Doctor's Plot but this is only if you have no understanding of historical context.

[#FF0000]

Jesus Christ. Stalin was such an enemy of the Jews that he was accused of being in their employ. Lenin was party jewish so it is doubly strange that an anti-semite would spend so much time praising him.

None of this necessarily means that the folks in question couldn't have been anti-semitic, tho. Antisemites accuse other antisemites of being secret jews often enough.


The only thing that could seem like antisemitism is the Doctor's Plot but this is only if you have no understanding of historical context.

I'd love to hear this one. (◕‿◕✿)

[Dagoth Ur]

None of this necessarily means that the folks in question couldn't have been anti-semitic, tho. Antisemites accuse other antisemites of being secret jews often enough.
Well that is true but when did Stalin ever accuse someone of being a secret Jew? For an anti-semite it seems strange that he would base his whole worldview off of a jew and a half jew (Marx and Lenin respectively).


I'd love to hear this one. (◕‿◕✿)
Its simple. Jews in Czarist and early Soviet Russia were almost exclusively part of the intelligentsia. As such they made up a overwhelming majority of doctors. This is part of why the Soviets were accused of Judeobolshevism by basically everyone (except America where being antisemitic has never really had much traction).

[erupt]

personally, I think that 'Stalinism' can follow the basic logic of anti-Semitism (in its insistence upon the elimination of foreign entities etc. - I know I'm 'asking' but don't want to go into a tendency war about this...)
As far as early revolutionary ideology goes, its pretty rampant throughout.
Chalk it up to l'espirit du temps

In America, its more overt forms stem from the conspiratorial worldview. (although, to me, this seems to waning - granted my social sphere isn't necessarily representative of the general American populace)

as far as anti-Semitism is concerned, tbh, a I think that a lot of it stems from Israel-Palestine (I'm not taking the hardline-Zionist stance here - all criticisms of the state of Israel are necessarily anti-Semitic - just pointing out an issue that everyone likes to dance around...)

The issue for me is in (at least, what I perceive as) a conflation of ideas or mixing up the metaphors i.e. the comparison between the policies of the State of Israel and things that it has nothing to do with like gentrification or the border wall in Arizona.

All of these issues need to be taken on their own terms (in their own historical/ whatever-context)

anti-Semitism aside, as far as 'Red' or 'Social-Fascism' is concerned - I think it stems from a problem of militancy. (I haven't fully developed this idea - when and if I do, I'll try and elaborate more...)
Stalin is viewed this way for things he's done, like sending these various groups to the labor camps and, in my opinion, nationalism.

In the States, at lot of it most definitely "stems from" the U.S. general international outlook that "the Jews pull the strings", etc., very similar to the era that allowed Hitler to gain a following.

The Israel-Palestine conflict causes resentment to Jews, without a doubt; those aware and opposed to Zionism may resent all Jews for the beliefs and actions of a select group of them. The fact that centuries-old generalizations and stereotypes don't help the situation, either. Also, without a doubt, criticizing Israel is not criticizing Jews in any way -- it's criticizing a state.

I think the comparisons you mentioned (Israel and the fence in Arizona) are mentioned together by some because they are examples of religious bigotry, nationalism, and racism, and the only thing that most Americans that are exposed to when it comes to that are Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc. (if nationalism wasn't mentioned African-American prejudice is extremely prevalent, too). They're generalizing something that should not be generalized in any situation.

And finally, militancy, which we obviously need, is definitely a breeding ground for bigotry, etc. If the Left's militant organizations had more cooperation and coordination, much of this reactionary outlook could be educated, and, therefore, edradicated.


Jesus Christ. Stalin was such an enemy of the Jews that he was accused of being in their employ. Lenin was party jewish so it is doubly strange that an anti-semite would spend so much time praising him.

The only thing that could seem like antisemitism is the Doctor's Plot but this is only if you have no understanding of historical context.
I didn't, and I don't think anyone on here, claimed Stalin was anti-Semitic towards ethnic Jews who renounced Judaism and joined the Party. However, how he acted towards whole populations of people is a different story.

[Dagoth Ur]

If you kill jews because you're killing people and some jews are involved there is no possible connection to anti-semitism.

[erupt]

If you kill jews because you're killing people and some jews are involved there is no possible connection to anti-semitism.

Agreed. My thing is, how many Jews that continued practicing their religion were killed, in comparison to how many Jews that became Atheist, joined the Party, and fell-in-line, were killed.

When Stalin persecuted religious institutions altogether, I would bet way less Eastern Orthodox followers were killed/imprisoned (for less time, too,) than Jews in the exact same situation.

[fugazi]

If you kill jews because you're killing people and some jews are involved there is no possible connection to anti-semitism.

to clarify
what I meant by 'the logic of anti-Semitism'
was that given a situation where you have internal problems you blame an external (or externalized) Other. (Poles for instance...)

I wasn't trying to suggest that Stalin was an anti-Semite.

[Dagoth Ur]

Fair enough but that's a pretty broad analogy.


Agreed. My thing is, how many Jews that continued practicing their religion were killed, in comparison to how many Jews that became Atheist, joined the Party, and fell-in-line, were killed.
It stands to reason that most that held on to their faith were also anti-soviet. That said this is all speculation.


When Stalin persecuted religious institutions altogether, I would bet way less Eastern Orthodox followers were killed/imprisoned (for less time, too,) than Jews in the exact same situation.
Depends on the crime and who actually handed down the sentence. I mean it's not like Stalin was setting every punishment in the USSR during his reign. From what I've read about these types of things it was the atheist Jews who were the hardest on the faithful ones. Nothing new there.

[erupt]

It stands to reason that most that held on to their faith were also anti-soviet. That said this is all speculation.


Depends on the crime and who actually handed down the sentence. I mean it's not like Stalin was setting every punishment in the USSR during his reign. From what I've read about these types of things it was the atheist Jews who were the hardest on the faithful ones. Nothing new there.

It's logical, as well, that any anti-Soviet citizens would probably remain faithful to that other institution breathing down their neck...the church/temple/mosque.

As far as Stalin and crime/punishment under him, I know there is plenty of things he never heard of or requested. However, we could say the same exact thing about Hitler.

Also, it's not surprising the Jews that became Atheist were harder on faithful Jews; I think it's probably human nature. What I mean is the Jews that no longer practiced their religion resented the Jews that still practiced their faith since they were probably thinking something like "I gave worship up. I'm trying to work together with the rest of this nation-state. Why aren't my fellow Jews doing the same as I?" Again, no excuse, just an attempt at historical context with a culture I know nothing about.

Not to sound patronizing, but good discussion all around. No tendencies wars, yet, I'm pretty sure!

[bropasaran]

This is really Chomskyite mythology about Leninism. This one dimensional explanation of the degeneration of the Russian revolution is insufficient in explaining it -- the highly complex issue of the Russian revolution vs. this simple (I'd say simplistic) explanation should be an indication for critical reassessment of this critique. Leninism is not contrary to self-emancipation of workers, and Leninism certainly isn't 'authoritarian' in the sense that anarchists use. Bolshevik practice is another issue. Generally, the anarchist critique of Leninism is presuming the practice of the Soviet Union originated from Leninism, sometimes even without consulting Lenin's texts.
No, leninism actually is authoritarian and contrary to self-emancipation of workers. I suggest going through the following essays.

H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html#sech33)

H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html#sech38)

H.5.1 Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech51)

H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech54)

H.5.10 Why does "democratic centralism" produce "bureaucratic centralism"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech510)

H.6.1 Can objective factors explain the failure of the Russian Revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH6.html#sech61)

H.6.2 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the Russian Revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH6.html#sech62)

8. Are Leninists in favour of democracy? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append31.html#app8)

11. Why is McNally's claim that Leninism supports working class self-emancipation wrong? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append31.html#app11)

15. Did Trotsky keep alive Leninism's "democratic essence"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append31.html#app15)

14. Is the Leninist tradition actually as democratic as the SWP like to claim? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append34.html#app14)

4. What did Trotsky and Lenin think must replace the bourgeois state? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append35.html#app4)

4 Was Lenin's "State and Revolution" applied after October? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app4)

12 Was there an alternative to Lenin's "state capitalism" and "war communism"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app12)

20 Can the Red Terror and the Cheka be justified? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app20)

23 Was the repression of the socialist opposition justified? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app23)

What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html)
1 Do anarchists ignore the objective factors facing the Russian revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app1)
2 Can "objective factors" really explain the failure of Bolshevism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app2)
3 Can the civil war explain the failure of Bolshevism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app3)
4 Did economic collapse and isolation destroy the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app4)
5 Was the Russian working class atomised or "declassed"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app5)
6 Did the Bolsheviks blame "objective factors" for their actions? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app6)

How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html)
1 How did the Marxist historical materialism affect Bolshevism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app1)
2 Why did the Marxist theory of the state undermine working class power? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app2)
3 How did Engels' essay "On Authority" affect the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app3)
4 What was the Bolshevik vision of democracy? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app4)
5 What was the effect of the Bolshevik vision of "socialism"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app5)
6 How did Bolshevik preference for nationalisation affect the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app6)
7 How did Bolshevik preference for centralism affect the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app7)
8 How did the aim for party power undermine the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app8)

Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real alternative? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html)
1 Were the "Left Communists" of 1918 an alternative? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app1)
2 What were the limitations of the "Workers' Opposition" of 1920? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app2)
3 What about Trotsky's "Left Opposition" in the 1920s? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app3)
4 What do these oppositions tell us about the essence of Leninism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app4)

.

EDIT: Fixed some links.

And voila, a nice small database of socialist material debunking the myth that leninism has anything to do with the emancipation the working people. If you want to point people to this list, give them this link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2749501&postcount=55

[QueerVanguard]

No, leninism actually is authoritarian and contrary to self-emancipation of workers. I suggest going through the following essays.

H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html#sech33)

H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html#sech38)

H.5.1 Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech51)

H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech54)

H.5.10 Why does "democratic centralism" produce "bureaucratic centralism"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech510)

H.6.1 Can objective factors explain the failure of the Russian Revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH6.html#sech61)

H.6.2 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the Russian Revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH6.html#sech62)

8. Are Leninists in favour of democracy? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append31.html#app8)

11. Why is McNally's claim that Leninism supports working class self-emancipation wrong? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append31.html#app11)

15. Did Trotsky keep alive Leninism's "democratic essence"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append31.html#app15)

14. Is the Leninist tradition actually as democratic as the SWP like to claim? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append34.html#app14)

4. What did Trotsky and Lenin think must replace the bourgeois state? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append35.html#app4)

4 Was Lenin's "State and Revolution" applied after October? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app4)

12 Was there an alternative to Lenin's "state capitalism" and "war communism"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app12)

20 Can the Red Terror and the Cheka be justified? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app20)

23 Was the repression of the socialist opposition justified? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app23)

What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html)
1 Do anarchists ignore the objective factors facing the Russian revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app1)
2 Can "objective factors" really explain the failure of Bolshevism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app2)
3 Can the civil war explain the failure of Bolshevism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app3)
4 Did economic collapse and isolation destroy the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app4)
5 Was the Russian working class atomised or "declassed"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app5)
6 Did the Bolsheviks blame "objective factors" for their actions? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html#app6)

How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html)
1 How did the Marxist historical materialism affect Bolshevism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app1)
2 Why did the Marxist theory of the state undermine working class power? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app2)
3 How did Engels' essay "On Authority" affect the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app3)
4 What was the Bolshevik vision of democracy? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app4)
5 What was the effect of the Bolshevik vision of "socialism"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app5)
6 How did Bolshevik preference for nationalisation affect the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app6)
7 How did Bolshevik preference for centralism affect the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app7)
8 How did the aim for party power undermine the revolution? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app8)

Were any of the Bolshevik oppositions a real alternative? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html)
1 Were the "Left Communists" of 1918 an alternative? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app1)
2 What were the limitations of the "Workers' Opposition" of 1920? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app2)
3 What about Trotsky's "Left Opposition" in the 1920s? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app3)
4 What do these oppositions tell us about the essence of Leninism? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append45.html#app4)

.

EDIT: Fixed some links.

And voila, a nice small database of socialist material debunking the myth that leninism has anything to do with the emancipation the working people. If you want to point people to this list, give them this link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2749501&postcount=55

Quoting some more from your Proudhonist bible?? Cute :laugh:

[bropasaran]

On a site with a ton of marxists and leninists, you pull out a bible metaphor at an anarchist pointing to rationalist, meticulously argumented, systematized, and referenced essays. http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[synthesis]

Why don't you quit spamming the forum with that fucking FAQ?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

There isn't nessecarily wrong with using these essays for constructing an argument since arguments which have their basis in some form of theoretical and factual authority are more creditable then what you hatched up on the spot for an internet post. However if you really wish to use these essays, cite them in an argument you are making instead of simply saying "here, an essay about something which is parallel to this topic, go read it!" Because while perhaps they have something good in them I don't have the desire to plod through all of those links to find what is relevant to the point you are trying to make

[erupt]

Here goes, an' I'm not blaming either side, but the various types of Marxists and Anarchists are getting on each other, rather than everyone denouncing these practices.\

I'm sure I'll get shit for this, but, this is why RevLeft is useless as far as the information/discussions becoming real-life knowledge used by all Leftists for the benefit of the international proletariat.

[PhoenixAsh]

Here goes, an' I'm not blaming either side, but the various types of Marxists and Anarchists are getting on each other, rather than everyone denouncing these practices.\

I'm sure I'll get shit for this, but, this is why RevLeft is useless as far as the information/discussions becoming real-life knowledge used by all Leftists for the benefit of the international proletariat.

Depending on the specific tendency Anarchists and Marxist-Leninists don't mix.

There will be an inevitable time frame in which these two tendencies will most likely come to bloody clashes and conflict. There is no solution for this unless one or the other tendency denounces their both anti-thetical, mutually exclusive ideologies.

That is of course...when communists even manage to revive from the complete and utter miserable failure Marxism-Leninism has been.

[PhoenixAsh]

Leninism is not contrary to self-emancipation of workers, and Leninism certainly isn't 'authoritarian' in the sense that anarchists use. Bolshevik practice is another issue. Generally, the anarchist critique of Leninism is presuming the practice of the Soviet Union originated from Leninism, sometimes even without consulting Lenin's texts.

Wait, what?? I am not entirely sure if you were paying attention while you were typing. So you need to explain some things here. First and foremost Leninism not being contrary to self-emancipation when the main Anarchist critique of Vanguardism is exactly that.

[Darth]

Well, fascism was exterminated by Marxism in 1945. It doesn't exist now, only in pathetic forms.

[synthesis]

There will be an inevitable time frame in which these two tendencies will most likely come to bloody clashes and conflict. There is no solution for this unless one or the other tendency denounces their both anti-thetical, mutually exclusive ideologies.

I don't think it's inevitable at all. I think it's a lot more likely, in the event of a genuine working class revolution, that one or both of them will be shown to be completely irrelevant. I don't think anarchism will ever really go away, either, but as for actual violent political conflict, a la the big K? That's not even remotely a conclusion that one can draw from the present state of things. I think the last thing resembling a physical confrontation between the two will be shown to have been when RAAN spray-painted that RCP bookstore in 2004.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say there could be a variety of issues but as for the root cause, on an individual level I would say the usual issues involving conformity, pathological social comparison, groupthink, etc.

[Rafiq]

Well, I explained the how so part.
A good deal of the anti-neoliberalism radical left, or born again social democracy, uses the distinction between parastic finance capital and productive capital while being neither anti-judaist (as in, prejudice against a religious group) nor anti-semitic in any way.

Reducing class interest and the particular ways financial capital operates to silly stuff like "greed" can't be reduced to any recognizable form or antisemitism whatsoever.

I think that the issue of anti-semitism in the Left extends beyond distinction between good and bad capitalists - though that is definitely a serious indication. It's more complicated though - did Lenin not make a similar distinction (between finance and productive capital) in Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism?

The inherent problem of anti-semitism, that makes it more of a threat to us than other forms of marginal or even 'mob' racism is that, similarly to what BIAZED said, it is a pervasive notion of humanity all together. Unlike other forms of racism, it possesses a claim to universality by which all things can be categorized, distinguished, and understood in terms of the (archetype of) the Jew. This is precisely why it has historically been viciously combated by the Left, it offers an alternative explanation for the plight of the damned in times where the workers pay for the faults of the ruling classes (crises) effectively reducing the Communists to mere pawns of 'The Jews' - class struggle itself is rendered non-existent and simply a means by which the Jew aggrandizes himself. Of course while this encompasses as an explanation to all things consistently on a rather simple level, the problem of course is that this becomes incredibly inconsistent when one takes a closer look. The invalidity of anti-semitism can be seen historically - Marx and Engel's identification with western intellectual strata and European Chauvinism by which they simply categorized the Jews and the sheer depth of Marxism makes an accusation that they were espousing Jewish thought rather ridiculous. And if we go further, to the October revolution, we see that most political Jews identified with the SR's and mensheviks, and Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism is hardly something I could expect someone part of an international Jewish (or banking) conspiracy could write. There's just too many inconsistencies on this kind of level - small things like the fallout between Israel and the Reagan administration, or the distrust intelligence agencies often have for Israelis and so on... The reality is far too complicated - it is thus imperative that anti-semitism only works as a mobilizing tool on a very shallow, simple level. Perhaps understanding this could better our attempt to combat it.

Now with regard to it's existence in the Left - since the 1990's all significant components of the Left adopted the universality of other ideologies, including that of anti-semitism (whether they explicitly acknowledge this or not). This isn't because anti-semitism is like a virus that plagues us, but that after the defeat of the international proletariat our cause was rendered illegitimate and we thus desperately found legitimacy in trying to fit in our rhetoric while pre-supposing the ideological universe of legitimate ideology, or bourgeois ideology and it's bastards (including anti-semitism, neoconservatism, single-issue campaigns, whatever). You see how the Left today latches on trivial, stupid issues that have little to do with furthering our ends. Because most leftists were reluctant in adhering to 'mainstream' ideology, as some did (Hitchens comes to mind) they adopted that of the reaction. Actually I think the reason Leftists are reluctant to be so aggressive today and are keen in being "rational" about things (in the spirit of Chomsky, among others) relates indirectly to the pervasive trend of anti-semitism - it de-legitimizes us and all explosions of emotion, passion, or violent fervor are done so in the spirit of the reaction or neoliberal bourgeoisie. We effectively cede these things to them, when we are supposed to have our own. If they are violent, or aggressive this would thus entail violence against (the archetype of) the Jew, which as conscious Leftists they obviously are opposed to by nature. The point isn't to take their words directly and understand them because of what they claimed to be, but the very ideological foundations by which they speak.

To put it shortly, anti-semitism exists among the left because they have a sort of a self-confidence issue, they are insecure about themselves. The only way we smash anti-semitism - and all trends of reactionary thought among the left is the construction of our own ideological language itself and the re-politicization of that which was de-politicized by the neoliberal technocratic strata. It is a quest for legitimacy.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think it's inevitable at all. I think it's a lot more likely, in the event of a genuine working class revolution, that one or both of them will be shown to be completely irrelevant. I don't think anarchism will ever really go away, either, but as for actual violent political conflict, a la the big K? That's not even remotely a conclusion that one can draw from the present state of things. I think the last thing resembling a physical confrontation between the two will be shown to have been when RAAN spray-painted that RCP bookstore in 2004.

The problem isn't before the revolution.

The problem will start during and after the revolution. Both tendencies are completely incompatible both on an organizational level and on a post-revolutionary level. So much so that for Anarchists a revolution will not be complete as long as a vanguard is in power on a state level. So either Anarchism must be absorbed or ML must change their opinion on post-revolutionary organization and the expression of the DOTP. When the revolution is led by Anarchists it won't be considered complete by ML's until the vanguard gains control over the revolution.

Either way. ML in power will inevitably lead to the repression of Anarchists....and Anarchists in "power" will inevitably lead to ML's contra-revolution.

[Rafiq]

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say there could be a variety of issues but as for the root cause, on an individual level I would say the usual issues involving conformity, pathological social comparison, groupthink, etc.

No, these things have always existed and any critique of them is a matter best concerned with psuedo-philsoophers.

The question is simple: Why does today's form of "conformity" in the Left entail, as the OP described, "crypto-fascism"?

[Left Voice]

The problem isn't before the revolution.

The problem will start during and after the revolution. Both tendencies are completely incompatible both on an organizational level and on a post-revolutionary level. So much so that for Anarchists a revolution will not be complete as long as a vanguard is in power on a state level. So either Anarchism must be absorbed or ML must change their opinion on post-revolutionary organization and the expression of the DOTP. When the revolution is led by Anarchists it won't be considered complete by ML's until the vanguard gains control over the revolution.

Either way. ML in power will inevitably lead to the repression of Anarchists....and Anarchists in "power" will inevitably lead to ML's contra-revolution.

While I agree, I think the idea is that such disputes are likely to be so disconnected from any real-world working class revolution. Any serious mass revolution is going to require the active participation of the vast majority of the working class.

The idea that all the fragmented MLs are going to be organised enough, or even numerous enough, to play such a role during and after the revolution is laughable. The same goes for the vast majority of existing left tendencies. The necessary scale of any successful working class revolution would see such anachronistic factions disappear into irrelevance.

[synthesis]

The problem isn't before the revolution.

The problem will start during and after the revolution. Both tendencies are completely incompatible both on an organizational level and on a post-revolutionary level. So much so that for Anarchists a revolution will not be complete as long as a vanguard is in power on a state level. So either Anarchism must be absorbed or ML must change their opinion on post-revolutionary organization and the expression of the DOTP. When the revolution is led by Anarchists it won't be considered complete by ML's until the vanguard gains control over the revolution.

Either way. ML in power will inevitably lead to the repression of Anarchists....and Anarchists in "power" will inevitably lead to ML's contra-revolution.

I really, strongly, wholeheartedly believe that Marxist-Leninists will never hold power in an industrialized country again. Ever. Neither will Trotskyists. I'd seriously bet my life on it. You might have centralized communist organizations, but they won't have the historical baggage of either of those tendencies. They just won't be operating in the same circumstances that were so favorable to centralism a hundred years ago. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards decentralization.

edit: Ninja'd by Left Voice who I absolutely agree with.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

No, these things have always existed and any critique of them is a matter best concerned with psuedo-philsoophers.

I'm sorry I don't believe I asserted nor implied it was a new phenomena nor was I critiquing the concepts listed. I offered legitimate psychological concepts as to the 'whys' on an individual basis crypto-fascist sentiments exist within 'the Left' milieu. Are you suggesting modern psychiatry is merely pseudo-philosophy?


The question is simple: Why does today's form of "conformity" in the Left entail, as the OP described, "crypto-fascism"?

Is that really what the OP was asking?

[Rafiq]

You attributed them uniquely to the rise of "crypto-fascism" in the Left. Do you suggest that before the Left possessed trends of "crypto-fascism", there was a lack of conformity or groupthink? This is a phenomena unique to post 68'. Don't try to defend your lazy and worthless explanations under the pretense of psychiatry or any other such specialized fields.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, these things have always existed and any critique of them is a matter best concerned with psuedo-philsoophers.

The question is simple: Why does today's form of "conformity" in the Left entail, as the OP described, "crypto-fascism"?
You're completely right here.

It's not even a question of conformity; these traits listed by vox populi are so vague that they don't even represent a kind of a summary of some approach of social psychology. I think they're useless practically (pathological social comparison, well that's really a mystery to my honestly). I believe there are good sues of social psychology kind of approach, but there remain other significant questions which can't be dealt with in this way.


I think that the issue of anti-semitism in the Left extends beyond distinction between good and bad capitalists - though that is definitely a serious indication. It's more complicated though - did Lenin not make a similar distinction (between finance and productive capital) in Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism? This is also completely correct. I didn't intent do imply that this distinction is the end of it.

But I don't think that this is even a serious indication since crypto-social democracy (think Monthly Review for instance) completely rests on this thing. I merely wanted to argue precisely this, that what BIAZED says is untrue - this distinction isn't inherently anti-semitic and nor does it indicate some covert anti-semitism necessarily.

[Tim Cornelis]

Wait, what?? I am not entirely sure if you were paying attention while you were typing. So you need to explain some things here. First and foremost Leninism not being contrary to self-emancipation when the main Anarchist critique of Vanguardism is exactly that.

Well I'm not an anarchist, not anti-Leninist, and not anti-vanguardist. Leninism does not exclude the workers forming organs of workers' power, or self-emancipation.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You're completely right here.

Really? Is he?


It's not even a question of conformity; these traits listed by vox populi are so vague that they don't even represent a kind of a summary of some approach of social psychology. I think they're useless practically (pathological social comparison, well that's really a mystery to my honestly). I believe there are good sues of social psychology kind of approach, but there remain other significant questions which can't be dealt with in this way.

I was being vague and generalizing on purpose due to the fact the original question itself was vague and abstract. I am however being lazy, this much is true, however I could, if you like, elaborate? What is 'social comparison' in relation to social psychology? Define it. Now, when something is 'pathological' what does that mean? What does this entail? Now combine the two. I am not being condescending but I feel if you knew what these terms mean, it would not be so much of a mystery as to what I mean. Especially in relation to what's being discussed. What significant questions here can't be explained by social psychology, science, etc?

[Thirsty Crow]

Really? Is he? I think he is.


What significant questions here can't be explained by social psychology, science, etc?The political dimension and the way specific political-ideological aspects of the problem (meaning the politics of this Left), as well as the social basis for these, relate to anti-semitism.

For instance, any psychological attempt at explanation would be inadequate for examining how is anti-Zionism really practiced and whether this has something to do with anti-semitism.

It's not any "fault" of psychology; it simply doesn't deal with this at all, its field of practice is something different.

Oh yeah, and I'm not saying categorically that leftist anti-Zionism is a significant factor here; I suspect it might be a factor but that remains to be seen (or rather, I'd have to delve into matters to confirm this).

[bropasaran]

Well I'm not an anarchist, not anti-Leninist, and not anti-vanguardist. Leninism does not exclude the workers forming organs of workers' power
Rothbardianism says that it doesn't exclude workers forming organs of workers' power either, they always point out how in their system people could have organize voluntary socialism. Having in mind that they espouse non-aggression, something that leninism doesn't, and that leninism has historically exterminated anarchists, destroyed organs of workers' power and destroyed or participated in destruction of the only two worker managed societies that existed, rothbardianism has more to do with socialism then leninism.

[Thirsty Crow]

rothbardianism has more to do with socialism then leninism.
You really ought to take a deep breath and reflect on what you're just about to write so that embarrassing yourself like this doesn't happen in the future.

[bropasaran]

I've argumented it, anti-socialism of leninism, which goes as far as extermination, is bigger and harsher then anti-socialism of rothbardianism, which is at least bounded by some principle. The only way in which leninism has more to do with socialism then rothbardianism is concerned with ways of labeling itself. But even that's debatable, being that rothbardianism calls itself "anarchism", which is of course as false as leninism calling itself "socialism" or "communism".

[synthesis]

I was being vague and generalizing on purpose due to the fact the original question itself was vague and abstract. I am however being lazy, this much is true, however I could, if you like, elaborate? What is 'social comparison' in relation to social psychology? Define it. Now, when something is 'pathological' what does that mean? What does this entail? Now combine the two. I am not being condescending but I feel if you knew what these terms mean, it would not be so much of a mystery as to what I mean. Especially in relation to what's being discussed. What significant questions here can't be explained by social psychology, science, etc?

They can potentially be explained in part by social psychology - although not in a way that offers much utility to us - but they cannot be explained by you explaining social psychology. I don't mean in general, I mean you, specifically, can't explain it as such, not in any coherent or meaningful way.

You're just tossing around psych 101 buzzwords until either something sticks or it's so broad that it can apply to basically anything; it's the astrological approach to political analysis.

[PhoenixAsh]

Leninism is considered a counter revolutionary force by Anarchists and Left-Communists.

Saying that pre-1917 Bolshevism is counter revolutionary would be a step too far, but the pre-revolutionary Bolshevism had in it the inevitability of internal counter revolution. Simplistically said the notion that socialism is capitalism minus ownership is flawed from the outset and will lead to the creation of a new class over the working class when the state is not dissolved but turned over to a minority party without direct democracy.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

They can potentially be explained in part by social psychology - although not in a way that offers much utility to us - but they cannot be explained by you explaining social psychology. I don't mean in general, I mean you, specifically, can't explain it as such, not in any coherent or meaningful way.

I haven't attempted to explain anything, duh, did you miss the part where I said I was lazy? I guess you did.


You're just tossing around psych 101 buzzwords until either something sticks or it's so broad that it can apply to basically anything; it's the astrological approach to political analysis.

Or, you specifically, don't grasp what I'm saying because I'm being fairly straight forward even if I'm generalizing. I was offering you a possible hypothesis of the whys on an individual basis to which I quoted. That was all. Obviously other fields I study and methods of analysis are relevant however specifically what I'm talking about, I don't see how social psychology wouldn't provide a sufficient enough answer. I'm sure this was probably a zinger for you but for me it falls flat and is a pretty shit critique of anything I've said.

[synthesis]

I haven't attempted to explain anything, duh, did you miss the part where I said I was lazy? I guess you did.

What I meant is that at the present time, even if you did experience some surge of motivation that would allow you to be "un-lazy" to the point where you could articulate what you're trying to say to your own satisfaction, it would still be completely meaningless relative to the subject at hand, owing to your clearly shaky grasp on the concepts you're trying to apply to this discussion.

You say "other fields you study" - what do you mean by "study"? Are you taking online classes on social psychology, are you pursuing a degree, or are you just surfing Wikipedia? Because it really comes across as though it's the latter.

[fugazi]

You say "other fields you study" - what do you mean by "study"? Are you taking online classes on social psychology, are you pursuing a degree, or are you just surfing Wikipedia? Because it really comes across as though it's the latter.

implying that Academia is somehow 'better' than Wikipedia is bourgeois

[Thirsty Crow]

implying that Academia is somehow 'better' than Wikipedia is bourgeois
It is. The articles posted at Wikipedia are introductions basically.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What I meant is that at the present time, even if you did experience some surge of motivation that would allow you to be "un-lazy" to the point where you could articulate what you're trying to say to your own satisfaction, it would still be completely meaningless relative to the subject at hand, owing to your clearly shaky grasp on the concepts you're trying to apply to this discussion.

Aside from ad hominem snaps you offered nothing in terms of explanation, critique, or counter-argument. I am wrong because I am wrong therefore I am wrong. Is essentially what you're saying. You've yet to articulate how and why the concepts mentioned aren't applicable to the situation or are suitable for analyzing the subject.


You say "other fields you study" - what do you mean by "study"? Are you taking online classes on social psychology, are you pursuing a degree, or are you just surfing Wikipedia? Because it really comes across as though it's the latter.

By other fields of study I obviously meant there is more than way to analyze something. Also, if you really must know, I have taken several classes in psychology, including this semester, none of which have been online, all paid for out of pocket, thank you. Either way, it's of no consequence. As you stated, it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. If you really feel the need to be so rude we're done here, thank you. Have you taken any courses in psychology? Anything past psych 101? Hmm?

[Tim Cornelis]

Rothbardianism says that it doesn't exclude workers forming organs of workers' power either, they always point out how in their system people could have organize voluntary socialism. Having in mind that they espouse non-aggression, something that leninism doesn't, and that leninism has historically exterminated anarchists, destroyed organs of workers' power and destroyed or participated in destruction of the only two worker managed societies that existed, rothbardianism has more to do with socialism then [sic!] leninism.

I should've been more clear. What I meant was that Leninism is not contrary to organs of workers' power, and Lenin actively pursued the creation of organs of workers' power as becomes clear from his writings, wherein he advocates the establishment of a 'commune-state' in place of parliamentarianism. As such, the ideology of Leninism is not inherently contrary to the self-emancipation of workers. Historically, Bolshevism and Stalinism have attacked anarchists, but these grew out of the historical circumstances that were rather unique to the Russian revolution and experience, and is not inherent to Leninism -- in fact, your equation of Leninism with Stalinism is inaccurate. The same goes for destroying organs of workers' power, this was the result of the historical circumstances and is not advocated by Leninism inherently.


Leninism is considered a counter revolutionary force by Anarchists and Left-Communists.

Left communists? I don't think so.


Saying that pre-1917 Bolshevism is counter revolutionary would be a step too far, but the pre-revolutionary Bolshevism had in it the inevitability of internal counter revolution. Simplistically said the notion that socialism is capitalism minus ownership is flawed from the outset and will lead to the creation of a new class over the working class when the state is not dissolved but turned over to a minority party without direct democracy.

I consider Bolshevik practice to have been counter-revolutionary, but I do not consider Leninism as such. The notion that Leninism advances the notion that 'socialism is capitalism minus ownership' is inaccurate as well -- but I'm going to sleep now.

[synthesis]

By other fields of study I obviously meant there is more than way to analyze something. Also, if you really must know, I have taken several classes in psychology, including this semester, none of which have been online, all paid for out of pocket, thank you. Either way, it's of no consequence. As you stated, it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. If you really feel the need to be so rude we're done here, thank you. Have you taken any courses in psychology? Anything past psych 101? Hmm?

Well, yes, I did, but more importantly I'm not the one making broad and meaningless claims about irrelevant bullshit and then defending them by saying I won't be defending them, but somehow doing it in a really patronizing way that just reinforces the meaninglessness of the earlier claims. Or maybe I am.

[PhoenixAsh]

Left communists? I don't think so.

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists




I consider Bolshevik practice to have been counter-revolutionary, but I do not consider Leninism as such. The notion that Leninism advances the notion that 'socialism is capitalism minus ownership' is inaccurate as well -- but I'm going to sleep now.


We will wait till tomorrow.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well, yes, I did

When I asked if you had any classes in psychology, I meant that you actually passed.


but more importantly I'm not the one making broad and meaningless claims about irrelevant bullshit

Actually, for example, I mentioned 'groupthink.' Groupthink is a very plausible explanation of how such things occur within Leftist groups. Not mentioning that nothing I've said is really that irrelevant or off topic or bullshit. Again, it's not my fault if you don't get what I'm saying.


and then defending them by saying I won't be defending them,

Because I don't see the need too.

[fugazi]

It is. The articles posted at Wikipedia are introductions basically.

and if you read the references associated with the articles?

[fugazi]

does anyone know where the whole Trotsky allegation comes from?

[PhoenixAsh]

does anyone know where the whole Trotsky allegation comes from?

what Trotsky allegation?

[Left Voice]

Presumably the allegation that he's a crypto-fascist.

[synthesis]

stuff (fucking quote function)

For the record, and I am aware that this is completely off topic, I wasn't intending the part about online courses as an attack, just the Wikipedia part. There are plenty of completely valid, top-notch online courses.

[bropasaran]

I should've been more clear. What I meant was that Leninism is not contrary to organs of workers' power, and Lenin actively pursued the creation of organs of workers' power as becomes clear from his writings, wherein he advocates the establishment of a 'commune-state' in place of parliamentarianism. As such, the ideology of Leninism is not inherently contrary to the self-emancipation of workers. Historically, Bolshevism and Stalinism have attacked anarchists, but these grew out of the historical circumstances that were rather unique to the Russian revolution and experience, and is not inherent to Leninism -- in fact, your equation of Leninism with Stalinism is inaccurate. The same goes for destroying organs of workers' power, this was the result of the historical circumstances and is not advocated by Leninism inherently.
Lenin was a vanguardist, just like Marx and Kautsky, only more authoritarian, and such centralist ideas are inherently anti-socialist, that is- contrary to workers' power.

Lenin and Trotsky instituted one man management in the economy, army and the party structure, Stalin only instituted it in the CC, it was a logical consequence. Party dictatorship and brutal oppression of dissidents no matter how small democratization they asked for- that also existed before Stalin. Those are all core leninist ideas, anti-socialist through and through.

Destroying socialism was the consequence of leninism being anti-socialist, not of any other circumstances, which is obvious to anyone who turns on his brain- if the historical circumstances really did preclude socialism then there wouldn't be in that time and place any socialists, socialist institutions, or a whole socialist society there, and thus no need to destroy any of them.

Also, Bolsheviks themselves didn't blame their actions on circumstances, Trotsky wrote in '35 that to look at bolshevik methods as applicable only to backward Russia and not to advanced lands is the "consoling illusion" of "incurable Fabians".


I consider Bolshevik practice to have been counter-revolutionary, but I do not consider Leninism as such.
Please tell us how being ruled by party managers is the same as managing one's work and life by oneself.

[fugazi]

For the record, and I am aware that this is completely off topic, I wasn't intending the part about online courses as an attack, just the Wikipedia part. There are plenty of completely valid, top-notch online courses.

I wasn't terribly serious about that first comment.

In regards to Trotsky, I thought that was a longstanding M-L insult (that he was a crypto-fascist/ collaborating with the fascists) ?

[Ismail]

does anyone know where the whole Trotsky allegation comes from?The Moscow Trials, particularly the second and third ones.

You can see the three reports for yourself:
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-S3FfQ0hJc2pYOFk/edit?usp=drive_web
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-UGhtSkE2cjFaYTg/edit
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-RGd4R1FRSnUwTW8/edit

For a summary of the charges see chapters XVI-XX of the following work: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-NG93WEhHYl9BUEE/edit

As Stalin put it (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MB37.html): "Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, diversionists, spies and murderers acting on the instructions of the intelligence services of foreign states."

After 1956 the Soviet revisionists ceased mentioning the Trials and dropped the claim that Trotsky had degenerated into a paid agent of fascism.

[Dialectical Wizard]

The Moscow Trials, particularly the second and third ones.

You can see the three reports for yourself:
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-S3FfQ0hJc2pYOFk/edit?usp=drive_web
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-UGhtSkE2cjFaYTg/edit
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-RGd4R1FRSnUwTW8/edit

For a summary of the charges see chapters XVI-XX of the following work: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-NG93WEhHYl9BUEE/edit

As Stalin put it (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MB37.html): "Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, diversionists, spies and murderers acting on the instructions of the intelligence services of foreign states."

After 1956 the Soviet revisionists ceased mentioning the Trials and dropped the claim that Trotsky had degenerated into a paid agent of fascism.





Seriously Ismail, Trotsky who was an ethnic Jew and who dedicated an entire pamphlet on combatting fascism is somehow a secret fascist.

You can’t seriously believe that?

[PhoenixAsh]

Seriously Ismail, Trotsky who was an ethnic Jew and who dedicated an entire pamphlet on combatting fascism is somehow a secret fascist.

You can’t seriously believe that?

Did he say that? He answered a question.

[Ismail]

It was never claimed during the trials that he actually became a fascist or otherwise changed his views on fascism, but that he was willing to use them in order to come to power in the USSR, claiming that otherwise the "Stalinists" would lose in a future war with Nazi Germany and that the gains of the revolution would thus be completely wiped away along with the Trots.

[Dialectical Wizard]

It was never claimed during the trials that he actually became a fascist or otherwise changed his views on fascism, but that he was willing to use them in order to come to power in the USSR, claiming that otherwise the "Stalinists" would lose in a future war with Nazi Germany and that the gains of the revolution would thus be completely wiped away along with the Trots.

Nothing more than another one of those wacky stalinoid conspiracy theories.

Stalin's crypto-antisemitism on the other hand ran pretty deep though; he purged almost all of the Jewish Bolsheviks, his immense hatred for Trotsky and the doctors plot etc.

[Broviet Union]

Given that Stalin also wrote that hatred of the Jews was a disease or something along those lines in his writing on Anti-Semitism, I can only assume the guy was a mess of cognitive dissonance.

[Ismail]

he purged almost all of the Jewish Bolsheviks, his immense hatred for TrotskyApparently the only reason Stalin clashed with persons like Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev was because they were Jews.

I've never heard that the purges specifically targeted Jews either. The Moscow Trials certainly do not indicate it, nor will you find such claims in, say, Robert Conquest's works.


and the doctors plot etc.As Furr noted (http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/factionalism_ginzburg_lies1109.html) a few years back,




The "Doctors' Plot" case had nothing to do with Stalin.

Ferociously anticommunist and anti-Stalin researcher Gennadiy Kostyrchenko exposed the supposed "plan" to execute the Doctors and exile Soviet Jews in 2003, in an article titled "Deportatsiia -- Mistifikatsiia" in the Russian Jewish journal Lekhaim in September 2002 (http://www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/125/kost.htm).
According to anti-Stalin Soviet dissident Zhores Medvedev it was the aged Stalin who put an end to this case (Stalin i evreiskaia problema. Chapter "Stalin i 'delo vrachei'" (http://scepsis.ru/library/id_1753.html)).
According to Stalin's daughter Svetlana Allilueva (Twenty Letters To A Friend, Letter 18 (http://vlastitel.com.ru/stalin/itog/doch/18.html)) Stalin didn't believe the charges against the Doctors anyway.


Nobody can find any examples of "bestial anti-Semitism" during Stalin's time. Kostyrchenko himself, and the far-right "Memorial" organization, published a book titled State Antisemitism in the USSR. But they don't have any examples of it during Stalin's time.

Also, in-re the late 40s anti-cosmpolitanism campaign, which was used by some for anti-semitic purposes:

"According to the writer Faeev, after a few months the leader noted that the divulging of literary pseudonyms smelled of anti-Semitism. His colleague Simonov overheard Stalin saying:

'Why Mal'tsev, and then Rovinskii between brackets? What's the matter here? How long will this continue...? If a man chose a literary pseudonym for himself, it's his right.... But apparently someone is glad to emphasise that this person has a double surname, to emphasise that he is a Jew.... Why create anti-Semitism?'

Thereafter, the practice of revealing Jewish names stopped. Stalin also rejected Suslov's proposal according to which 'nationality' might be used as the official reason for dismissal from one's work place." (The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin, p. 205)

[Rafiq]

To change the subject slightly, what do you all make of the East German government's inclusion of a cryptofascist party - the national democratic party?

[Ismail]

To change the subject slightly, what do you all make of the East German government's inclusion of a cryptofascist party - the national democratic party?Its statues did define it as an anti-fascist and anti-militarist party though, its position being that the Nazis led Germany to national ruin, that Hitler and Co. deceived the country, that the American occupation of the west would result in the defacement of German culture, and that US policy was leading Europe into another war which would supposedly destroy the German nation.

Apparently the majority of NDPD members weren't actually ex-NSDAP even though the NDPD did target former soldiers and those sections of the petty-bourgeoisie seen as sympathetic to the NSDAP back when it was in power.

East German materials in the 50s and 60s stressed the ex-Nazi aspect of the NDPD. Afterwards winning over ex-Nazis wasn't important anymore and the NDPD's activities shifted towards educating its members in the "spirit of socialism." From a 1986 East German publication: "The NDPD is mainly composed of members of the former middle classes. It greatly helped to overcome nationalistic thinking. Its members are private and cooperative craftsmen, tradespeople, intellectuals and cultural workers. The main thrust of the party's political work is strengthening socialist state consciousness. The NDPD bears a great deal of responsibility for the political and moral as well as the socio-economic development of these sectors of the population it represents." (The German Democratic Republic, Verlag Zeit im Bild, p. 62.)

[fugazi]

The Moscow Trials, particularly the second and third ones.

You can see the three reports for yourself:
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-S3FfQ0hJc2pYOFk/edit?usp=drive_web
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-UGhtSkE2cjFaYTg/edit
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-RGd4R1FRSnUwTW8/edit

For a summary of the charges see chapters XVI-XX of the following work: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-NG93WEhHYl9BUEE/edit

As Stalin put it (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MB37.html): "Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, diversionists, spies and murderers acting on the instructions of the intelligence services of foreign states."

After 1956 the Soviet revisionists ceased mentioning the Trials and dropped the claim that Trotsky had degenerated into a paid agent of fascism.

darkness at noon.

[Ismail]

darkness at noon.... was a fiction work written by an anti-communist which has little to do with your original question.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Ironically, most of those people claim to be Marxists.

Is it not ironic that there are Marxists who claim not to agree with the great man theory?

[BolshevikBabe]

Is it not ironic that there are Marxists who claim not to agree with the great man theory?

So I'm guessing you think people who are Darwinists believe in the great man theory of history too?

[Tim Cornelis]

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists

From quickly glancing over the text, they are referring to [Marxism-]Leninism (i.e. Stalinism) and not Lenin. I use 'Leninism' as with the ideas and writings associated and by Lenin.


We will wait till tomorrow.

I consider Bolshevik practice to have been counter-revolutionary, but I do not consider Leninism as such. The notion that Leninism advances the notion that 'socialism is capitalism minus ownership' is inaccurate as well. In State and Revolution it's clear that he understands socialism to include labour cheques, common property (and I think it's fair to assume associated labour as extension).


Lenin was a vanguardist, just like Marx and Kautsky, only more authoritarian, and such centralist ideas are inherently anti-socialist, that is- contrary to workers' power.

This is a statement but contains no argument.

I don't see how this is "authoritarian": And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord. (State and Revolution)


Lenin and Trotsky instituted one man management in the economy, army and the party structure, Stalin only instituted it in the CC, it was a logical consequence. Party dictatorship and brutal oppression of dissidents no matter how small democratization they asked for- that also existed before Stalin. Those are all core leninist ideas, anti-socialist through and through.

No they are not "core Leninist ideals" and I challenge you to substantiate that. I'm not familiar with any of Lenin's theoretical writings that advocate the measures as implemented by the Bolsheviks.


Destroying socialism was the consequence of leninism being anti-socialist, not of any other circumstances, which is obvious to anyone who turns on his brain- if the historical circumstances really did preclude socialism then there wouldn't be in that time and place any socialists, socialist institutions, or a whole socialist society there, and thus no need to destroy any of them.

>destroying socialism
Socialism in one country?

Your understanding of Leninism seems to begin and end with Bolshevik practice and Stalinism, not with Lenin's writings.


Also, Bolsheviks themselves didn't blame their actions on circumstances, Trotsky wrote in '35 that to look at bolshevik methods as applicable only to backward Russia and not to advanced lands is the "consoling illusion" of "incurable Fabians".

Please tell us how being ruled by party managers is the same as managing one's work and life by oneself.

Why should I?

[Ismail]

Your understanding of Leninism seems to begin and end with Bolshevik practice and Stalinism, not with Lenin's writings.Bolshevik practice was largely bound up with Lenin's writings and directives. One-man management, the formation of the Cheka, suppression of the Kronstadt mutineers, the NEP, and other subjects which get Lenin attacked by ultra-leftists were all initiated and given theoretical defenses by Lenin. Your statement would only make sense if Lenin died in 1917 or early 1918.


I don't see how this is "authoritarian": And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord. (State and Revolution)I don't see how this is a logical argument.

"Lenin was authoritarian."
"Lies, he said that Communism will be the most complete democracy ever!"
"Damn, looks like I was wrong."

People defending Lenin and Leninism are fine, people using dumb arguments and trying to turn Lenin into a figure more to their own liking is not fine.

Edit: I missed this comment of yours: "I'm not familiar with any of Lenin's theoretical writings that advocate the measures as implemented by the Bolsheviks."

To start with you could read the section "'Harmonious Organisation' and Dictatorship" in Lenin's "The Immediate Task of the Soviet Government (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/IT18.html)." Among other things he notes that, "We must learn to combine the 'public meeting' democracy of the working people -- turbulent, surging, overflowing its banks like a spring flood -- with iron discipline while at work, with unquestioning obedience to the will of a single person, the Soviet leader, while at work."

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Personally, I think Fidel Castro was a crypto-fascist in red colors. He read the works of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera when he was younger and he maintained relations with Francoist Spain after he took over Cuba. To add injury to the insult of the deaths of thousands of dead Spanish Republicans, socialists, and workers due to Franco's forces both during and after the Spanish Civil War, Castro mandated a mourning period after Franco's death.