Greetings

[Soviet Aggression]

Greetings to all.

The name is Mike, a construction laborer hailing from the plains of Texas, the republic of. I joined this site just today after lurking for years, to be honest. I found this to be a place where most of my questions on political tendencies and the applications therein were answered almost immediately by reading some of the posts here. I decided to join, and actually get involved with the collective rather than being a fence squatter.

Was I always sympathetic to leftist politics? No. I am sad to admit that I once adhered to reactionary nationlist ideals at one point in my life, but have since shaked myself off of such political/societal toxins. What aided my political/social restructuring? Simple. Logic. I thought to myself, as a member of the ruling class what would I need for proper control over the proletariat, and what would be my greatest threat? Diversion and seperation of the working class based on propagated contemporary racial divides and propagandized xenophobia would be one of my many tools (such is seen in an unfortunate abundance within the American societal structure today). My biggest threat? Collective cohesiveness that provides a foundation for unwavering solidarity among the proletariat. It is in the left that I have found the needs of the human struggle to be properly addressed. Although I am but a student in this school of thought, I look forward to communicating with you all and sharing ideas, and above all: learn. Ignorance is what spawns most of our ailments, and education is the remedy.

Some will ask what my political tendecies are. After extensive reading, I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist with a developing interest in Focoism. Despite the blunders of Focoism, it still remains an interest of mine. Hopefully there are some Guevarists on this board that will help me with a better understanding of it.

Again, greetings to you all in advance.

[Comrade Jacob]

Hi comrade, don't let the left-coms grab ya ;)

[RedWorker]

Hi comrade, don't let the left-coms grab ya ;)

Pesumably anyone who recognizes the destruction caused by Stalinism is meant when "left-coms" is mentioned. We do not need to "grab" anyone. If he has an open mind, he will quickly realize the flaws and contradictions of and real damage caused by so-called "Marxism-Leninism". At most, we could provide objective information and debate.

And I know this is an introductory thread, and that the above comment probably wasn't all too serious, but why should it be allowed for apologism of the phenomena which was responsible for inflicting so many defeats - including massive physical damage - to the working class, for ensuring capitalism remained in power, to go by un-criticized, in fact, to be joked about like this? Like it was something acceptable for someone to talk good about Stalinism and then make jokes about "don't let the leftcoms/Trotskyists/whatever get the best of you!!!!!". Like it was fucking acceptable to encapsulate this in a "humorous" framework and not taking things seriously. No. I am against this fucking stance. If I am to be considered "harsh", or "disrespectful", or even accused of creating "tendency wars" (oh no) because of this, then so be it.

[Soviet Aggression]

Pesumably anyone who recognizes the destruction incurred by Stalinism is meant when "left-coms" is mentioned. We do not need to "grab" anyone. If he has an open mind, he will quickly realize the flaws, contradictions and real damage caused by "Marxism-Leninism". At most, we could provide objective information and debate.

And I know this is an introduction thread, and that the above comment probably wasn't all too serious, but why should it be allowed for apologism of the phenomena which was responsible for incurring so many defeats - including massive physical damage - to the working class, for ensuring capitalism remained in power, to go by un-criticized, in fact, to be joked about like this? Like it was something acceptable for someone to talk good about Stalinism and then make jokes about "don't let the leftcoms/Trotskyists/whatever get the best of you!!!!!". No. I am against this fucking stance. If I am to be considered "harsh", or "disrespectful", or even accused of creating "tendency wars" (oh no) because of this, then so be it.

Could you perhaps go in depth on what you mean by the damages incurred on behalf of Stalinism in correlation with Marxist-Leninist ideology? I have no illusions on how Stalin distorted Marxism or deviated from Lenin's policies, its actually curiosity that beckons the question since I'm relatively new to the Far-Left.

[RedWorker]

Dear Mike, welcome to the board.

Congratulations on your political evolution which passed through recognizing a very important element - the relation of xenophobia and other reactionary phenomena and the bourgeois regime, the necessary death fight of the working class against it.

At first I was not going to mention anything about this, but given the conversation above, I may just as well bother seriously providing information on the discussed topic -- information which you may very well disagree with, which may be in vain or which you may already know.

Capitalism is a totality. An alternative to capitalism cannot be developed within one factory, nor within one city, nor within one country. "Marxism-Leninism" is not a variant of Marxism, but rather an ideological phenomenon that surfaced to justify the degeneration of the Russian revolution through the process of Stalinism, in the interest of creating a new superstructural narrative that adjusted to the real social relations that formed as a result of this. Of attempting to ideologically destroy the contradictions that surfaced when the opposite of communism was being done, yet "communism" needed to dominate political narratives in order to avoid upsetting the public opinion. Even though the Russian developments were the follow-up to a communist and proletarian revolution, the regimes in Eastern Germany, Cuba, etc. were not the result of a genuine communist development process, but rather constituted their political annexation by Stalinism. The Russian revolution failed for a number of reasons - revolution failed in the other countries, and Russia had barely started developing capitalism, so it could hardly develop communism.

Stalinism is not innocent, but instead was responsible for innumerable defeats of the working class, including the physical, massive extermination of proletarian and communist militants; it was responsible for killing the Spanish revolution of 1936 through a campaign expressly articulated to speedily restore the control of the bourgeois regime, for destroying through wicked means, including torture and murder, the most advanced party of the working class of the epoch and place, the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), for indirectly handing the victory to the fascists and sabotaging the war effort against them; it misled the working class so many times, it betrayed the international revolution in favour of the expansionist dreams of a privileged bureaucracy ruling from Moscow.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is incompatible with the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy as well-explained by Marx, Luxemburg, etc. "Socialism" of the kind described by Stalin is not a genuine alternative to capitalism, but merely a specific political regime that can exist within a capitalist totality.

I hope this is of use to you. Perhaps you will want to discuss this or ask me questions; in such a case, I will attempt to cooperate.

[#FF0000]

Welcome dude.

You involved in any parties or organizations?

[Soviet Aggression]

Dear Mike, welcome to the board.

Congratulations on your political evolution which passed through recognizing a very important element - the relation of xenophobia and other reactionary phenomena and the bourgeois regime, the necessary death fight of the working class against it.

At first I was not going to mention anything about this, but given the conversation above, I may just as well bother seriously providing information on the discussed topic -- information which you may very well disagree with, which may be in vain or which you may already know.

Capitalism is a totality. An alternative to capitalism cannot be developed within one factory, nor within one city, nor within one country. "Marxism-Leninism" is not a variant of Marxism, but rather an ideological phenomenon that surfaced to justify the degeneration of the Russian revolution through the process of Stalinism, in the interest of creating a new superstructural narrative that adjusted to the real social relations that formed as a result of this. Of attempting to ideologically destroy the contradictions that surfaced when the opposite of communism was being done, yet "communism" needed to dominate political narratives in order to avoid upsetting the public opinion. Even though the Russian developments were the follow-up to a communist and proletarian revolution, the regimes in Eastern Germany, Cuba, etc. were not the result of a genuine communist development process, but rather constituted their political annexation by Stalinism. The Russian revolution failed for a number of reasons - revolution failed in the other countries, and Russia had barely started developing capitalism, so it could hardly develop communism.

Stalinism is not innocent, but instead was responsible for innumerable defeats of the working class, including the physical, massive extermination of proletarian and communist militants; it was responsible for killing the Spanish revolution of 1936 through a campaign expressly articulated to speedily restore the control of the bourgeois regime, for destroying through wicked means, including torture and murder, the most advanced party of the working class of the epoch and place, the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), for indirectly handing the victory to the fascists and sabotaging the war effort against them; it misled the working class so many times, it betrayed the international revolution in favour of the expansionist dreams of a privileged bureaucracy ruling from Moscow.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is incompatible with the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy as well-explained by Marx, Luxemburg, etc. "Socialism" of the kind described by Stalin is not a genuine alternative to capitalism, but merely a specific political regime that can exist within a capitalist totality.

I hope this is of use to you. Perhaps you will want to discuss this or ask me questions; in such a case, I will attempt to cooperate.

Wow. Interesting. Thanks for the welcoming. Since I'm moderated at the moment, I asked for some in depth clarification on what you meant earlier by damages caused by Marxist-Leninist ideology. I thank you for explaining in this follow up post.

I understand for a society to become communist strictly, there needs to be a proper transition from a capitalist society, to a socialist society, then finally to a communist society. With that being said, I understand that no country on this planet has achieved a genuine end result of the first two transformations. Would this be a correct assumption?

With the critique of Marxist-Leninism in mind, as stated previously in a reply posted (seen or unseen due to moderated status), I have no illusions that Stalinism deviates away from the policies of Lenin, and distorts Marxism either moderately or highly (depending on who you ask). How can one properly identify themselves then, as a Marxist-Leninist in the political tendency realm if they agree, without deviation, of both Marx and Lenin and their policies? How does one do away with the stain of Stalinist failures while adhering to a proper Marxist ideology?

[Soviet Aggression]

Welcome dude.

You involved in any parties or organizations?

Thanks.

Nah, unfortunately. There is an organization near me, though. It's called the Red Guards of Austin, which is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collective. They've been in the alternative news sphere for going head to head with Alex Jones and his ....ilk. Heh. Though, I'm skeptical on their methods of properly implementing Maoism. Maybe that's something I'll have to take up with them with email communiques to get a better understanding, or maybe someone here has heard of the bunch and can further clarify. Austin, surprisingly, is home to a lot of grass root organizations, which I'll probably look into.

[#FF0000]

Thanks.

Nah, unfortunately. There is an organization near me, though. It's called the Red Guards of Austin, which is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collective. They've been in the alternative news sphere for going head to head with Alex Jones and his ....ilk. Heh. Though, I'm skeptical on their methods of properly implementing Maoism. Maybe that's something I'll have to take up with them with email communiques to get a better understanding, or maybe someone here has heard of the bunch and can further clarify. Austin, surprisingly, is home to a lot of grass root organizations, which I'll probably look into.

I've heard that about Austin. Isn't that a ways away from El Paso, though?

I'm pretty sure the IWW's got a branch in Houston, if that's not too much of a trek. And the PSL's got a branch in ABQ if you don't mind having to cross state lines. I hear their particular branch is very different from the rest of the national organization too.

[RedWorker]

I understand for a society to become communist strictly, there needs to be a proper transition from a capitalist society, to a socialist society, then finally to a communist society.

According to Marx, the transition is firstly establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would exist in the context of class society, and then developing communism, which can be divided in two stages, lower and upper. Only the dictatorship of the proletariat can exist in one country alone - but it can also exist in one city.

According to Lenin, it is essentially the same, except the lower stage is named "socialism" and the upper "communism".

However, Stalin's distortion involves a diverging definition of "socialism", which involves the notion that it can exist in one country, is compatible with the political state, money, a capitalist totality, etc. And it exists while the dictatorship of the proletariat exists. According to this new definition, any political regime that to some extent prioritizes social needs within a capitalist totality can be classed as "socialist". The capital-labor contradiction remains, so does alienated property, so does the totality of the market dictating the operation of society, but capitalists as individuals are eliminated, so "capitalism does not exist". (But Marx already talked about capitalists as only being representatives of capital, usually characterizing but not actually necessary for capitalism; Engels provided further useful information in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", etc. This last one is highly relevant, especially its third chapter, because it exactly talks about why state ownership within a capitalist totality does not constitute a break from capitalism.)


With that being said, I understand that no country on this planet has achieved a genuine end result of the first two transformations. Would this be a correct assumption?

It would be more accurate to say that communism has never existed, including its lower stage. It is impossible for one country to achieve this transition.


With the critique of Marxist-Leninism in mind, as stated previously in a reply posted (seen or unseen due to moderated status), I have no illusions that Stalinism deviates away from the policies of Lenin, and distorts Marxism either moderately or highly (depending on who you ask). How can one properly identify themselves then, as a Marxist-Leninist in the political tendency realm if they agree, without deviation, of both Marx and Lenin and their policies? How does one do away with the stain of Stalinist failures while adhering to a proper Marxist ideology?

There is a variety of parties that consider themselves Marxist but not Leninist, others that consider themselves Leninist but not Trotskyist, and others that consider themselves Trotskyist - explicitly supporting Trotsky's theories, which though include criticism of Stalin, involve far more than that.

The label "Marxism-Leninism", in any case, usually is only adopted by Stalinists, and not Leninists in general. But some who also uphold Lenin question and criticize the label of "Leninism".

In any case, the Stalinist political regime did not only extend its dominion over Russia, so this criticism must include the Eastern European regimes, Cuba, China, North Korea and the rest.

[Soviet Aggression]

I've heard that about Austin. Isn't that a ways away from El Paso, though?

I'm pretty sure the IWW's got a branch in Houston, if that's not too much of a trek. And the PSL's got a branch in ABQ if you don't mind having to cross state lines. I hear their particular branch is very different from the rest of the national organization too.

Yeah, but I don't mind the travel if its TRULY for a good cause. I just now heard about the PSL. Thanks for the heads up, man. ABQ is only four hour from my location.

[Soviet Aggression]

According to Marx, the transition is firstly establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would exist in the context of class society, and then developing communism, which can be divided in two stages, lower and upper. Only the dictatorship of the proletariat can exist in one country alone - but it can also exist in one city.

According to Lenin, it is essentially the same, except the lower stage is named "socialism" and the upper "communism".

However, Stalin's distortion involves a diverging definition of "socialism", which involves the notion that it can exist in one country, is compatible with the political state, money, a capitalist totality, etc. And it exists while the dictatorship of the proletariat exists. According to this new definition, any political regime that to some extent prioritizes social needs within a capitalist totality can be classed as "socialist". The capital-labor contradiction remains, so does alienated property, so does the totality of the market dictating the operation of society, but capitalists as individuals are eliminated, so "capitalism does not exist". (But Marx already talked about capitalists as only being representatives of capital, usually characterizing but not actually necessary for capitalism; Engels provided further useful information in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", etc. This last one is highly relevant, especially its third chapter, because it exactly talks about why state ownership within a capitalist totality does not constitute a break from capitalism.)



It would be more accurate to say that communism has never existed, including its lower stage. It is impossible for one country to achieve this transition.



There is a variety of parties that consider themselves Marxist but not Leninist, others that consider themselves Leninist but not Trotskyist, and others that consider themselves Trotskyist - explicitly supporting Trotsky's theories, which though include criticism of Stalin, involve far more than that.

The label "Marxism-Leninism", in any case, usually is only adopted by Stalinists, and not Leninists in general. But some who also uphold Lenin question and criticize the label of "Leninism".

In any case, the Stalinist political regime did not only extend its dominion over Russia, so this criticism must include the Eastern European regimes, Cuba, China, North Korea and the rest.

Hmm.

In your critique of democratic centralism i.e socialism in one country, in comparison to a democratic multiparty framework, would that not be a proper foundation for a socialist society? I think it would be.

You cannot simply propose a series of countries to go through the transition while attempting to be organized and expect, internally, for these countries to promote the proletarian dictatorship while simultaneously purging the excessive influence of the capitalist mechanics therein. It is devoid of logic. Once a country has gone through the SUCCESSFUL transition, it can then spread from there. A home front needs to be established. This is speaking from a realistic standpoint when talking about theory implementation. Of course, this is up for debate theoretically speaking, but in all honesty and with being realistic, we won't know how things will go until the flag is raised. The historical memoirs from which we study will be our blueprint, and, sadly, even that is up for debate over which one is correct and which one is incorrect, which brings me to my next point.

In regards to Comrade Jacob and his left-com comment, and your retort mentioning Stalin, it beckons a question. I wonder... if Trotsky or Kropotkin had spearheaded the first socialist implementation, would they have also been called mass-murderers by the bourgeois? There seems to be a lack of consistency when we talk about the meat grinding horrors of Uncle Stalin from both the left and the right. Yes, he distorted and deviated, but the sad thing is, most of the shit emitting from members of the don't-hurt-anybody league is similar to a half-assed anti-communist intelligentsia. People will critique, critique, critique, and crack open the Communist Manifesto to page _, yet offer no real world advice or theory implementation in the contemporary world. It does more harm than good, in my opinion. This isn't a direct attack mind you, this is my generalized view over how tendency wars have been sparked in the past, which in its formation is just counter productive.

The system had its pro's and con's. Marxist-Leninists like myself study Stalin to understand the nature of his accomplishments, and also the nature of his failures. I think every -ism in the far left has a figure that has put forth failed theoretical implementations in one form or another. Ask ten people, get ten opinions. That is the left, it seems. We must be careful not to be one gigantic infantile disorder with aims to show who is more leftier-than-thou. We all desire the same end result.



In any case, the Stalinist political regime did not only extend its dominion over Russia, so this criticism must include the Eastern European regimes, Cuba, China, North Korea and the rest.


I have seen the above put forth for numerous reasons in different discussions. One major reason is that the frameworks of the above are presented to show that Marxist-Leninist societies or economics simply don't work. Oddly enough, Mao from China modified his doctrine, as did Kim Il Sung of North Korea, so on and so forth. Presenting inherently faulty modified doctrines to the people should not be blamed on Marxism-Leninism as a whole, but should be separate studies entirely. I think we need a logical approach on what to implement, and what to simply address in a new forming socialist society, no matter the tendency.

In any case, I'll stand by my tendency. I have a lot to learn, and I feel I have not fully reached a proper enlightened stage with taking all other political tier beliefs in the left into account. Again, thanks for the welcome and the information that was both revealing and known.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

That's an interesting political journey you had already. I'm sure you will mature more as time goes by, Sovietphilia is so out of date ;)

[RedWorker]

In your critique of democratic centralism i.e socialism in one country, in comparison to a democratic multiparty framework, would that not be a proper foundation for a socialist society? I think it would be.

Democratic centralism, at least originally according to Lenin, merely means that issues are democratically discussed within the party, but publicly every member of the party must uphold the view. While this is up for debate, it does not necessarily by itself mean that anyone's freedom is being violated.


Everyone is free to write and say whatever he likes, without any restrictions. But every voluntary association (including the party) is also free to expel members who use the name of the party to advocate anti-party views. Freedom of speech and the press must be complete. But then freedom of association must be complete too. I am bound to accord you, in the name of free speech, the full right to shout, lie and write to your heart’s content. But you are bound to grant me, in the name of freedom of association, the right to enter into, or withdraw from, association with people advocating this or that view. The party is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating anti-party views.

Society in general is not a voluntary association, so using "democratic centralism" as an excuse to repress differing opinion would simply violate Lenin's original thinking.

Democratic centralism has nothing to do with socialism in one country.


You cannot simply propose a series of countries to go through the transition while attempting to be organized and expect, internally, for these countries to promote the proletarian dictatorship while simultaneously purging the excessive influence of the capitalist mechanics therein. It is devoid of logic.

Perhaps this is devoid of logic, but then you must admit that what you are really criticizing here is a Marxist stance, arguing that it is devoid of logic.

The countries cannot build "socialism" by themselves, nor is there any reason for them to pretend being able to do so. Yes, realistically you can create the USSR, you can convince everyone that this constitutes socialism - but what good is this when it still realistically isn't socialism? How does pretending it's socialism help at all? It merely changes the public opinion.


Once a country has gone through the SUCCESSFUL transition, it can then spread from there.

But how can one country build communism? Can one city build communism, too? That country would exist in a capitalist totality, be subject to market forces, etc. Realistically this means every single element of capitalism: wage labour, money, etc. would exist. You promote "realism", but what you really are promoting is fantasy.


A home front needs to be established. This is speaking from a realistic standpoint when talking about theory implementation. Of course, this is up for debate theoretically speaking, but in all honesty and with being realistic, we won't know how things will go until the flag is raised.

If we are going to be "realistically speaking", about "how to REALLY get socialism to be built", then what one must realize is that realistically, there are exactly zero chances for communism to grow in popularity as long as the USSR is being actively promoted as a model of what "socialism" looks like, or at least the "transition to it". Now, this IS reality. Reality is that there will absolutely be no chance to build socialism in the future as long as "socialism in one country" is being promoted. Now, to argue like you would - you may theoretically argue this - but the reality is the reality.

Theory isn't merely a fantasy. The point of developing what socialism is in theory, is to actually achieve it in reality. If something like the USSR was desired, no theory is needed to develop it. Simply a movement could achieve it.


I wonder... if Trotsky or Kropotkin had spearheaded the first socialist implementation, would they have also been called mass-murderers by the bourgeois?

Individuals like Trotsky may very well have been mass murderers in practice, whether the bourgeoisie would claim this or not. I have no admiration for a fight of tyrannical leader A vs. B. Instead, the point should be to abolish these tyrannical leaders. If we removed Stalin and placed Trotsky in his place, then the result would have been probably similar, because the "big man theory" of history is false. Stalin was only a representative of real phenomena going on.

But Stalin was no "mass murderer according to the bourgeoisie", he was a mass murderer according to reality, and a mass-murderer of communists and workers. The place where his enemies were concentrated was called the "Bolshevik party".


There seems to be a lack of consistency when we talk about the meat grinding horrors of Uncle Stalin from both the left and the right. Yes, he distorted and deviated, but the sad thing is, most of the shit emitting from members of the don't-hurt-anybody league is similar to a half-assed anti-communist intelligentsia. People will critique, critique, critique, and crack open the Communist Manifesto to page _, yet offer no real world advice or theory implementation in the contemporary world. It does more harm than good, in my opinion.

Real world advice and theory on building socialism is that upholding any of the "Soviet past" will remove any chances to build socialism. I am no member of a "don't hurt anyone" league. I am not a pacifist. But I also am no member of a "kill communists" league, nor member of an authoritarian league.


The system had its pro's and con's. Marxist-Leninists like myself study Stalin to understand the nature of his accomplishments, and also the nature of his failures. I think every -ism in the far left has a figure that has put forth failed theoretical implementations in one form or another.

Yes, but the point is that Stalin as an individual is irrelevant - no one individual can "build socialism". The very thing that was wrong, was that an approach of "one individual to build socialism" was being used, and this is apparent in that this is the same way you engage in here now.

Furthermore, it is not really a matter of "failure". It is a matter of simply thorough abuse and privilege. The bureaucracy may have believed they really cared about building socialism - as if this was possible - but their real aim was power and authority, and everything they did emanated from that.


We all desire the same end result.

If the same end result is desired, then why did Stalin criminalize abortion, homosexuality, make divorce harder, etc.? There is no conceivable way this could be justified in "well, it helped building socialism". The whole left-wing parties, including not only Bolsheviks but also Left SRs and so on, were for the abolition of these sexual morality laws, this was one of the core points of the revolution. There is no possible controversy, "oh, we need to appeal to the conservative feelings of workers" (what are "we", Blue Labour?). (Such conservative feelings did not exist and in any case if they exist we must stand against them. We are not "workerists". And it is not a matter of them existing, it is a matter of what creates them.) His end result was an authoritarian fantasy where he was powerful, and all his actions went towards this.


I have seen the above put forth for numerous reasons in different discussions. One major reason is that the frameworks of the above are presented to show that Marxist-Leninist societies or economics simply don't work.

Exactly. It simply "doesn't work". It works to create USSR-like societies, yes - they don't work to build actual socialism.


Oddly enough, Mao from China modified his doctrine, as did Kim Il Sung of North Korea, so on and so forth.

... which was even further deviation from an already deviated point. The point is "Marxism-Leninism" simply is a degenerative phenomena - first Stalin deviates, then Kruschev deviates some more until we finally go from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to the "state of the whole people" (a repressive dictatorship!), then Mao deviates some more until we go from "workers" to "peasants", then beloved Kim some more until we reach the point of "this is not a matter of Marxism, it served its purpose, we need to worship the Juche ideology". And so on. All this proves is the real nature of "Marxism-Leninism".

[The Idler]

Greetings