I've got a problem

[Dirty Commie]

I don't know where it is I stand on the subject of anarchism and Leninism.

One one hand, an anarchist society allows people to live the life they want to lead without interference, however, when I look at historical precedence and people today, I don't think that a society could function without a strong leader. People are blockheads, in the u$a there would be lynchings and riots and general chaos without a strong leadership, I know the rest of the world isn't like amerika so the situation there would be different (better). I think that no one should have the ability to tell another person what to do (with exceptions to protecting other people from being harmed, theft, etc, etc) but when I look at people here I realize that they are sheep, and it would take years of mayhem to get them to be able to be their own leaders.

On the other hand, A strong leadership would force people to give up a certain amount of freedom in order to guarentee stability, but you only live once and should be able to do as you please without being to what to do, after all, it's your life, no one can own you.

To make a productive society I think that a strong leader is neccesary. But It goes against every moral fiber in my body to say that people shoud be told what to do with their lives (again with exceptions for protecting others)

I don't want a lecture on the virtues of anarchy or leninism, I've heard it all before, I want to know who else has this dilemma and how they came to their conclusions

[Dawood]

Libertarian communism is quite inbetween, and has none of the faults of anarchism or leninism.

But then on the other ahnd an anarchist society wouldn't be an anarchy anyway, there would still be laws and institutions that were run collectivly, it would just be ruled by the people, instead of some coroporate bosses or corrupt rich bastard politicans.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:04 PM
Libertarian communism is quite inbetween, and has none of the faults of anarchism or leninism.

But then on the other ahnd an anarchist society wouldn't be an anarchy anyway, there would still be laws and institutions that were run collectivly, it would just be ruled by the people, instead of some coroporate bosses or corrupt rich bastard politicans.
yes but there is still the problem of geting pepole to follow the rules.

[Misodoctakleidist]

What about Marxism?

[Saint-Just]

To make a productive society I think that a strong leader is neccesary. But It goes against every moral fiber in my body to say that people shoud be told what to do with their lives (again with exceptions for protecting others)

The case for any kind of authority is that it restricts freedoms of certain individuals in certain circumstances to supply the maximum amount of freedom for the majority of people.

Authority becomes corrupt when it abuses the power it has to restrict people's freedom for its own gain.

I think your conclusion that authority can be used to protect people is correct.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:42 AM
What about Marxism?
Yes, the words have been taken right out of my mouth.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by crazy comie+Apr 5 2004, 02:11 PM--> (crazy comie @ Apr 5 2004, 02:11 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 09:04 PM
Libertarian communism is quite inbetween, and has none of the faults of anarchism or leninism.

But then on the other ahnd an anarchist society wouldn't be an anarchy anyway, there would still be laws and institutions that were run collectivly, it would just be ruled by the people, instead of some coroporate bosses or corrupt rich bastard politicans.
yes but there is still the problem of geting pepole to follow the rules. [/b]
I ment imeadietly after the collapse of capitalism .

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by Dirty [email protected] 4 2004, 05:46 PM
I don't know where it is I stand on the subject of anarchism and Leninism.

One one hand, an anarchist society allows people to live the life they want to lead without interference, however, when I look at historical precedence and people today, I don't think that a society could function without a strong leader. People are blockheads, in the u$a there would be lynchings and riots and general chaos without a strong leadership, I know the rest of the world isn't like amerika so the situation there would be different (better). I think that no one should have the ability to tell another person what to do (with exceptions to protecting other people from being harmed, theft, etc, etc) but when I look at people here I realize that they are sheep, and it would take years of mayhem to get them to be able to be their own leaders.

On the other hand, A strong leadership would force people to give up a certain amount of freedom in order to guarentee stability, but you only live once and should be able to do as you please without being to what to do, after all, it's your life, no one can own you.

To make a productive society I think that a strong leader is neccesary. But It goes against every moral fiber in my body to say that people shoud be told what to do with their lives (again with exceptions for protecting others)

I don't want a lecture on the virtues of anarchy or leninism, I've heard it all before, I want to know who else has this dilemma and how they came to their conclusions
lol, sounds to me like your a far right-libertarian

no state apart from defence and civil order. Free policiy on immigration, free trade, free enterprize.....

better change your username

[Dirty Commie]

No, I am a neo-liberal at all :angry:

My point is that at times I think I'm a Leninist and see the virtues of having a strong central leadership, and at other times I feel like an anarchist and think that the art of governemnt is shit.

I never said anything about supporting free trade or private enterpirse.

[Essential Insignificance]

My point is that at times I think I'm a Leninist and see the virtues of having a strong central leadership, and at other times I feel like an anarchist and think that the art of governemnt is shit

Its all an element of being young, to "switch" back and forth from contradictory ideologies…sooner of later you well confirm your revolutionary stance…I hope its one of anarchical tendencies…in the least.

What ever it may be at the moment it is natural, I believe…and all have done the same.

[crazy comie]

The difrence betwean leninism and anarchism is one has a stage befor communism the other doesn't there isn't really away to swap betwean them.

[Essential Insignificance]

The difrence betwean leninism and anarchism is one has a stage befor communism the other doesn't there isn't really away to swap betwean them.

Simple, yet effective, could not have put it better.

[Dirty Commie]

I know that I'm one of the only leftists who goes back and forth between the two ends. I usually lean towards being a Leninist, but I've been reading a lot of anarchist literature and have been finding it more appealing.

And I know that there is a huge difference between them. I've had to sit through Stalinist totalitarian rants against anarchists, and anarchists arguing for a society where anything goes. I don't associate myself with either extreme side of leftism.

I beleive in law and order (in a very different way than it is applied in the capitalist world) but I also believe strongly in personal freedom. I know that I will always sit in the middle between anarchy and leninism, but I'm not sure what groups I could be more productive in.

It would be hard to explain to a Marxist Leninist party that I was late because I was passing out anarchist pamphlets. Like wise, it would be hard to tell an anarchist group that I missed the leafleting because I was at a Leninist party meeting.

I only want to know what sort of party I would be better as a member of, being an "in between" communist.

[peaccenicked]

I think the trick is not to fetishise labels, in general I dont see much difference between leninists and anarchists. I do see a lot a difference between stalinists and
leninists.
The difference on vanguardism is a sectarian joke.

[Essential Insignificance]

So be it then thence after…if your dexterity and principals of revolutionary practice, in an "in between" of Leninism and anarchism then Marxism is the resonance that you might prefer to as an alternative.

Marxism could be looked upon as an annexation of the two. I guess it up to the individual and there particular understandings of the two.

In my previous post I wrote one of "Anarchist tendencies"… I would like to renounce that and state clearly, that I implied Marxian…my inaccuracy.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by Dirty [email protected] 7 2004, 11:20 PM
I know that I'm one of the only leftists who goes back and forth between the two ends. I usually lean towards being a Leninist, but I've been reading a lot of anarchist literature and have been finding it more appealing.

And I know that there is a huge difference between them. I've had to sit through Stalinist totalitarian rants against anarchists, and anarchists arguing for a society where anything goes. I don't associate myself with either extreme side of leftism.

I beleive in law and order (in a very different way than it is applied in the capitalist world) but I also believe strongly in personal freedom. I know that I will always sit in the middle between anarchy and leninism, but I'm not sure what groups I could be more productive in.

It would be hard to explain to a Marxist Leninist party that I was late because I was passing out anarchist pamphlets. Like wise, it would be hard to tell an anarchist group that I missed the leafleting because I was at a Leninist party meeting.

I only want to know what sort of party I would be better as a member of, being an "in between" communist.
do you mean you are chosing one or the other ?

[Dirty Commie]

I'm never going to be truly able to choose to one "side" or the the other, but I don't know which sort of organizations are more productive, anarchist or leninist.

[redstar2000]

...when I look at historical precedence and people today, I don't think that a society could function without a strong leader. People are blockheads; in the U$A there would be lynchings and riots and general chaos without a strong leadership...when I look at people here I realize that they are sheep, and it would take years of mayhem to get them to be able to be their own leaders.

That is a pretty good summary of how Leninists really do see the working class...though it's rarely stated so bluntly. (Lenin himself preferred the word "fool".)

Is it true? Are ordinary working people (or most of them) "blockheads" and/or "sheep" and/or "fools"?

It certainly can seem like that...especially in reactionary periods like this one. Bourgeois ideology is "in the air we breathe" and a special effort is required to avoid repeating it on any subject that one has not actually thought about. Even on this board, people will sometimes mindlessly repeat some bourgeois cliché as though it were "really true".

But when you refer to history, I think you will find the picture somewhat different. There have been (brief) periods when the working class did not act like "blockheads", "sheep" or "fools". They demonstrated the capacity for rational thinking and choices that were in their class interests. (They also did some lynching...but those that were lynched could hardly complain of injustice!)

When the next period of revolutionary upsurge begins, I think you will find that all these "blockheads", "sheep", and "fools" will surprise you...pleasantly. They will turn out to be far more wise than you (much less the Leninists) expected them to be.

Things change.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Dirty Commie]

I'm not refering to the working class in gerneral, I'm refering to the thousands of gun nut-redneck-soccer mom "i'm better than you because I own a bigger suv" people which make up a larege portion of the united states.

I know that all logical people, leftist or right winger wouldn't go insane during a power void, however, enough people in the usa are willing to shoot at someone for even looking like they differ from the status quo to disrupt and social revolution that left a temporary power void.

[GUTB]

One must always remember that the progressive isn't the only one that suffers, it's just that we've figured out why we suffer and what we have to do to fix it.

The role of the Marxist/socialist/progressive is to crystalize the issue for everyone else and show them the way into a better future.

[Essential Insignificance]

The role of the Marxist/socialist/progressive is to crystalize the issue for everyone else and show them the way into a better future

Do you mean to entail "show" as you stated or "lead"….as you didn’t. The two appear to be one in the same amid Leninist.

[GUTB]

Once the masses have been shown the root of the issue -- once they've been radicalized -- then the masses will move. The Marxist, at this point, simply goes along with it. The Marxists vangaurds -- the advanced revolutionaries, intellectuals of the movement, etc, will be naturally looked to for intellectual and morale support by the masses. So what the advanced elements of the revolution say and do carry wieght as long they they synergize with the energy and mood of the masses.

The leadership exists to represent the authority of the revolution -- not the revolutionary council, but of the mass-movement itself. It is the moral authority that immediately strikes down arguments against socialism and defends the legitimacy of the revolution against public attacks by the counter-revolutionary forces.

At the point at which the revolutionary leaderhip feels the need point guns at the worker, the revolution has already failed.

[Essential Insignificance]

Once the masses have been shown the root of the issue -- once they've been radicalized -- then the masses will move

The masses will "radicalize" by themselves, for themselves…I have strong contention that they will realise their oppression…thats not to say that education will not speed up the course

The masses will move on their own concurrence…not ours.



The Marxists vangaurds

The Leninist vanguards, don’t you mean to imply.


will be naturally looked to for intellectual and morale support by the masses

Why.



The leadership exists to represent the authority of the revolution

The authority exists independent of the masses. It does not "represent" the proletarian.


It is the moral authority that immediately strikes down arguments against socialism and defends the legitimacy of the revolution against public attacks by the counter-revolutionary forces

I think the "conscious" proletarian can hold that…especially, after all they have been through.

[Raisa]

Anarchy versus Leninism eh?

You should drop that mind frame entirely first. Dont ever try to conform to one persons ideas. Some times Lenin had his good points but some times he did not. And we are in a different time and different places Lenin.
We have to assess today for today.
All those men had their times for their good points. But no one is completely right all the time.
Try to think about things intricately as individual issues and then see what idea agrees with your conclusions the most and consider your ideas as well.

[Dirty Commie]

I never said anything about believing entirely in one or the other, the point in the thread was that I was not sure of which group I should associate myself. I hate the extreme end of both sides, total lack of law will be chaos, people won't be ready for it for years to come. And Leninism in it's extremes are totalitarian.

[ComradeRed]

Ultimately it comes down to can people govern themselves?
NO? Leninism
YES? Anarchism

[Dirty Commie]

In the usa right now, people can't govern themselves, but in the rest of the world I think they could (to a certain extent). Maybe in twenty or thirty years, if the situation changes drasticaly here, than maybe amerikans could be self governing.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 04:28 AM
Ultimately it comes down to can people govern themselves?
NO? Leninism
YES? Anarchism
No i dissagre in leninism you get comunism after a period of representative goverment.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Dirty [email protected] 7 2004, 05:20 PM


It would be hard to explain to a Marxist Leninist party that I was late because I was passing out anarchist pamphlets. Like wise, it would be hard to tell an anarchist group that I missed the leafleting because I was at a Leninist party meeting.

I only want to know what sort of party I would be better as a member of, being an "in between" communist.
I am someone who often comes across as a "tweener" myself. I work with Leninists when there is a common struggle and have a lot of fun making them feel uncomfortable by disrupting their ideological homogeny. Although, some Anarchists seem to look at me as a "Traitor" or as someone who is insane. :D I like to tell my Leninists friends that I work with them so I can at least know the people who will purge me after the revolution :P

[crazy comie]

who said we'd purge you.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by crazy comie+Apr 19 2004, 12:08 PM--> (crazy comie @ Apr 19 2004, 12:08 PM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 04:28 AM
Ultimately it comes down to can people govern themselves?
NO? Leninism
YES? Anarchism
No i dissagre in leninism you get comunism after a period of representative goverment. [/b]
Who decides that the time has come to turn into communism? The state itself? Would a state turn over all of its power? Or would they hang on to it as long as possible?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 21 2004, 08:44 AM
who said we'd purge you.
Main Entry: 1joke
Pronunciation: 'jOk
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin jocus; perhaps akin to Old High German gehan to say, Sanskrit yAcati he asks
1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting

2 : something not to be taken seriously

[crazy comie]

I know it just wasn't a good one.

The pepole would decide when to abolish the state.

[Saint-Just]

Dirty Commie, in the 1950s a man (Berlin was his second name) made a speech on freedom. He set the tone for debate about a few ideas that had been talked about for some time.

He identified two types of freedom, negative freedom and positive freedom. Negative freedom is the absence of external constraints. Positive freedom means helping people realise their potential, although that means the imposition of external constraints.

Anyway, Bourgeois liberals call too much positive freedom 'totalitarianism' (Liberals believe in a mix that has greater negative freedom). In fact society is dictated by the ideological nature, as Marx said, by its economic base. Totalitarianism is a completely useless term and only used in a pejorative manner to slam regimes which do not subscribe to liberal ideology.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 22 2004, 05:38 PM

Anyway, Bourgeois liberals call too much positive freedom 'totalitarianism' (Liberals believe in a mix that has greater negative freedom). In fact society is dictated by the ideological nature, as Marx said, by its economic base. Totalitarianism is a completely useless term and only used in a pejorative manner to slam regimes which do not subscribe to liberal ideology.

Totolitarianism isn't usless it describes therw being to much power. Even in a state under one ideology evryone doesn't hanve to agree with the ideology.

[Essential Insignificance]

Even in a state under one ideology evryone doesn't hanve to agree with the ideology.

Of course…but that depends where you are in the world, and what your given belief is.

And if you want to live.

[crazy comie]

The pepole dissagreing with the ideology would be able to keep there lives and so fourth under socialism.

[DEPAVER]

To begin, let's make a distinction between a leader and a ruler. All societies have leaders, and there will always be leaders. This is true at various levels throughout the animal kingdom, and it's no different with homo sap. Gandhi is a leader. Martin Luther King was a leader. So is the Dali Lama.

I have no problem with leaders, provided they are accepted as such by the people they are leading and are not coercive.

There are numerous examples of cooperative societies that have functioned and functioned well without rulers. I think it's important to keep in mind that capitalism, Marxism and Communism are brash upstarts when you consider the totality of space time and humanity, so don't always use western society or even the Egyptians, Greeks or Romans as you beginning point in thinking about how societies function.

Go backward a bit, and you'll find examples of indigenous cultures where cooperation and sharing were the rewarded social attributes, not selfishness, greed and avarice. In fact, there is a particular indigenous tribe in South America where this is still the case. Everyone tries to "out do" one another by giving more than the other person! In other words, the exact opposite of what we see in western culture. There are other examples on the North American continent, too, including the Ohlone of Northern California.

The point is man has successfully organized himself in cooperative communities without rulers, and I believe it is possible for us to relearn those ancient ways and reject the current meme, which states people must have rulers. Bullshit. There is absolutely nothing in about "human nature" or coded in our genes that drives human behavior that direction. Nothing whatsoever.

[Essential Insignificance]

The pepole dissagreing with the ideology would be able to keep there lives and so fourth under socialism.

Sure…but you don’t capitalism I take it, and you properly want to change society and "introduce" a communist society.

Hence, others "under" socialism might want to change communism in to some kind of theocracy…who knows.

I don’t mind what peoples specified "conviction" is, but what I care about is what they do with that credence.

And thats what worries me.

[crazy comie]

I think you are right there.