Anarchism and Leninism

[The Feral Underclass]

Internet message boards very often allow theoretical splits escalate into full blown sectarian wars. We are going to fight in a revolution at some point in human history and both political ideologies are going to attempt to assert themselves as the dominant political idea among the working class.

Historically anarchists and leninists have always ended up bitter enemies. Most often than not it was the admitted, and often revered betrayel of the leninists against the anarchists in their attempt to assert this dictatorship of the proletariat. This has led to many comrades being killed. But does this have to happen?

My question is, can we ever come together? Can we ever find a compromise? and if so, when and how do you think this can be achieved?

[Latin American Socialist]

Its called CommonWealthism. Leninists, anarchists, marxists, and soviets all come together in CommonWealthism.

[CommieBastard]

The only possible reconciliation i can see is geographical seperation, where one group is allowed to pursue its project in one area, and the other in another. The problem with this is eventually Leninist systems would become frustrated by their inability to create a fair and equal stateless classless society, and it would be seized by figures whose only concerns are their own selfish needs. This would probably eventually lead to any anarchist area being invaded and subjugated, no matter what level of success they would have had (if the Leninists did indeed outnumber the anarchists). We might have little hope of leninists converting to the anarchists in seeing any successes they may have had, as the chances are that suppression of the press would result in any Anarchist area as always being portrayed in a bad light.

As for commonwealthism, alliances between the two groups have occured before, in the face of an overpowering foe. One need only look at the Spanish Civil War. The inevitable result when there is any level of success is that the Leninists become scared by the possibility of Anarchists getting their way in any shape or form, and betray them wholeheartedly.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

It most likely will be the Leninists and I dont mean this to support them that will dominate, a. because anarchist are generally in the minority say in a revolution, you will have more Marxists, socialists etc. b. The argument in the midst of a revolution to defend the gains made and to fight the dishevelled old ruling classes will likely appeal to less informed revolutionaries who have no real hisory with ideas, the workers I guess.

[redstar2000]

In the "next wave" of proletarian revolutions, I frankly don't expect the Leninists to be a significant factor.

They've never done particularly well in advanced capitalist countries...except in those countries where they became more or less indistinguishable from social democrats (France, Italy, etc.).

I don't see any reason for this to change; the idea of a "vanguard leadership" simply has no appeal to the modern working class...and the Leninists can't really give that up without giving up Leninism altogether.

Had the Bolsheviks campaigned honestly ("All Power to Our Party") instead of dishonestly ("All Power to the Soviets") in 1917, I think it's doubtful that they could have won even there.

Now? I don't think people can be fooled again.

:redstar2000:

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

[elijahcraig]

Now? I don't think people can be fooled again.

Then you don't know people very well.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Its called CommonWealthism. Leninists, anarchists, marxists, and soviets all come together in CommonWealthism.


Where did you come up with this? "Commonwealthism" is not even a word.

[synthesis]

They could just call it pan-leftism. Or, to put a truly Marxist spin on it, "anti-sectarian revolutionary progressives."

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 3 2004, 11:37 AM
Its called CommonWealthism. Leninists, anarchists, marxists, and soviets all come together in CommonWealthism.
It seems odd to make to simply invent a new label to lump all those different groups together. It sounds like all you are talking about is being multi-tendency and that doesn't really qualify as a different ideology, it's not even a new idea. The Socialist Party USA is a Democratic Socialist, multi-tendency party. Our memberships ranged from Left-Wing Communists and Anarchists, to Leninists and traditional Marxists, to Social Democrats (unfortunately). Here are a couple of links. We unite around a common set of principles, though we do have different underlying philosophies.

Socialist Party USA: http://www.sp-usa.org (our website sucks, we're working on it).
SP-USA Debs Tendency: http://www.debstendency.org (A Revolutionary Socialist tendency in the SP-USA).
SP-USA Direct Action Tendency: Direct Action Tendency (http://www.actiontendency.net)

Our national secretary is actually an Anarchist and so is the Chairman of the Socialist Party of NYC (which is myself).

[Kaan]

The geographic separation seems about about right, other than that it doesn't look like it. Leninists and Anarchists will of course be fighting for a lot of the same causes, but during a revolution it seems as though its gonna be one or the other, that is unless one of the groups decides to completely forsake their ideology or one of them simply dies out.

[Hate Is Art]

I would work with any Liberal Communist's for whatever means, after the revolution we can work out the fine details and take it as it comes. I would work with an anarchist as readily as I would a fellow Trot.

[Kaan]

how exactly do you work out fine details? Anarchists don't want some "revolutionary dictatatorship" and Leninists do. unless on of the ideologies isn't a factor in a certain geographic location, i dont see how this would be solved without some sort of violent betrayal.

[STI]

I think that, when it comes to some specific issues, all leftists can unite (ie: against the war in Iraq, a given strike, etc). As part of the "big picture", though, the differences are just too large to be bridged.

[CommieBastard]

all leftists can unite... against the war in Iraq

so one might think, but there are those on the left who advocate, or approve of, the war in Iraq. There is no one issue on which all leftists agree

[redstar2000]

So one might think, but there are those on the left who advocate, or approve of, the war in Iraq.

They are fake leftists.

:redstar2000:

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

[CommieBastard]

i suppose you think you are the ultimate authority on what makes a leftist? there is such a thing as opinion, and those people might equally accuse you of being a fake leftist

As far as i can tell the only way to define a 'leftist' is taking certain axioms, such as freedom and equality, as being true. The complex beleifs about how you should then behave that you derive from this do not out of necessity have to be any one thing.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As a leninist myself, I find the solution to be blatantly obvious - and I'm surprised none of my anarchist comrades thought of it:

Before and during the revolution, all progressive anti-capitalist forces should stand together. Ever heard the phrase "divide et impera"? That's exactly what the capitalists try to use every time, and we would be complete idiots if we fell for it.

After the revolution, we can just hold a referendum in each geographical area, asking the people what particular version of leftism they wish to implement.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

[STI]

i suppose you think you are the ultimate authority on what makes a leftist? there is such a thing as opinion, and those people might equally accuse you of being a fake leftist

Real leftists don't support imperialism. Ever.


As far as i can tell the only way to define a 'leftist' is taking certain axioms, such as freedom and equality, as being true. The complex beleifs about how you should then behave that you derive from this do not out of necessity have to be any one thing.

Here's a good one: The opposition of all forms of class society and its tools of control.

[DaCuBaN]

After the revolution, we can just hold a referendum in each geographical area, asking the people what particular version of leftism they wish to implement

Great idea... the problem being that half of the forces in, for example the UK, were authoritarian assholes, and refused to hold such a referendum

To be honest, there's no way to 'unite' people in this manner, we must simply play the 'opposition' at the same game - Divide and Conquer.

[cubist]

i always though communism would evolve to anarchism once the economics were successfully and harmoniously working and the people are happy only then would they be able to live with out rule,

to expect people to live in harmony with out rule when th ecapitalist economy has just been destroyed will not happen there will be too much resentment from the bourgoisie they would have to have laws at first, so techynically its not a case of referendum at all you can't go from capitalism to lawlessness and expect social harmony economicly or socially

[h&s]

Before and during the revolution, all progressive anti-capitalist forces should stand together. Ever heard the phrase "divide et impera"? That's exactly what the capitalists try to use every time, and we would be complete idiots if we fell for it.

After the revolution, we can just hold a referendum in each geographical area, asking the people what particular version of leftism they wish to implement.

It sounds stupidly simple, yet I believe that it is the only way.
As long as we get to anarchy, I don't care wether its a Marxist, Leninist, Troskyist, or an Anarchist that gets us there.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 8 2004, 10:08 PM
As a leninist myself, I find the solution to be blatantly obvious - and I'm surprised none of my anarchist comrades thought of it:

Before and during the revolution, all progressive anti-capitalist forces should stand together. Ever heard the phrase "divide et impera"? That's exactly what the capitalists try to use every time, and we would be complete idiots if we fell for it.

After the revolution, we can just hold a referendum in each geographical area, asking the people what particular version of leftism they wish to implement.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Now that sounds good. There's a problem that DaCuBaN mentioned already: the Leninists leaders can just try to control everything. Their ideas tend to threat the masses as a bunch of "stupid sheeps" that must be "indoctrinated" by a "vanguard" and all that. They would probably consider the ones living in "anarchist regions" as "counter-revolutionaries" and use the military to take over those areas.

[STI]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 9 2004, 04:41 PM
Now that sounds good. There's a problem that DaCuBaN mentioned already: the Leninists leaders can just try to control everything. Their ideas tend to threat the masses as a bunch of "stupid sheeps" that must be "indoctrinated" by a "vanguard" and all that. They would probably consider the ones living in "anarchist regions" as "counter-revolutionaries" and use the military to take over those areas.
They wouldn't even let us get as far as the referrendum. Leninists don't think the workers can create a revolution by themselves, that they need the "kind guidance" of the vanguard party.

[tepatoken]

we are not enemies, only that we have a different conception about the revolutionary cause, the anarchist and the leninist think that the most important objetive is to delete the social classes, and in this aspect te marxist think that for that objetive they must accede to the state, that the proletarian political parties accede and control the state under the famous "proletarian dictatorship" ( from the ideas of august blanqui), and then, when the proletarian accede to the state, delete the social classes. In the other way, the anarchist think that we must pass directly from an statalist organization to a organization with no autority , no state, no laws, no goverments. In sumary the marxist want a proletarian state and anarchist want no state, and because of that they have problems, but never are ennemies, because both of them want the best for the proletarian , a societymore fair , and a society for the proletarians, whe are friends and comrades, and we never would have problems between us

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 09:42 PM
Had the Bolsheviks campaigned honestly ("All Power to Our Party") instead of dishonestly ("All Power to the Soviets") in 1917, I think it's doubtful that they could have won even there.
Usually, a third of all candidates elected by Selosoviets or city Soviets were not Communist Party members. That doesn't concentrate all power in the hands of one party. In addition, people did not presume that the Bolshevik Party would not produce a central government, all they had to do was listen to what Lenin said to see that. So, I do not think people were deceived by one slogan which had the intention of saying that those who were from the capitalist class would not be able to vote or stand for election since Soviets were worker's organisations.

[Subversive Pessimist]

This is my idea:

Let's say you have a revolution in Haiti. The number of revolutionaries are 500. 250 or Leninists, and 250 are Anarchists. Both get's a 50 percent share of the land after the revolution is done.

That is at least better then:

Let's say you have a revolution in Haiti. There are 250 Leninists and 250 Anarchists. Both of them go against the government, but when they meet each other, they exterminate each other.

Trotsky actually thought of giving the anarchist a piece of land, in order to see if it could work.

We must understand one thing:

If conditions allow an anarchist society to work, it is far better then having a Leninist regime.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2004, 05:14 PM
Internet message boards very often allow theoretical splits escalate into full blown sectarian wars. We are going to fight in a revolution at some point in human history and both political ideologies are going to attempt to assert themselves as the dominant political idea among the working class.

Historically anarchists and leninists have always ended up bitter enemies. Most often than not it was the admitted, and often revered betrayel of the leninists against the anarchists in their attempt to assert this dictatorship of the proletariat. This has led to many comrades being killed. But does this have to happen?

My question is, can we ever come together? Can we ever find a compromise? and if so, when and how do you think this can be achieved?
I think Anarchism is not a means to achieve a goal but it's a goal which has many characteristics of communism. Marxism (and one of its variety - Leninism as a not quite successful trying practical realization) is the means to achieve communism.
Anarchism has only declarations which are "how it would be ....." . Marxism has strong (scientific) theoretical base.

[CommieBastard]

Real leftists don't support imperialism. Ever.

Again with the use of the term 'real leftists'. I think the vast majority of self-proclaimed leftists who have existed have at some point supported some form of imperialism, the USSR was founded on it, as were the revolutionary politics of most other countries (who often took their line from the USSR). It is a fair point that self-proclaimed does not equate to actual, however if you want to make that kind of distinction then your definition of actual leftists is very narrow and excludes a great many people.
As for the Iraq war, we have an example of two imperialist and disgraceful organisations fighting, the US Government, and the Ba'athist regime of Iraq. It could be said that if you find one more palatable, then you might in some sense support that particular side, without actually supporting it's overall goals or ideologies. It is simply an improvement. After all, capitalism is good in a marxist viewpoint, insofar as it has replaced feudalism


Here's a good... [beleif that has to be derivrable from the axioms of freedom and equality]...: The opposition of all forms of class society and its tools of control.

So we might think, and yet the USSR set up a beauracratic ruling class. Class-like divisions can be seen in all communist and socialist countries. What is more, many 'leftists' do advocate some system of this type, or at least assume it to be the only practical way of going about a socialist/communist country.
As for the tools of control, almost all leftists with only very few exceptions are willing to shed the tools of control used by class societies. Propoganda, stigmatisation and unreasoning bullying are sadly prevalent amongst the left.

[CommieBastard]

Anarchism has only declarations which are "how it would be ....." . Marxism has strong (scientific) theoretical base.

We can derive from how a society could be how we can live our own personal lives. Societal change can begin with individuals changing the way they live their lives, and by this giving an example to others. In my view the revolutionary act of an Anarchist is simply to live as if they are in an anarchist system. Ofcourse, there are also other options open, of a more directly 'revolutionary' type.

As for Marxism being scientific... I do not see anywhere the acceptance that the methods proposed may be flawed, or that they should be tested rigorously, and future methods changed according to previous levels of success. This I would see as scientific. The Marxists on this board are a brilliant example of how Marxist beliefs are exactly that, a beleif system, a dogma, with no rigour or testability.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:09 PM

As for Marxism being scientific... I do not see anywhere the acceptance that the methods proposed may be flawed, or that they should be tested rigorously, and future methods changed according to previous levels of success. This I would see as scientific. The Marxists on this board are a brilliant example of how Marxist beliefs are exactly that, a beleif system, a dogma, with no rigour or testability.
What does the science as the science? Methodology of course. The practice is the criteria of the truth. If you intend to realize experiment then you have exactly to observe starting conditions. I.e. if you change one point of starting condition then you must get a different result. You can carry out several experiments with the wrong point in the starting condition and you will get several wrong results. But if to look only on the results so the experimentator would come to the false interpretation. The same happened with the interpretation of the experience of the USSR and another socialist countries by some "marxists" (anarchists, anarcho-communists, socialists) whom I see on this board. They dig not there. The point is in the economic part which was written by Marx for the Engels's "Anti-Duhring".

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Hierachy tends to create inequality in terms of power and wealth. To cut a long story short; leadership and authority does not encourage or promote independant thinking, self-organisation or unself-centric commitment, qualities which are unmissable for a true Communist society. Therefor Leninists will never achieve Communism, but rather hijack and ruin the revolutionary efforts of many generations.

We as anarchists must oppose this and acknowledge that the non-authoritive structure forms an essential for workers emancipation and progress towards Communist society. We must oppose all authority and in case of revolution destroy all authority. No matter it's origin or intent.

Leninism destroyed the efforts and hopes of generations and litterally billions of people. It's despictable that such a beautful thing as Communist society has become synonomous with the horrible events of the Soviet Union, China, Hungary etc. We must say, Never again!

Leninism is nowadays practically dead and fortunatly it doesn't look like it will raise again. When we anarchists take power through our majority, we must not tolerate any crap. No matter the flags color.

[STI]

Again with the use of the term 'real leftists'. I think the vast majority of self-proclaimed leftists who have existed have at some point supported some form of imperialism

"Self-proclaimed" leftists being the operative term. That means nothing, really. The issue isn't one of "what to people who claim to be leftists do?", it's "what do leftists do? What is unnacceptable from a leftist?". I'd say that supporting imperialism will put you on the "shit list".


the USSR was founded on it

The USSR was founded on supporting imperialism? News to me, and I'm not even a Leninist.


as were the revolutionary politics of most other countries (who often took their line from the USSR).

Specific examples?


It is a fair point that self-proclaimed does not equate to actual,

Damn you for addressing points later in your post that I took time to refute in mine :P


however if you want to make that kind of distinction then your definition of actual leftists is very narrow and excludes a great many people

Well boo-friggin'-hoo. Some people with some beliefs deserve and, in fact, must be "excluded". Think about it. You're surely in the practice of "excluding" people from "leftism". If Bush suddenly said he was a "leftist" and made no change in his policies, you'd say "no way that guy's a real leftist". Why? Because people who do and say unleftist things absolutely must not be in the "same group" as us.

I don't want to be in the same boat as some wanker who's all-for bombing Baghdad because "It'd teach dem Arabs reel gooood!". Do you?


As for the Iraq war, we have an example of two imperialist and disgraceful organisations fighting, the US Government, and the Ba'athist regime of Iraq.

The Ba'athist government/military hasn't been around for like a year and a half. I'll assume you're talking about the civilian resistence. They aren't "imperialist" by any stretch of the imagination.


It could be said that if you find one more palatable, then you might in some sense support that particular side, without actually supporting it's overall goals or ideologies.

And leftists would support the civilian resistence over an invading imperialist force. Real leftists, anyway.


. It is simply an improvement. After all, capitalism is good in a marxist viewpoint, insofar as it has replaced feudalism


But Capitalism isn't really capitalism when it's dominated by foreign imperialist powers. It can't produce communism until the foreign rulers are "kicked out" and power is in the hands of the domestic ruling class. Supporting the resistence will "cut out the middleman".


So we might think, and yet the USSR set up a beauracratic ruling class.

Hmmmm. :rolleyes:


Class-like divisions can be seen in all communist and socialist countries

Not "communist countries". That's an oxymoron.


What is more, many 'leftists' do advocate some system of this type, or at least assume it to be the only practical way of going about a socialist/communist country.


And I'd tell them that they're wrong.


As for the tools of control, almost all leftists with only very few exceptions are willing to shed the tools of control used by class societies. Propoganda, stigmatisation and unreasoning bullying are sadly prevalent amongst the left.


Examples?