As an Anarchist, would you oppose a commie rev?

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

As an anarchist, would you oppose a Marxist-Lenninist revolution?

I would. I believe that Marxist-Lenninism is inherently authoritarian (dictatorship of the proletariat), and thus such a revolution would never allow any room for anarchist discussion, debate, or protest.

[Guest1]

I wouldn't oppose the revolution, but I would be vocal in my opposition to the leading planks. I would try to bring a discussion of worker's democracy to the fore, while still working with the revolution.

It is my belief that though one organization or even one person could have a big influence on a revolution in its primary stages, once it has reached the critical stage of mass struggle, it has more influence on them than they ever had on it. In otherwords, the masses take control and ideas come about, whether the "vanguard party" agrees with them or not. At which point they must choose between accepting and fighting with it, or refusing to modernize, attacking it and becoming obsolete as a result.

We must be a part of the revolution, no matter its beginnings. If revolutionary consciousness is present in the populace, Marxist-Leninism will only be the banner of its incubation, and not its critical stages.

Unless of course we "opt-out". Which is unreasonable, as our greater enemy is still at our throats, and quashing the revolution for them should never be an option.

Marxist-Leninists, though we disagree with them, are still our comrades.

[Valkyrie]

No. as long as it wasn't totalitarian and upheld equality and freedoms and abolished class structures, which it claims it would. I think the natural tendency of society will evolve to an anarchist society anyway. Anarchy is the highest state of social evolution. If it was repressive and regressive, I definetely would.
we shall see..

[Valkyrie]

>>>It is my belief that though one organization or even man could have a big influence on a revolution in its primary stages, once it has reached the critical stage of mass struggle, it has more influence on them than they ever had on it. In otherwords, the masses take control and ideas come about >><<<

I agree with that, Che y. For some reason I have a hard time visualizing a vanguard party just rising up out of the masses that people would unquestioning follow. I have a hard time visualizing the whole vanguard party coming to pass. I mean... Who is that leader/s of the vanguard? I don&#39;t see them any where? They must be out there.... That&#39;s why... I don&#39;t see any one social leader making any prominent stand or anyone out there with those qualities whereby the people will follow enmasse.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Counter&#045;Corporate [email protected] 4 2004, 12:49 AM
As an anarchist, would you oppose a Marxist-Lenninist revolution?

I would. I believe that Marxist-Lenninism is inherently authoritarian (dictatorship of the proletariat), and thus such a revolution would never allow any room for anarchist discussion, debate, or protest.
Iam not anarchist, but almost all anarchists I know is communists as well.
Well, never the less. I would oppose a "marxist-leninist revolution" (eh...? Revolution isnt really the right word. Marxist-leninist can not do a revolution, only the working class organized as a class can), cause a marxist-leninists are in practise anti-communists.

Marxism-leninism have nothing to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the proletarian state - the organized defence of the proletarian revolution and definitly not some dictatorship of some formal "communist party".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Counter&#045;Corporate [email protected] 4 2004, 02:49 AM
As an anarchist, would you oppose a Marxist-Lenninist revolution?
I wouldn&#39;t oppose just for the sake of opposing it, but I would continue to openly discuss anarchist principles among the workers. I would, like many anarchists during revolutionary situations, fight along side any person who wanted to destroy capitalism but I would always argue against the use of authority and the perpetration of the state.

Of course, when the state begins to corrupt, as it invariable does, it will be up to all anarchists to activly oppose it, just as we would oppose a capitalist state.


I would. I believe that Marxist-Lenninism is inherently authoritarian (dictatorship of the proletariat), and thus such a revolution would never allow any room for anarchist discussion, debate, or protest.

The way the current leninist parties talk I agree. 1921 was the last time Lenin allowed anarchists to gather together in a public place and that was for Peter Kropotkins funeral.

Leninists have consistently betrayed anarchists, even after they have supported their revolution. I don&#39;t see what would be different if it happened again. We can do two things. Pray that it doesnt and work as best we can within the frame of a leninist revolution or we make sure that a leninist revolution never happens.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2004, 06:17 AM
Leninists have consistently betrayed anarchists, even after they have supported their revolution. I don&#39;t see what would be different if it happened again.
What do you expect when you side with the White Army?



Hello, by the way.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:57 AM
What do you expect when you side with the White Army?



Hello, by the way.
Hello&#33;

Can I see your proof please?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:57 AM
What do you expect when you side with the White Army?
Anarchists actively fought against the Whites. Apparently there is no lie about anarchists too rediculous for Marxists to invent it.

I would support the overthrow of the old regime, but oppose any attempt by the vanguard party to seize power and attempt to overthrow it if it did. I&#39;d try to transform the revolution into an anarchist one.

[Faceless]

Anarchists actively fought against the Whites. Apparently there is no lie about anarchists too rediculous for Marxists to invent it.
It&#39;s nice to know there&#39;s trust then :)
btw, am I included in that generalisation as a Marxist who would support the demands of the kronstat sailors?

The people on this board have some pretty bad problems with their prejudices. Under the banner of "leninist" come Left Trotskyists, Stalinists, Juche-ists and, quite possibly, anyone who agrees with any of the theoretical contributions of Lenin (of which there were several)

If ever there was a leninist revolution you would have to take it on its merits. Anyone who says otherwise lacks any objectivity; including so-called leninists.

[Guest1]

I&#39;m an Anarcho-Communist, but consider myself a Marxist nonetheless.

I don&#39;t know much about Krondstadt, could someone explain?

[eyedrop]

The people on this board have some pretty bad problems with their prejudices. Under the banner of "leninist" come Left Trotskyists, Stalinists, Juche-ists and, quite possibly, anyone who agrees with any of the theoretical contributions of Lenin (of which there were several)


Are there any major differences between those factions. (there are some as mao&#39;s farmer communism)

Too me it seems like they act largely the same and it isn&#39;t a large prejudice to judge them the same.


If ever there was a leninist revolution you would have to take it on its merits. Anyone who says otherwise lacks any objectivity; including so-called leninists.

Can we define a leninist revulution as a rev that gives to give authority too the state? (ruled by the party)

That was at&#39;least what I saw as the question at the start. If there was a libertarian-communist revolution I don&#39;t think it would be too much of a difference anyway.

[Faceless]

Are there any major differences between those factions. (there are some as mao&#39;s farmer communism)
There are serious differences. Juche goes as far as to promote idealism in many cases, Stalinism entails a large beurocratic socialism. Trotskyism has involved a united front position and regards itself as Marxism in the period of capitalist imperialism. Even within these groups there are great differences.


Too me it seems like they act largely the same and it isn&#39;t a large prejudice to judge them the same.
So Castro&#39;s regime I take it is roughly equatable with that of Pol Pot?

[eyedrop]

There are serious differences. Juche goes as far as to promote idealism in many cases, Stalinism entails a large beurocratic socialism. Trotskyism has involved a united front position and regards itself as Marxism in the period of capitalist imperialism. Even within these groups there are great differences.

Yeah but they would all want to centralice the power. Didn&#39;t quite understand what you meant about the Jucheist.

Besides wouldn&#39;t you call a cappie a cappie if he is bush-fan or kerry-fan?



So Castro&#39;s regime I take it is roughly equatable with that of Pol Pot?

Shouldn&#39;t I be able to call both USA and India capitalist because one is better to live in than the other?

[Morpheus]

I don&#39;t know much about Krondstadt, could someone explain?

Kronstadt was a naval base in Russia, near petrograd. During the revolution it was a center of radicalism and very militant. They played a major role in October and other revolutionary events. In 1921 they rebelled against the Bolsheviks, accusing them of betraying the revolution and calling for Soviet democracy. Their demands were:


1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.

2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.

3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.

4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, solders and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.

5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.

6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.

7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.

8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.

9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.

10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.

11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.

12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.

13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.

14. We demand the institution of mobile workers&#39; control groups.

15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour

The bolsheviks sent troops and suppressed the rebellion. See http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH7.html for more.

[Faceless]

Shouldn&#39;t I be able to call both USA and India capitalist because one is better to live in than the other?
Yes, and I never said you shouldn&#39;t call many 20th century movements leninist but when asked to decide upon a sweeping judgement of leninism or capitalism, that&#39;s different. Personally, whilst I am no fan of Weimar conservatism, I would have to say I prefer it to Nazism. Likewise I would have supported Castro but not the KRs despite the fact that my ideology would be difficult to allign with either of them.


Didn&#39;t quite understand what you meant about the Jucheist.
Many Jucheists reject materialism in the large part in favour of idealism. Idealism is the opposite of what we might call Marxism yet Jucheists still claim to be Marxists (dont get it? neither do I&#33;)

My problem with what you are doing is that you are asking people to form massive judgements over segments of the Left.

The point my original post made was in response to Morpheus&#39; rather meaningless attack on "Marxists". I couldn&#39;t help but feel that he was suggesting I too am decietful.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Counter&#045;Corporate [email protected] 4 2004, 12:49 AM
As an anarchist, would you oppose a Marxist-Lenninist revolution?

I would. I believe that Marxist-Lenninism is inherently authoritarian (dictatorship of the proletariat), and thus such a revolution would never allow any room for anarchist discussion, debate, or protest.
yes. you should oppose every ideologies with dictatorial (or the i know better than you color) smell.
smash them all
time of action.time to choose
beat faschisme out before it bites you