The Convergence of Marxist and Anarchist Theory [Archive]

redstar2000

3rd September 2004, 14:58

In my opinion, there is a material basis for the convergence of Marxist and Anarchist theory.

The working class in Marx's time (and Lenin's, for that matter) was very backward in many respects. A centralized state-apparatus "made sense" under those conditions...or at least appeared plausible.

In particular, the working classes of those eras often did look for "great leaders" to follow...the idea that ordinary working people could make informed decisions in their own interests was dismissed by most as a "fantasy".

I assert that such is no longer the case and will become even less the case over the course of this century...particularly if revolutionaries pound away at this message.

In other words, telling people that they "must" follow a party or a leader now simply delays the revolution. Telling people that they really can rule themselves, speeds up the revolution.

I also think this convergence will have good effects on both Marxists and anarchists.

The conceit of 20th century "Marxism" (really Leninism) was that it was possible for a small elite to "master dialectics" and "foretell the future" in useful detail...turning Marx's ideas into a kind of secular theology and degrading Marx himself to the level of "prophet". We will be well rid of this crap!

On the other hand, the weakness of most variants of anarchism has been the conceit of a "moral elite"...people who've "embraced goodness" for the sake of "goodness" itself -- with little or no regard for actual material conditions.

I think that's why you often run into such weird ideas in the anarchist "milieu"...including a strong "abstentionist" current -- you know, no meat, no tobacco, no alcohol, no modern technology, no this or no that. A "good" person "abstains from vice". They too have made anarchism into a kind of theology...Protestants to the Leninist Catholics.

There are difficulties, of course. People who have a "vested interest" in ***MARXISM-LENINISM*** or in ***ANARCHISM*** will not look kindly on any effort that threatens their status as "guardians of the sacred flame" or "bearers of the rings of power". You can probably imagine the howls of outrage that will be heard...on both sides.

But there's an old joke about science that may be relevant in this context; it goes "the only way that a revolutionary idea gets adopted in science is that, as times passes, the supporters of the obsolete ideas get old and die."

If the idea of the convergence of Marxism and Anarchism catches on among young revolutionaries...then time will do its useful work and the theologians in both currents will indeed get old and die.

And then, perhaps, things will really start to get interesting. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

VukBZ2005

3rd September 2004, 20:00

Me and Che y Marijuana have decided to write a Anarcho-Marxist Manifesto
and if anyone is interested in helping us - please send a PM!

Guest1

3rd September 2004, 20:24

I think it may be a little premature to call it a "manifesto" as there's this trend of people who think "we've got all the answers" writing these things out there on the net. I think a brief explanation of the idea, a few pages, is what we need for now. Just to get the ideas out there and provide an injection of new material into the collective debate amongst the radical left.

VukBZ2005

3rd September 2004, 20:41

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 3 2004, 08:24 PM
I think it may be a little premature to call it a "manifesto" as there's this trend of people who think "we've got all the answers" writing these things out there on the net. I think a brief explanation of the idea, a few pages, is what we need for now. Just to get the ideas out there and provide an injection of new material into the collective debate amongst the radical left.
I Argee...

Guest1

3rd September 2004, 20:44

Maybe writing up a sticky on it to be placed either in this forum or new to it all?

wet blanket

3rd September 2004, 20:46

The CNT/FAI in the spanish revolution kind of reminded me of a convergence of anarchist and marxist thought.

If the Syndicalists/IWW would start being a little bit more politically active, with a platform resembling the Libertarians while supporting anticapitalist direct action among workers, I think we'd finally have a good synthesis of Marxism and Anarchism.

VukBZ2005

3rd September 2004, 20:47

Allright CyM - we should write up a sticky to go here on this forum.

Djehuti

4th September 2004, 01:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 04:08 AM
What do you think of the convergence of Marxist and Anarchist Theory people?
do you believe that it makes sense? If so, explain why does it make sense. If
it does not make sense - then explain why it does'nt make sense and why you
are against such a idea. The reason why i'm posting this is because i have been
pondering this question for some time now and i want to see what other's
opinion of this idea.
I know marxists who are anarchists and the opposite.
Many groups of anarchocommunists are really basicly marxists with a little different terminology, and a few more differences, but in total there is much more that unites then differs.

STI

4th September 2004, 01:28

Well, if such a thing were to happen (which I think would be great), a few things on both sides would have to be "worked on" by both sides.

Marxists: Don't be so "caught up" in what "Marx said". It's just fine, in fact it's a good thing, to "borrow" ideas and whatnot, as long as they make sense and work.

Anarchists: When I go to infoshop.org, the one thing that concerns me the most is the section on "Post-Leftism". It's just SO elitist. If this is an indicator of mainstream anarchist thought (which it may or may not be. I really don't know), then anarchists really need to accept that they are, in fact, leftists. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's a good thing.

Also, anarchists need to start making the distinction between Marxists and Marxist-Leninists.

If we can all work on those things, and maybe a few things I didn't think of, we might have a good chance of working things out and stirring up some real shit.

Djehuti

4th September 2004, 01:32

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 3 2004, 05:26 AM
The dictatorship of the proletariat need not manifest itself in a state, proletarian, decentralized and federated self-governance is the same.
But the DotP IS the state, it can be decentralized, or centralized but it i still a state according to marxist terminology. The feodal state, the bourgeoisie state and the proletarian state, etc is qualitivly different, they have differens functions, etc but the one thing that unites all states, and thus should be the definition of a state is that it expresses the organized defence of the ruling class. The DotP is the organized defence of the proletarian revolution against the bourgeoise order,
and thus we see it as a state, even though there is alot of differences between the DotP and the bourgeoise state for example, if you know what I mean.

VukBZ2005

4th September 2004, 02:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 01:32 AM
But the DotP IS the state, it can be decentralized, or centralized but it i still a state according to marxist terminology. The feodal state, the bourgeoisie state and the proletarian state, etc is qualitivly different, they have differens functions, etc but the one thing that unites all states, and thus should be the definition of a state is that it expresses the organized defence of the ruling class. The DotP is the organized defence of the proletarian revolution against the bourgeoise order,
and thus we see it as a state, even though there is alot of differences between the DotP and the bourgeoise state for example, if you know what I mean.
I think you are misinterpreting the definition of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" -
it means that the liberated working class will rule over the ex-Bourgeoisie after
they are overthrown - But it also meant (orginally) that the working class would
take control of the state to wipe what was left of the Borgeoisie - then the state
would be dissloved - however now, we should move from the "Dictatorship of
the Proletariat" theory altogether - it's only going to delay the advancement
towards real Communism.

VukBZ2005

4th September 2004, 03:06

Here's my draft of the Anarcho-Marxist sticky -
---------------------------------------------------------

What is Anarchist Marxism?

Anarchist Marxism is basically the total convergence of both the theories
of Marxism and Anarchism. It aims towards the total liberation of the Working
Class from the capitalist system.

How would a Anarchist Marxist Society function anyway?

It would be a real communist society - as everyone and i mean
everyone would truly be free from the chains of capitalism, the state,
and all authoritarian economic, social and political structures. Communities
would be under the direct control of the working class - everyone
though the use of worker's councils and/or popular assemblies would
have equal say in the decisions of the community (commune). Things
would be produced for use and need by non-profit collectives
of workers - not for profit.

----------------------------------------------------------
i will try to complete things later on tonight....

wet blanket

4th September 2004, 07:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:06 AM
Here's my draft of the Anarcho-Marxist sticky -
---------------------------------------------------------

What is Anarchist Marxism?

Anarchist Marxism is basically the total convergence of both the theories
of Marxism and Anarchism. It aims towards the total liberation of the Working
Class from the capitalist system.

How would a Anarchist Marxist Society function anyway?

It would be a real communist society - as everyone and i mean
everyone would truly be free from the chains of capitalism, the state,
and all authoritarian economic, social and political structures. Communities
would be under the direct control of the working class - everyone
though the use of worker's councils and/or popular assemblies would
have equal say in the decisions of the community (commune). Things
would be produced for use and need by non-profit collectives
of workers - not for profit.

----------------------------------------------------------
i will try to complete things later on tonight....
Rudolf Rocker beat you to the punch, bro. (http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html)

The Feral Underclass

4th September 2004, 07:30

I always get worried when I see or hear words like anarcho-marxist. It seems as if people just create new political terms to suit what they believe and with the being as split as it is, we dont need anymore political names. There already exists, as someone has said, a convergence between marxist and anarchist thinking. Namely anarchist communism or more aplty Libertarian Marxism. I think the term anarcho-marxist is completely unnecessary.

I'd like to hear what the Leninists have to say on this thread?

Essential Insignificance

4th September 2004, 09:02

No, because Marx did what some form of state, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

What kind of form? For how long? Will it, even in due course wither away?

Marx's version of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is incredibly vague; never to my knowledge, did he go into any meticulous detail, either did Engel's in his life after Marx.

The misinterpretations of Marx's version of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", can be attributed to Marx himself, although same self-reflection would make clear a lot of Marx's theoretical "dilemmas".

Marx and all subsequent Marxist regard all political states -- parliamentary democracies just as one-person autocracies -- as class dictatorships, that is, one class forcefully furthering the interests of itself at the expense of other class(s), therefore, the term dictatorship, in Marxian terminology does not imply the meaning associated with "dictatorship" in the "ordinary sense".

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is one of the only "presumptions" of Marx's work; all of but this, of Marx's work is ascertainment -- economics, sociology and history -- are as close as your going to get to a "scientific" theory.

This is why it's properly, the most "shadiest" component of Marx's "general model".

I don't think that it would mix at all well. Some things like historical materialism I suppose, or dialectics, but not the main points of the theory.

What are the main points?

I think it may be a little premature to call it a "manifesto" as there's this trend of people who think "we've got all the answers" writing these things out there on the net. I think a brief explanation of the idea, a few pages, is what we need for now. Just to get the ideas out there and provide an injection of new material into the collective debate amongst the radical left.

I suggest, that if you are solemn about this proposition, to go in to to with "heads down and tails up"; sure, "jot" down some of the "central principles"; but try to put together a composition that is going to "catch" peoples eyes; try to give it some substance and meaning, but above all else purpose and intent

Get serious and put everything into it!

I know marxists who are anarchists and the opposite.
Many groups of anarchocommunists are really basicly marxists with a little different terminology, and a few more differences, but in total there is much more that unites then differs.

I think that a lot of it, just "boils down" to labels and terminology. Many practical opposing ideologies, when boiled down reveal themselves to be quite similar in principle and objective.

One could even propose that the "middle ground" between Leninism and anarchism would be traditional Marxism.

Marxism, in my opinion, is the "born again" synthesis of Leninism and Anarchism.

All radical socialist's (whatever, variant that may be, Marxist, Anarchist or Leninist, etc) agree on what they want -- a classless world -- free of exploitation, poverty, starvation, separation, alienation, estrangement, division and needless human hostilities.

The differentiation between radical socialist's, extends from how we are going to get to it. Human Nature will never, it would seem, allow us to agree on one constant doctrine.

think you are misinterpreting the definition of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" -
it means that the liberated working class will rule over the ex-Bourgeoisie after
they are overthrown - But it also meant (orginally) that the working class would
take control of the state to wipe what was left of the Borgeoisie - then the state
would be dissloved - however now, we should move from the "Dictatorship of
the Proletariat" theory altogether - it's only going to delay the advancement
towards real Communism.

Delaying the advancement of communism is of no importance to me -- as delay implies achievement -- in this sense.

I think that it is far to idealist to think that we can bypass some kind of "dictatorship of the proletariat" all together. It is evident from the 20th century proceedings, that the "Leninist paradigm" was a manifest failure, on all regards conceivable. For reasons obvious, to any readers of redstar2000's posts.

History is full of lesions -- if nothing else -- and the "Leninist paradigm" has taught us that the theoretical and practical consequences of Leninism and it variants can bring horrendous conditions of suppression and subjugation against the working class men and women whom they were supposed to be freeing -- even so -- the material conditions would not allow anything else to occur.

socialistfuture

4th September 2004, 11:36

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

is what noam chomsky thinks about anarchism and communism. it is a rather lengthy interview - no suprise really - he is a known anarchist and anti authoritarian -

'Leninism
RBR: The importance of grassroots democracy to any meaningful change in society would seem to be self evident. Yet the left has been ambiguous about this in the past. I'm speaking generally, of social democracy, but also of Bolshevism - traditions on the left that would seem to have more in common with elitist thinking than with strict democratic practice. Lenin, to use a well-known example, was sceptical that workers could develop anything more than trade union consciousness- by which, I assume, he meant that workers could not see far beyond their immediate predicament. Similarly, the Fabian socialist, Beatrice Webb, who was very influential in the Labour Party in England, had the view that workers were only interested in horse racing odds! Where does this elitism originate and what is it doing on the left?

CHOMSKY: I'm afraid it's hard for me to answer this. If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed. The idea that workers are only interested in horse-racing is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial look at labour history or the lively and independent working class press that flourished in many places, including the manufacturing towns of New England not many miles from where I'm writing - not to speak of the inspiring record of the courageous struggles of persecuted and oppressed people throughout history, until this very moment. Take the most miserable corner of this hemisphere, Haiti, regarded by the European conquerors as a paradise and the source of no small part of Europe's wealth, now devastated, perhaps beyond recovery. In the past few years, under conditions so miserable that few people in the rich countries can imagine them, peasants and slum-dwellers constructed a popular democratic movement based on grassroots organisations that surpasses just about anything I know of elsewhere; only deeply committed commissars could fail to collapse with ridicule when they hear the solemn pronouncements of American intellectuals and political leaders about how the US has to teach Haitians the lessons of democracy. Their achievements were so substantial and frightening to the powerful that they had to be subjected to yet another dose of vicious terror, with considerably more US support than is publicly acknowledged, and they still have not surrendered. Are they interested only in horse-racing?

I'd suggest some lines I've occasionally quoted from Rousseau: when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only their independence, I feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom.'

seems anarchism is growing in popularity today - especially in former communist countries. i see the two working together - but certain things will need to be worked out.

red and black united!

YKTMX

4th September 2004, 13:21

The term "dictatorship of the majority" means democracy

Yes, but it also means dictatorship, dictatorship of the class. If (and I hope there is) another Marxist revolution some day (there has only been one ;) ) what position do you think would suite the old ruling class, of, say a country like the UK? De-centralized, loosely organised, weak "workers federations" OR the creation of a new state - like the old one but's complete opposite - that is run, populated and supervised by the whole working class.

The problem with Anarchism is that theory exists to serve itself. Everything is considered in terms of how "it" should be done rather than how it "must" be done. This is completely at odds with Marxism whose sole proccupation is materially realities and unflinching practical clarity.

The working class in Marx's time (and Lenin's, for that matter) was very backward in many respects. A centralized state-apparatus "made sense" under those conditions...or at least appeared plausible.

This is interesting Red. It could very easily be argued that the working is more backward than it was in some cases. The working class of South Korea is bigger than then world working class at the time of Marx's writings. And this is a good example because what is the state of the working class movement in South Korea. Practically zero unionism, practically no socialism and no little love for American Imperialism. Other examples are plentiful; China, Vietnam, African nations, Russia - countries with massive working class population but still what some may consider "backward".

as times passes, the supporters of the obsolete ideas get old and die."

:( I think I've got some years left in me yet.

Also, anarchists need to start making the distinction between Marxists and Marxist-Leninists.

Doesn't exist.

It would be a real communist society - as everyone and i mean
everyone would truly be free from the chains of capitalism, the state,
and all authoritarian economic, social and political structures. Communities
would be under the direct control of the working class - everyone
though the use of worker's councils and/or popular assemblies would
have equal say in the decisions of the community (commune). Things
would be produced for use and need by non-profit collectives
of workers - not for profit.

Yes, that is all fine and dandy but sadly is meaningless until the revolution has been defended and has "naturally" spread to the entire world.

Of course it would be quite brilliant if the working classes off the world all reached the same advanced consciousness (ie revolutionary) and maybe the theory of immediate abolishment of all states might become more plausible as the ruling class becomes outgunned by sheer weight of numbers.

What however is the Anarchist response if this is not the case. What, for instance would happen if there were proletarian revolutions in India and Pakistan or Germany and France. What do you suspect the response of the British and American goverments (clearly panicked) might be? Answer is immeadiate military engagement to slaughter millions. Now, in the Anarchist schematic the French and German states would have been immediately dissolved. No armies, no diplomats to represent or garner support abroad, no way of defending itself. The working class "directly controlled" communities would be probably be bombed back into the stone age and the working class movement probably oblitared for all time.

Maybe it your proposition that the workers should control "federated but not centralized :lol: " sections of military power? Or maybe you can just put your fingers in your ears and go "oooo, it won't happen like that".

redstar2000

4th September 2004, 16:17

If [there is]...another Marxist revolution some day...what position do you think would suit the old ruling class, of, say a country like the UK? De-centralized, loosely organised, weak "workers federations" OR the creation of a new state - like the old one but [its] complete opposite - that is, run, populated and supervised by the whole working class.

This is a (pardon the expression) Leninist muddle.

First, it assumes that workers' federations "must" be "weak".

Why? Because there's no "iron commanding will" present...in other words, no "great leader"?

Second, it further assumes that the old ruling class will either be "permitted" to sneak back into power or else will do so as a united force against the "weak", "divided" workers' federations.

This is especially foolish in the light of history...which plainly shows that old ruling classes, once overthrown, are inevitably "weak" and "divided" themselves! Without external support on a massive scale, they are helpless.

And third, of course, Russia, China, etc. did have massive centralized states...and what was the consequence? Why, the restoration of capitalism.

That Leninist state that was supposed to be "run, populated, and supervised by the whole working class" turned out to be nothing more than the womb of a new capitalist ruling class.

Everything is considered in terms of how "it" should be done rather than how it "must" be done. This is completely at odds with Marxism whose sole preoccupation is materially realities and unflinching practical clarity.

There may be some truth in this criticism of anarchism, granted. Nonetheless, the "blanket" of Marxism is not large enough to cover a dictatorship over the proletariat no matter how "practical" that may be.

Lenin was "practical". Stalin was "practical". Trotsky was "practical". Mao was "practical".

But whatever their "practical achievements", in the end, the working class was defeated!

A "practicality" that takes you where you don't want to go is useless!

It could very easily be argued that the working [class] is more backward than it was in some cases. The working class of South Korea is bigger than the world working class at the time of Marx's writings. And this is a good example because what is the state of the working class movement in South Korea? Practically zero unionism, practically no socialism and no little love for American imperialism.

How odd! I have the completely opposite impression: South Korean workers are presently among the most militant in Asia if not in the world; their unions are large and tough...frequently defying anti-strike laws and engaging in violent confrontations with police; and they are radically opposed to American imperialism, both in South Korea and Iraq.

There was even a two-day "commune" in a South Korean city back in the 1980s.

As a general point, when we speak of this or that working class being "more advanced" or "less advanced", I think we have to make an important distinction.

A worker in Petrograd who followed Lenin in 1917 may appear "more advanced" to some than a modern worker who is "a-political".

But I think that's a very superficial judgment...reading Lenin's political sophistication into his followers.

The differences between the way a modern worker looks at things and the way a working-class follower of Lenin looked at things are simply enormous.

One of the most important of which is that the modern worker is, by and large, no longer a follower of "leaders".

[A distinction between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism] doesn't exist.

You wish! :lol:

However plausible that claim looked in 1920, it is now long past its "sell-by" date.

What kind of "Marxism" ends up restoring capitalism?

Yes, that is all fine and dandy but sadly is meaningless until the revolution has been defended and has "naturally" spread to the entire world.

A recipe for the indefinite postponement of communism.

Consider the logical sequence...

1. Revolutions in only a few countries which establish centralized Leninist states.

2. Time passes.

3. Revolutions in a few more countries that also establish centralized Leninist states...but meanwhile, the previously established Leninist states have restored capitalism.

4. Repeat steps 1-3.

The Leninist-Maoist formula -- "No communism until the whole world is socialist" -- means, in practice, no communism ever!

What, for instance would happen if there were proletarian revolutions in...Germany and France? What do you suspect the response of the British and American governments (clearly panicked) might be? Answer is immediate military engagement to slaughter millions. Now, in the Anarchist schematic, the French and German states would have been immediately dissolved. No armies, no diplomats to represent or garner support abroad, no way of defending itself. The working class "directly controlled" communities would be probably be bombed back into the stone age and the working class movement probably obliterated for all time.

Yes, that is the standard Leninist rationale...when all other arguments fail.

Is it a realistic scenario?

Proletarian revolution in France and Germany (and other western European countries) will probably arise as a consequence of a general crisis of capitalism. That means the British and the Americans will be having their own problems as well...perhaps still trying to "pacify Iraq" as well as many other provinces of their empire or perhaps having to deal with a radical working class movement within their own borders.

So what can they do? Particularly against tens of millions of armed European workers?

True, there is always the "option" of bombing Europe "back to the stone age"...but where's the profitability of a stone-age Europe? Even if they "win", they've "won" a continent full of rubble...that's still full of millions of armed workers who are even more pissed off.

And at what cost? The proto-communist Europe will only have a handful of nukes...but you can hurt your enemy very badly with a handful of nukes.

What I think is the most rational ruling class response is to simply wait for communism "to collapse"...after all, that's what "happened" in the 20th century, why shouldn't it "happen again"? At least, I expect them to take this position rather than risk a major war, possibly involving a nuclear exchange.

Or maybe you can just put your fingers in your ears and go "oooo, it won't happen like that".

When it comes to future events, we're all both blind and deaf. Nevertheless, hysterical cries of "the imperialists are coming" are insufficient to support the Leninist contention that their rule is "required" to "save the revolution".

All they've ever managed to achieve up to now is lose it!

:redstar2000:

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

YKTMX

4th September 2004, 17:27

This is a (pardon the expression) Leninist muddle.

First, it assumes that workers' federations "must" be "weak".

Why? Because there's no "iron commanding will" present...in other words, no "great leader.

Great leader? Where do you find this stuff? If you accept that were talking about Marxist-Leninism then I think you must agree to confine your responses to Lenin or my (poor) representations of him and great leader appears nowhere in Lenin's teachings or action.

If you insist on bringing up the Stalinist or Maoist (particuarly baffling) paradigm as if they were in anyway associated with the theories and practice of Lenin then I fear this may be a circular argument.

This is especially foolish in the light of history...which plainly shows that old ruling classes, once overthrown, are inevitably "weak" and "divided" themselves! Without external support on a massive scale, they are helpless

External support? The ruling class is one global class and their removal in one area will automatically result in "external support" to the internal members.

And third, of course, Russia, China, etc. did have massive centralized states...and what was the consequence? Why, the restoration of capitalism.

China? As alluded to before I'll disregard that.

Yes, but the point is a state for what purpose? The original conception of the Leninist state was to oppress the bosses and the ruling class in defence of the workers revolution. Any "ugliness" (and there was some) was to further this end...under Lenin. Under Stalin ,with the revolution now looking less and less likely, the state, and it's role completely changed.

That Leninist state that was supposed to be "run, populated, and supervised by the whole working class" turned out to be nothing more than the womb of a new capitalist ruling class.

Hindsight is a marvellous thing. It has indeed been proven to the have been "the womb", there is no actual evidence that this was inevitable or unavoidable in 1917.

A "practicality" that takes you where you don't want to go is useless!

Yes, but a theory that takes you nowhere is worse.

The differences between the way a modern worker looks at things and the way a working-class follower of Lenin looked at things are simply enormous.

Interesting. How so?

However plausible that claim looked in 1920, it is now long past its "sell-by" date.

Not really. Most of the big radical left parties defend Lenin and October from attack from the left and right.

What kind of "Marxism" ends up restoring capitalism?

The non-existing type?

2. Time passes.

3. Revolutions in a few more countries that also establish centralized Leninist states...but meanwhile, the previously established Leninist states have restored capitalism.

.

:lol: Logic?

More like tautology.

The Leninist-Maoist !

Leninist-Maoist?! That is an odd concoction. A bit like anarcho-Marxism :lol:

No communism until the whole world is socialist"

Absolutely. It's called historical materialism I think.

Proletarian revolution in France and Germany (and other western European countries) will probably arise as a consequence of a general crisis of capitalism. That means the British and the Americans will be having their own problems as well...perhaps still trying to "pacify Iraq" as well as many other provinces of their empire or perhaps having to deal with a radical working class movement within their own borders.

That is definetly a probability. Since when however does the American ruling class give a flying fuck about what it's people think? There was massive opposition to the imperialists inavding Soviet Russia but they did it anyway and they were facing an even bigger and more militant working class then.

So what can they do? Particularly against tens of millions of armed European workers?

Bomb them.

True, there is always the "option" of bombing Europe "back to the stone age"...but where's the profitability of a stone-age Europe? Even if they "win", they've "won" a continent full of rubble...that's still full of millions of armed workers who are even more pissed off

Yes, and so what? Pissed off workers with a few AK-s, hardly a threat to the American empire. France and Germany have been dissolved so what we'll have is lots of people without homes, jobs, decent organization or anyway of defense of their revolution. Quite marvellous.

And at what cost? The proto-communist Europe will only have a handful of nukes...but you can hurt your enemy very badly with a handful of nukes.

Nukes? What body chooses to fire the nukes? Who controls the target selection? Who actually fires them? To whom do these weapons belong? As there is no state then obviously all military faculties become obsolete, yes?

What I think is the most rational ruling class response is to simply wait for communism "to collapse"...after all, that's what "happened" in the 20th century, why shouldn't it "happen again"? At least, I expect them to take this position rather than risk a major war, possibly involving a nuclear exchange.

Communism didn't exist in the 20th century Red. Even the Americans knew this. I mean, the SU and China where at least nominally able to protect themselves but this obviously won't be a possibility under anarhistic organization. The marines will roll in, covered by bombing strikes, slaughter a few million, probably install a military dictatorship and leave - glad as hell that they didn't have to face any kind of organized collective defense.

Now, if the state does exist after revolution maybe all this might happen. But it would sure make them think twice.

I know this all sounds very hypothetical but it's quite a good possbility considering the history and current positions of the US and Europe. So, we have to answer things like this by offering solutions not babbling on about de-centralization and quoting Kropotkin ad nauseum.

Guest1

4th September 2004, 18:56

South Korea's leftist movement is one of the most advanced in the world. There are uniformed protesters with battalions and organized tactics at some globalization protests. All done without a centralized structure. I have seen videos of a line of protesters more organized than the riot police they were facing, moving 1, 2, 1, 2, spearing police with 2 meter pikes! Riot cops were falling over and moving back!

Every protest movement in the world looks up to the South Koreans. When they have a showdown with the police, they win!.

As for the defence of the revolution, you have rediculous ideas on military warfare. Elementary military strategy, faced with overwhelming force and numbers, scatter. Guerrilla warfare is the only way to defeat an army better equipped and more numerous, and guerilla warfare requires a decentralized strategy at the very least. All we are suggesting, is apply that strategy to the command structure as well.

If every platoon could make decisions together without waiting for commands from above, your movement can never be decapitated. Mantain organized communications between all the cells, and you have a vibrant and powerful resistance.

Meanwhile, protests against the war would become militant in a situation where Capitalism was collapsing. Even the US couldn't hold off a growing revolution at home, and crush a revolution abroad. You'll find the "fraggings", where lowly soldiers grenade their own officers, will become very numerous. I expect at least 10% of rank and file soldiers will either leave the military or open up communications with militants at home or in Europe if they are stationed there.

You seem to forget that when there's a revolutionary situation, it involves the word "revolution". It is not business as usual.

As for every country needing socialism first. Doesn't work my friend. Marx never considered Socialism a system of its own, he considered it a process. If it isn't a system of its own, then Historical Materialism dictates that Communism will be achieved in leaps and bounds in different places in the world at different times. There are still countries today that are stuck in feudalism. Capitalism's revolutions didn't happen all at one time, they happened one by one.

An organized working class, is one that has cast away the boss, not one which bows down to a new one.

YKTMX

4th September 2004, 19:35

South Korea's leftist movement is one of the most advanced in the world. There are uniformed protesters with battalions and organized tactics at some globalization protests. All done without a centralized structure. I have seen videos of a line of protesters more organized than the riot police they were facing, moving 1, 2, 1, 2, spearing police with 2 meter pikes! Riot cops were falling over and moving back!

Well! I'm glad to be proved quite wrong on the South Korean thing.

As for the defence of the revolution, you have rediculous ideas on military warfare. Elementary military strategy, faced with overwhelming force and numbers, scatter. Guerrilla warfare is the only way to defeat an army better equipped and more numerous, and guerilla warfare requires a decentralized strategy at the very least. All we are suggesting, is apply that strategy to the command structure as well.

That seems quite strange considering both Vietnam and Cuba staged "guerialla warfare" yet both those countries now have harsh, centralized power structures.

Guerilla warfare is a useful tactic but it is a military tactic so in my opinion it is sullied as a society wide oraganizational tool.

As for every country needing socialism first. Doesn't work my friend

How many does it have to be then? One? Ten? Twenty? The fact is that Marx isn't alive today, he never lived to see the massive global expansion of capital and capitalism (though he predicted many things) and it seems obvious to anyone who has studied history and owns a pair of eyes that unless the next revolution is unanimous and uncurtailed then some sort of state will be needed to defend the people's who first throw off their shackles.

If the revolution is immediate then, maybe, the in the "advanced" countries the socialisation of the means of production will be less "centrally planned".

But arguing that the first workers to kick out the capitalists can just suddenly announce themselves "free" and let the rest of the world "get on with it" is, and I hate to use this word in the perjorative, but, idealistic to the point of self-delusion.

Faceless

4th September 2004, 23:56

Dont get me wrong, I'm no Leninist but;

Hehehe, Marxism and Anarchism rolled into one :lol:

Sorry to jump in at this point and spoil the wet dream but Anarchism is the rejection of Dialectical Materialism, the centre piece of Marxism. Yes, Anarchists have hijacked onto Historical Materialism at points but it hardly makes them "Marxists". Anarchist-Marxists like to forget or even deny the influence of Hegel on Marx.

Now someone will come in with the old Stalinism=Dialectics equation. And they would possibly be right! Hell, why not go one better and point to Hegel's conception of the highest political form? Well, the overemphasis of materialism takes us to anarchism or "Left-Communism" and the overemphasis of Dialectics to "Right-Communism" or Stalinism if you must (although Stalinism was an even more crude dogma than simply this).

Now I leave the path open for someone to sweep philosophical history and theory under the carpet...

Now, for those who like to consider Marxian rhetoric as compatible with anarchism, I leave Engels to finish this nonsense:

"The proletariat seizes the power of the state and first of all transforms the means of production into the property of the state. But by achieving this it does away with itself as proletariat, it does away with all class differences and all class antagonisms and consequently also with the state as the state. Society as it was and as it is at present which is actuated by the antagonisms between the classes, needed the state, that is to say an organisation of the exploiting class with a view to maintaining the outward conditions of production, more particularly with a view to maintaining by force the exploited class in the oppressive conditions demanded by the existing mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage labour). The state was the official representative of the entire society, its synthesis in visible form, but it was only this to the extent that it was the state of the class which itself represented in its time the entire society: the state of citizens who owned slaves in antiquity, the state of the feudal nobility in the Middle Ages, the state of the bourgeoisie in our time. But by becoming at last the true representative of the whole society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no longer a social class to maintain in oppression; as soon as the clashes of interest and the excesses are abolished at the same time as class domination and the struggle for individual existence which is founded in the old anarchy of production from which they result, there is nothing more to repress, and a special force for repression, the state, ceases to be necessary. The first act by which the state confirms itself in reality as the representative of the entire society - taking possession of the means of production in the name of society - is at the same time the last proper act of the state. The intervention of the power of the state in social relations becomes superfluous in one area after another, and eventually dies away of its own accord. Government of people is replaced by administration of things and control of the process of production. The state is not 'abolished'; it withers away. It is from this point of view that one must appraise the expression: 'a free popular state' as much for its short-lived interest for discussion as for its definitive scientific inadequacy; from this point of view also must the claims of those who are called anarchists and who desire that the state should be abolished overnight be appraised."

redstar2000

5th September 2004, 00:53

Great leader? Where do you find this stuff? If you accept that were talking about Marxist-Leninism then I think you must agree to confine your responses to Lenin or my (poor) representations of him and great leader appears nowhere in Lenin's teachings or action.

Your objection is not without merit; it's true that in Lenin's time, neither he nor his followers explicitly argued in favor of a "great leader".

What Lenin very definitely did argue in favor of was a "vanguard party" organized along hierarchal lines.

It was a party of "order-givers" and "order-takers"...the leadership told the membership what to do and the membership did it or else.

Is it really such a "stretch" to suggest that such a structure naturally evolves a "great leader"?

This has nothing to do with perfidy or "mindless lust for power"...it's just what happens in that kind of organization.

If you insist on bringing up the Stalinist or Maoist (particularly baffling) paradigm as if they were in anyway associated with the theories and practice of Lenin then I fear this may be a circular argument.

We need not spend time on "the heirs of Lenin" if that's your wish.

Lenin himself began the restoration of capitalism in Russia with his "New Economic Policy". Lenin himself did everything he could to lure foreign capitalists back into Russia.

Perhaps you would like to formulate a "neo-Leninism" that would somehow avoid the more baroque excesses of Stalin or Mao...but it won't work. You'd still be faced with Lenin's own practice in the period 1917-1922...and his determined and consistent opposition to real power in the hands of the Russian working class.

There's no "getting around that".

The ruling class is one global class and their removal in one area will automatically result in "external support" to the internal members.

No doubt...but recall I said "massive external support". In the next era of proletarian revolutions, I do not expect the global capitalist class to be capable of more than "moral support" for their dispossessed brethren.

With "moral support" and $7.50, you can buy a pack of cigarettes in Manhattan.

China? As alluded to before, I'll disregard that.

As noted above, it won't help you.

The original conception of the Leninist state was to oppress the bosses and the ruling class in defence of the workers revolution. Any "ugliness" (and there was some) was to further this end...under Lenin.

Sure, it started out that way...but it didn't stay that way even "under Lenin".

At the 10th Party Congress (March 1921), even the rank-and-file of the party itself were rendered powerless to oppose the leadership in any organized fashion...and Lenin ran that congress!

Hindsight is a marvelous thing. It has indeed been proven to the have been "the womb"; there is no actual evidence that this was inevitable or unavoidable in 1917.

Hindsight is indeed "a marvelous thing"...provided you take the trouble to use it!

I don't "blame" Lenin (or Stalin or Trotsky or Mao, etc.) for their deeds; I don't think they were "evil" men acting from "personal malice".

I think they all sincerely thought they were "doing the right thing" to advance the communist cause.

But the advantage of "hindsight" is that we can see they all were wrong! In every case where a Leninist party has attained state power, the result was the restoration of capitalism.

There's no justification to sneer at "hindsight"...it's how we learn from history.

Most of the big radical left parties defend Lenin and October from attacks from the left and right.

They are certainly not "big" and they are "living fossils."

All of the Leninist parties in the U.S. put together wouldn't fill up a single minor-league ballpark.

As to having any influence with the working class...forget it! The modern working class, as I've told you before, is not looking for leadership.

The non-existing type?

The Leninist "type"!

"No communism until the whole world is socialist"

Absolutely. It's called historical materialism, I think.

Call it "green cheese" if you like; it's still a formula that delays communism forever.

The marines will roll in, covered by bombing strikes, slaughter a few million, probably install a military dictatorship and leave - glad as hell that they didn't have to face any kind of organized collective defense.

Just like Iraq, eh?

A real "piece of cake".

So, we have to answer things like this by offering solutions, not babbling on about de-centralization and quoting Kropotkin ad nauseum.

I don't believe, in over 6,000 posts, that I've ever "quoted Kropotkin" even once.

But I do agree that no matter how much I "babble", I cannot hope to catch up with you.

Your "solution" to imperialism is to imitate it in every crucial respect; your attempts to verbally distance yourself from Stalin and Mao fool no one.

Your powerful state, massive professional army, etc., will not only "defend" the revolution by gutting it but will inevitably look for "new horizons" to conquer...becoming more oppressive and exploitative with every passing year.

Of course, that's what would happen if you had any chance of success...which you don't.

After all, given your track-record, why would any worker -- especially one who was a communist -- ever follow you guys again?

Who wants class society v.5.0?

:redstar2000:

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

redstar2000

5th September 2004, 01:21

Sorry to jump in at this point and spoil the wet dream, but Anarchism is the rejection of Dialectical Materialism, the centre piece of Marxism. Yes, Anarchists have hijacked onto Historical Materialism at points but it hardly makes them "Marxists". Anarchist-Marxists like to forget or even deny the influence of Hegel on Marx.

Well, I neither forget nor deny the "influence of Hegel on Marx".

I just think it's extremely unfortunate.

Not simply because Hegel was a windbag and a fraud...but mostly because ever since the death of Engels, "dialectics" has been an "intellectual mask" used to defend the indefensible.

Whenever a Leninist party wants to do something really rotten, a "dialectical" justification is manufactured to order.

And if you say "hey, what you're doing is really rotten!", the response will inevitably be "your problem, comrade, is that you don't properly grasp the dialectic".

Not to be crude about it, but fuck that shit!

"Dialectics" is not "the secret key to history" but rather a specimen of 19th century idealism worthy only of the dumpster of history.

Historical materialism? Sure! "Dialectical materialism"? There ain't no such animal!

Now I leave the path open for someone to sweep philosophical history and theory under the carpet...

I volunteer! Somebody has to take out the trash.

Now, for those who like to consider Marxian rhetoric as compatible with anarchism, I leave Engels to finish this nonsense...

Why do you "quote scripture" concerning a point that was already dealt with?

In my opinion, there is a material basis for the convergence of Marxist and Anarchist theory.

The working class in Marx's time (and Lenin's, for that matter) was very backward in many respects. A centralized state-apparatus "made sense" under those conditions...or at least appeared plausible.

In other words, Engels might very well have been correct when he wrote those words and be wrong now.

As Engels understood better than many modern so-called "Marxists" -- "defenders of the faith" -- things change.

:redstar2000:

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

Guest1

5th September 2004, 01:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:35 PM
Guerilla warfare is a useful tactic but it is a military tactic so in my opinion it is sullied as a society wide oraganizational tool.
You're the one who brought up the military! I wasn't addressing society's organization, simply the organization of the military and the advantages of decentralized militias in defending yourself when outnumbered.

As far as I'm concerned, you're not interested in denying the plausibility of Anarcho-Marxism on societal terms, opting instead for a military approach. Which, when you were proven wrong, you tried to dodge again.

Do you agree that guerrilla warfare, coupled with decentralization in the military structure itself would be the most effective form for fighting an army that outnumbers and outguns you?

If you do, then the state becomes absolutely unnecessary! If you don't, then I dare say Leninists will have to relinquish their hold on the title of being only good for military campaigns. I suppose that was the last thing left, and now we can really proclaim that Leninism is useless! :lol:

SonofRage

5th September 2004, 01:55

You guys may want to check out The Red and Anarchist Action Network (http://www.redanarchist.org/publications/principles.html).

Also, it may have been already mentioned, but the Council Communism of Anton Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/index.htm) and Paul Mattick (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/) seems to converge with Anarchist thinking. I highly recommend Anton Pannekoek's Workers' Councils. You can purchase it from AKPress (http://www.akpress.org) or read it online at John Gray's site (http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/wcontitl.htm).

Thought I consider myself an Anarchist these days, I really do like the work of the Council Communists (or as Mattick would call it, Anti-Bolshevik Communism). It's one of the reasons why I remain a member of The Socialist Party USA (http://www.sp-usa.org/). There seem to be quite a few other Anarchist/Libertarian Socialists in the SP-USA (including our national secretary) and what I really am trying to work towards is a revolutionary libertarian socialist party.

Another article I'd recommend is Toward a Libertarian Socialism (http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/tals.html). It has some good points in my opinion.

socialistfuture

5th September 2004, 02:06

leninism is prehaps more useful in the sense u might have many different cells/guerilla groups working together for the same cause. where as anarchist independ militias may have different ideas and not back each other up if there is a difference of opinions.

an example close to his is mexico - the govt is dodgy and the zapatistas had an uprising but because they will only defend their area other ppl in mexico do not have soverignty and the zapatistas are surrounded by the mexicon military. wheras if mexico were to revolt they could destroy the mexicon state and end the military blockade.

anarchism i think is a better system for living under but leninism for having an uprising - however the problem is that the leninist uprising may replace the old ruling class with a new one.

Morpheus

5th September 2004, 03:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 04:08 AM
What do you think of the convergence of Marxist and Anarchist Theory people? do you believe that it makes sense?

It essentially requires that one or both terms be made meaningless. Marxists believe in a transitional "workers' state" while anarchists want the immediate abolition of the state. Those are opposed position that cannot be merged.

Che Y Maijuana:

The dictatorship of the proletariat need not manifest itself in a state, proletarian, decentralized and federated self-governance is the same. The term "dictatorship of the majority" means democracy, so I don't think it is in anyway a stretch to apply this definition to the DoP

Marx explicitly said the DoP is a state. Furthermore, we shouldn't have a "dictatorship of the majority" - that would mean white people in the US could vote to execute black people. 51% of the population should not dominate 49% of the population.

And using the term DoP to refer to the organization of society along anarchistic lines is very dangerous as it creates confusion that authoritarians can take advantage of. As Daniel Guerin pointed out:

"The reader knows by now that the anarchists refused to use the term "State" even for a transitional situation. The gap between authoritarians and libertarians has not always been very wide on this score. In the First International the collectivists, whose spokesman was Bakunin, allowed the terms "regenerate State," "new and revolutionary State," or even "socialist State" to be accepted as synonyms for "social collective." The anarchists soon saw, however, that it was rather dangerous for them to use the same word as the authoritarians while giving it a quite different meaning. They felt that a new concept called for a new word and that the use of the old term could be dangerously ambiguous; so they ceased to give the name "State" to the social collective of the future."

I think it's about time Marxist and Anarchist theory converged. Marxism does not base itself on strict dogmatism, and thus as Marxists we need to learn the lessons of history when it comes to our struggle

Learning those lessons means abandoning the belief in a Workers' State in favor of the anarchist position. The last century proved anarchist criticisms of Marxism correct. Marxism is wrong and anarchism right. You can expand the definition of Marxism so that it includes people who do not believe in a "workers' state" but then the term becomes meaningless. If you can be a Marxist who doesn't believe in the "workers' state" then why can't you also be a Marxist who supports capitalism? If we can have "anarcho-Marxists" why not "Marxist Conservatives." The term becomes so broad it doesn't mean anything.

RedStar:

The working class in Marx's time (and Lenin's, for that matter) was very backward in many respects. A centralized state-apparatus "made sense" under those conditions...or at least appeared plausible.

Apparently, it appeared less plausible to the workers & peasants of the late 19th/early 20th century than it did to the workers/peasants of the mid-twentieth century. In the former period, anarchism was much more population than state socialism but in the later state socialism much more popular.

In particular, the working classes of those eras often did look for "great leaders" to follow...the idea that ordinary working people could make informed decisions in their own interests was dismissed by most as a "fantasy".

Many workers still do that today. In the late 19th/early 20th century anarchist workers & peasants didn't look to a "great leader," that came later with the rise of authoritarian socialism.

On the other hand, the weakness of most variants of anarchism has been the conceit of a "moral elite"...people who've "embraced goodness" for the sake of "goodness" itself -- with little or no regard for actual material conditions.

I think that's why you often run into such weird ideas in the anarchist "milieu"...including a strong "abstentionist" current -- you know, no meat, no tobacco, no alcohol, no modern technology, no this or no that. A "good" person "abstains from vice". They too have made anarchism into a kind of theology...Protestants to the Leninist Catholics.

There are difficulties, of course. People who have a "vested interest" in ***MARXISM-LENINISM*** or in ***ANARCHISM*** will not look kindly on any effort that threatens their status as "guardians of the sacred flame" or "bearers of the rings of power". You can probably imagine the howls of outrage that will be heard...on both sides.

poisoning the well (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem) and Strawman (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman).

Your'e a good example of how "libertarian marxists" make the phrase "marxist" meaningless. You don't believe in Dialectical Materialism, the labor theory of value or a transitional state (ie. the majority of Marx's theories). If someone can not believe in all these things and still be a Marxist then why can't someone also not believe in communism or revolution and still be a Marxist? For that matter, why can't creationists be considered Marxists?

LinuxMan86:

Here's my draft of the Anarcho-Marxist sticky -
---------------------------------------------------------

What is Anarchist Marxism?

Anarchist Marxism is basically the total convergence of both the theories
of Marxism and Anarchism. It aims towards the total liberation of the Working
Class from the capitalist system.

How would a Anarchist Marxist Society function anyway?

It would be a real communist society - as everyone and i mean
everyone would truly be free from the chains of capitalism, the state,
and all authoritarian economic, social and political structures. Communities
would be under the direct control of the working class - everyone
though the use of worker's councils and/or popular assemblies would
have equal say in the decisions of the community (commune). Things
would be produced for use and need by non-profit collectives
of workers - not for profit.

How is this supposed to differ from ordinary non-Marxist anarchism? Also, you contradict yourself. If it is a classless society, then communities could not be under the control of the working class because the working class would not exist (and neither would any other classes).

Essential Insignificance:

Marx and all subsequent Marxist regard all political states -- parliamentary democracies just as one-person autocracies -- as class dictatorships (emphasis added)

No they didn't, go study up on the phenomenon they called "Bonapartism."

socialistfuture

5th September 2004, 03:51

i propose a new faction - LENTILISM - fas supperior to leninism.
we fight for the liberation of those working on the grass (animals) eating is hardwork i assure u.

Vegeterians of the world UNITE!

but seriously Red Guards and Black Gueards need to stand side by side - anti capitalists and anti facists united for the struggle!

SonofRage

5th September 2004, 03:53

I'm curious about something. Question to Morpheus: Would you say that Marxists like Anton Pannekoek are not genuine Marxists? I've heard an RCP-supporter say this once as well (not that it matters to me since it's been a while since I considered myself a Marxist, just curious).

Nas

5th September 2004, 04:16

communism is an economic theory and anarchism is a theory that abolishes all type of gorvernment , well can communism live without anarchism? or can anarchism live without communism??

ComradeRed

5th September 2004, 05:13

Communism is more or less a theory which includes Economics, Political Science, and philosophy to a degree. It isn't a stand-alone economic theory.

wet blanket

5th September 2004, 06:00

Dialectical Materialism, the centre piece of Marxism.
That's rubbish. While Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel's dialectics, and he did "stand it on its head", that doesn't make them completely correct. Hell, towards the end of Hegel's life, he had reduced himself to claiming that he could predict the future with his dialectics... Hegel is, at most, marginally relevant to the real world outside of GWF's head. I'd say that much can be learned from the writings Marx and his buddy Engels left with us, but dialectical materialism is not by any means their finest accomplishment. Engles' "Dialectics of Nature" and the infamous "diamat" which was so popular in Stalin-era USSR should also serve as pretty good examples to show why the dialectics shouldn't be considered something too important.

That being said, I do think the term Anarcho-marxist is a little inaccurate as well as superfluous. Pretty much all propositions that I've seen so far in this thread, as well as others, are all pretty much Syndicalism which has already be written about in detail. Instead of thinking up new names to categorize our beliefs, or drafting manifestos, we ought to be reading and critiquing what others wrote before us as well as learning from history. It's my opinion that we'll all learn a whole lot more from critical analysis of specific concepts(like the Dictator of the Proletariat or Diamat) rather than just saying "Hey I kinda like A-ism and I kinda like B-ism, so lets combine them into A-B-ism and work out the details later".

Essential Insignificance

5th September 2004, 07:32

No they didn't, go study up on the phenomenon they called "Bonapartism."

Not really.

Bonapartism, to my knowledge, is where a " bourgeoisies class rule", for a momentary period of time is not "able-bodied" and component enough to rule by itself; where a government forms, which is not totally secure, and needs military, police and state bureaucracy to establish order -- nothing totally different to present day conditions.

Marx commented on Bonaparte "demonstrating how the class struggle in France created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero's part." The same could be said for Germany post WW1, and the eventual, circumstances that brought Hitler to be the "national hero" of the German Motherland subsequent the collapse of the Weimar republic.

Hitler was always at the beck and call of capitalism.

Yet, Marx explicitly states the class-struggle allowed conditions, for an eventual despot to rise up and become a "national hero". He isn't implicitly stating that Bonapartism isn't a "class" dictatorship.

It's still a class dictatorship insofar as it requires the usage of "state powers", where the ruling class exercises power over other classes, whom stand (passively) antagonist to the "wealth" of society.

Capitalism and corresponding "class rule(s)" are still political in nature; democratic or despotic.

Morpheus

5th September 2004, 08:23

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 5 2004, 07:32 AM
Bonapartism, to my knowledge, is where a " bourgeoisies class rule", for a momentary period of time is not "able-bodied" and component enough to rule by itself; where a government forms, which is not totally secure, and needs military, police and state bureaucracy to establish order -- nothing totally different to present day conditions.
Not according to Lenin:

From http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...aterev/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm)

"Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose, at the same time, in the midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class...." The ancient and feudal states were organs for the exploitation of the slaves and serfs; likewise, "the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage-labor by capital. By way of exception, however, periods occur in which the warring classes balance each other so nearly that the state power as ostensible mediator acquires, for the moment, a certain degree of independence of both...." Such were the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Bonapartism of the First and Second Empires in France, and the Bismarck regime in Germany.

Such, we may add, is the Kerensky government in republican Russia since it began to persecute the revolutionary proletariat, at a moment when, owing to the leadership of the petty-bourgeois democrats, the Soviets have already become impotent, while the bourgeoisie are not yet strong enough simply to disperse them.

When the classes are evenly balanced, the state is no longer a full-fledged class dictatorship but aquires a degree of independance, according to Lenin.

Morpheus

5th September 2004, 08:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 03:53 AM
Question to Morpheus: Would you say that Marxists like Anton Pannekoek are not genuine Marxists?
Basically, yeah. They're confused anarcho-communists with an identity crisis. If Pannekoek is a Marxist everyone is a Marxist and the term loses all meaning.

YKTMX

5th September 2004, 13:56

It was a party of "order-givers" and "order-takers"...the leadership told the membership what to do and the membership did it or else.

That is a complete caricature. The theory of democratic centralism - if practiced correctly - works absolutely perfectly for the revolutionary party, creating the internal debate crucial to any meaningful party and the unity of action crucial to getting anything done. Lenin found himself in the minority in the Bolshevik party many times and he didn't take the "do it or else" tack that you say but instead invested great time and patience in arguing with his comrades.

Is it really such a "stretch" to suggest that such a structure naturally evolves a "great leader"?

With your bogus interpretation? No. With the actual reality of the "Bolshevik structure"? Yes.

No doubt...but recall I said "massive external support". In the next era of proletarian revolutions, I do not expect the global capitalist class to be capable of more than "moral support" for their dispossessed brethren.

Really? That's very optimistic of you RedStar. What was the number in 1917? Something like 15 or 20 countries and this at the when the imperialisms where fighting a bloody war, facing massive opposition at home and possible proletarian revolutions themselves. If there's one thing we know for sure about the capitalists is that there's always time and money when it comes to suppressing liberation.

They are certainly not "big" and they are "living fossils."

Certainly not. LO and LCR in France gained about 5% in the recent presidential elections, both of those are neo-Trotskyist groups. Rifondazione Communista in Italy has a daily newspaper and 300,000 members, not to mention British, German, Spanish etc. groups who would claim to be heirs of Leninism.

Your "solution" to imperialism is to imitate it in every crucial respect; your attempts to verbally distance yourself from Stalin and Mao fool no one.

My solution to imperialism is too face it and not pretend it doesn't exist. As for "imitating" imperialism, I would never advocate any expansion of a revolutionary state into another country that wasn't undergoing it's own revolutionary upheaval.

After all, given your track-record, why would any worker -- especially one who was a communist -- ever follow you guys again?

Good question, maybe they won't. Maybe we have seen "the end of history" and maybe revolution is for the dustbin.

Djehuti

5th September 2004, 17:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:27 AM
I think you are misinterpreting the definition of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" -
it means that the liberated working class will rule over the ex-Bourgeoisie after
they are overthrown - But it also meant (orginally) that the working class would
take control of the state to wipe what was left of the Borgeoisie - then the state
would be dissloved - however now, we should move from the "Dictatorship of
the Proletariat" theory altogether - it's only going to delay the advancement
towards real Communism.
No, I wont agree. You fail to see the difference in quality between the bourgeoise and the proletarian revolution. The proletarian revolution is NOT about taking control of the bourgeoisie state, but to destroy as well as creating its own state, the DotP, a totaly new state with other objectives - the defence of the revolution, that is its purpose. The defence of the proletarians, by the proletarians as the proletarians cease to be proletarians. We should not move from the DotP, and it will not delay advancement. DotP is absolutly necessary. How do you imagine that a revolution can be achieved without first monopolizing the power to the single only class that have an objective intrest in that development? And do you really believe that there wont be any need for an organized defence of this revolution?

Guest1

5th September 2004, 18:30

I think his point was that we should recognize that an organized defence of the revolution, with the characteristics of workingclass rule, is not a state. If the entire class is going to rule, and the goal of these organized structures is to end class society, then it is most definitely not a state.

If we are to get anywhere with Marxism, it is time to recognize that our use of terms like "new kind of state" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" have led to the deformation of Marxist ideals. I have no doubt Marx did not mean a state in the sense Leninists use it today, afterall he held the Paris Commune in the highest regard and wanted to go even further in the model. I think the problem here is an issue of definitions. Anarchists have a certain definition of the State, and Marx had a different one. As was said before, they once used terms that included "worker's state" and "new kind of state". Why can't we move on too?

redstar2000

5th September 2004, 18:30

It essentially requires that one or both terms be made meaningless. Marxists believe in a transitional "workers' state" while anarchists want the immediate abolition of the state. Those are opposed positions that cannot be merged.

Was the Paris Commune a "transitional workers' state"?

Would a consistent and principled anarchist be able to support -- with enthusiasm! -- a modern Paris Commune?

Furthermore, we shouldn't have a "dictatorship of the majority" - that would mean white people in the US could vote to execute black people. 51% of the population should not dominate 49% of the population.

Does that strike you as a plausible scenario?

Is it "large-scale" voting on policy issues that bothers you or is it policy decisions made by voting on any scale that you're opposed to?

We all know that there is a current within the anarchist milieu that is opposed to voting in principle...but there are also many anarchist groups that have no problem at all with voting to decide policy.

I think that we should keep in mind that when we discuss the convergence of Marxist and anarchist theory, we want "only the good stuff"...not everything that happens to be flying either flag at the moment.

As for myself, I think voting to decide policy is perfectly acceptable -- though I would prefer demarchy for selecting positions of responsibility.

They felt that a new concept called for a new word and that the use of the old term could be dangerously ambiguous; so they ceased to give the name "State" to the social collective of the future."

Perfectly understandable; Lenin abandoned the term "social democracy" for much the same reason.

The future of the revolutionary movement in this century may require similar terminological changes...we should not have any silly attachments to "old words" if new ones will serve us better.

You can expand the definition of Marxism so that it includes people who do not believe in a "workers' state" but then the term becomes meaningless.

Why? Look at all the varieties of ideas that rest (comfortably or otherwise) under the umbrella of "anarchism".

Does that make "anarchism" a "meaningless" term?

In fact, every serious anarchist or anarchist collective picks out the stuff they like -- the coherent ideas that "make sense" to them -- and dismisses the rest.

Why can't Marxists do the same?

Apparently, it appeared less plausible to the workers & peasants of the late 19th/early 20th century than it did to the workers/peasants of the mid-twentieth century. In the former period, anarchism was much more popular than state socialism but in the later state socialism much more popular.

I think that's oversimplified. The popularity of anarchism, social democracy, and Leninism have all waxed and waned at different times in different countries for a lot of different reasons.

The point that I was making is that a "centralized state" could have appeared plausible to Marx and Engels because of the over-all backwardness of the working class in their era.

There's also the fact that "centralization" was seen as "inherently progressive" in the 19th century...something that is now, as you know, no longer the case.

Many workers still do that today. In the late 19th/early 20th century anarchist workers & peasants didn't look to a "great leader," that came later with the rise of authoritarian socialism.

I disagree. Aside from the followers of outright cults, I don't see most people today yearning for, much less actually following, a "great leader".

I think there's been a fundamental shift in mass consciousness in that regard. And one that's by no means "completed".

As to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, my impression is that people like Proudhon, Bakunin, Blanqui, Kropotkin, Makhno, et.al., had "great leader" status even if they lacked mechanisms of formal command. To be sure, they were never "cult figures" like Lenin et.al., but then neither were Marx or Engels.

And of course the vast majority of workers and peasants of that era did enthusiastically follow many bourgeois and even reactionary "great leaders"...and did so well into the 20th century.

poisoning the well and Strawman

If you dispute my observations, why not say so and give reasons?

Some "wells" are poisonous and some men are made of more than straw.

You're a good example of how "libertarian marxists" make the phrase "marxist" meaningless. You don't believe in Dialectical Materialism, the labor theory of value or a transitional state (i.e., the majority of Marx's theories).

Meaning he only had two others? :lol:

I think you know better than that...and that you are really quibbling over terminology here.

"Dialectics" has been shown to be crap, true.

Marx's version of the labor theory of value has serious problems...I would perforce downgrade it to the level of a hypothesis at this point and await further evidence.

In Marx's time, I would have agreed with him (against Bakunin) about the need for a transitional state...of the Paris Commune type. But now, it seems to me that things have changed (and will continue to change) to the point where it seems no longer necessary...a modern capitalist country can indeed go "straight to communism".

Do these views make me "less Marxist" than some Leninist cult-follower? Perhaps in your eyes and certainly in his...but not in mine.

If Pannekoek is a Marxist [then] everyone is a Marxist and the term loses all meaning.

In other words, Leninists are the "only real Marxists".

Well, they would agree with you.

--------------------------

The theory of democratic centralism - if practiced correctly - works absolutely perfectly for the revolutionary party, creating the internal debate crucial to any meaningful party and the unity of action crucial to getting anything done.

In your dreams.

How many Leninist parties of all kinds have we had in the "west" over the last 80 years or so?

And what have they accomplished?

Not one of them "understood correctly" how to practice "democratic" centralism?

My "caricature" is a reflection of actual Leninist history. There are thousands of books on this subject...though admittedly, most are difficult to find. If you have access to a really good library, look up some scholarly works on the history of various Leninist parties...and see for yourself how they actually operated, how they treated their members, etc.

I think you are in for a "rude awakening".

What was the number in 1917?

You are living in the past. What will be the number in 2017 or even 2117?

LO and LCR in France gained about 5% in the recent presidential elections, both of those are neo-Trotskyist groups. Rifondazione Communista in Italy has a daily newspaper and 300,000 members, not to mention British, German, Spanish, etc. groups who would claim to be heirs of Leninism.

In general, the Leninist parties in Europe that achieved significant working class support did so by becoming openly reformist. Internally, they still operated in the "democratic" centralist mode but their public face abandoned all pretense of proletarian revolution. The PCF and the PCI being the outstanding examples of this.

I suspect the examples you give would turn out to be very similar. Lenin, for all his shortcomings, was a revolutionary...most of his "heirs" have turned out to be wimps or worse.

Good question, maybe they won't. Maybe we have seen "the end of history" and maybe revolution is for the dustbin.

History does not have an "end". The possibilities of future proletarian revolutions are still unknown.

But I agree that Leninism is approaching its well-earned grave..."it seemed like a good idea at the time but it just didn't work out".

:redstar2000:

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

Guest1

5th September 2004, 18:43

I love the Leninist attitude: if you don't follow us, we're all dooooooomed!

YKTMX

5th September 2004, 19:07

I think you are in for a "rude awakening".

I suspect not. I've read and heard many critiques of DC (ranging from your "great leader" theory to the one's arguing that revolutionary parties themselves are the barrier to liberation) and they are rather limp.

And what have they accomplished?

The "failure to achieve anything" has got lots to do with lots of things but it has nothing to do with how Leninist parties oragnise themselves. It probably had more to do with the Stalinist parties taking ridicilous positions on a whim from Moscow and the members carrying it out faithfully because they believed Moscow had a monopoly on revolutionary wisdom.

Leninism, like any theory, moves on. Believe it or not, we do learn from past mistakes.

My "caricature" is a reflection of actual Leninist history

Yes, your caricature (and that is what it is) is not your own . It was dreamed up in the Politbureau in the 20's that anything Stalin said suddenly became unquestionable. It was the duty of the united CP's of the world to delude themselves to any extent that Comrade Joe saw fit for the cause of "communism". Thankfully, with the collapse of Stalinism, we no longer have this problem.

You are living in the past. What will be the number in 2017 or even 2117?

Forgive me but I'm sensing a tremendous hypocrisy on your part.

You are only too keen to argue that the whole experience of "Leninism" in 20's Russia completely translates to our times yet you contest that somehow the capitalists will act diffirent? Have their class interests changed substanstially since then? Don't think so.

In general, the Leninist parties in Europe that achieved significant working class support did so by becoming openly reformist. Internally, they still operated in the "democratic" centralist mode but their public face abandoned all pretense of proletarian revolution. The PCF and the PCI being the outstanding examples of this.

I'm not really talking about the old, unreconstructed Stalinisms. The PCF are a complete reformist rabble and the PCI don't really exist anymore. The groups I mentioned are Marxist-Leninist in the original sense of the word and can still control great support.

I suspect the examples you give would turn out to be very similar. Lenin, for all his shortcomings, was a revolutionary...most of his "heirs" have turned out to be wimps or worse.

Absolutely, we find ourselves in complete agreement but this point is basically worthless. The conditons under which the "wimpiness" (and the worseness) happened are now non-existent. Leninist parties can now form their own programmes and campaigns without "external influence" and this will mean they have the chance to flourish.

But I agree that Leninism is approaching its well-earned grave..."it seemed like a good idea at the time but it just didn't work out".

This is sadly (for you) just not the case. The biggest revolutionary parties of any kind (anarchist, autonomist, maoist) are usually Marxist.

Now of course these parties aren't perfect and criticism is a worthwhile excerise.

Guest1

5th September 2004, 20:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 03:07 PM
This is sadly (for you) just not the case. The biggest revolutionary parties of any kind (anarchist, autonomist, maoist) are usually Marxist.
<_<

That doesn't counter the claim that Leninism is dying.

pandora

6th September 2004, 00:40

The thing I have the most trouble with is the idea of individualism versus community. I understand and agree with the restraint of authoritarianism, the world we now live in is unlivable as a result of authoritarianism, my step-grandfather said the day they make throwing fruit pits on the ground illegal that we were living in an unliveable system.

But I also doubt Bakunin was thinking every man for himself as the Libertarians would like. Some forms of Anarchy result in the wealthy simply hiring guards and barracading themselves in and many people not only not choosing to give to society, but in their numbers pushing policies that hurt society, as in neo-liberalism.

I think we must be careful when we play with Marx, except to update his ideas on race, women, and social justice to a more modern standard. Marx and Bakunin definately have their differences.

I agree with Lenins ideas on assisting the Third World to Unite and rise up against the hegemony, but not any of his later tactics, and definately agree with Goldman's observations on his betrayal of the Anarchists, and attacking them as being begining of the end of true Marxist ideology in Russia.

redstar2000

6th September 2004, 01:08

You are only too keen to argue that the whole experience of "Leninism" in 20's Russia completely translates to our times, yet you contend that somehow the capitalists will act different? Have their class interests changed substantially since then? Don't think so.

That's a good point, though not for the reasons you suggest.

It is Leninists themselves that insist on the ongoing "relevance" of all of Lenin's ideas and practices. Why else, indeed, do they call themselves "Marxist-Leninists"?

Their idea of a "revolutionary vanguard party" is lifted from Lenin c.1920-21. Their idea of "socialism" comes from Stalin (c.1936) and/or Mao (c.1966). Their ideas about "defending the revolution" come from the Russian and/or Chinese civil wars.

Even details of their "line" are borrowed -- they participate in bourgeois elections "because Lenin did".

In fact, trying to discuss matters with a Leninist has a curious "time-warp" feel to it. Stalinists are passionate about details a half-century old or even older. Trotskyists and Maoists are the same way.

You get the feeling, honestly, that they think the present century will be a "re-play" of the last century...only this time, they're going to "win", dammit.

Leninist parties can now form their own programmes and campaigns without "external influence" and this will mean they have the chance to flourish.

Well, it's easy enough to "blame Stalin" for all the fuckups...but then you have to ask yourself why all the "western" communist parties flopped on their bellies whenever a messenger from Joe arrived.

No one "made" them do it; they couldn't be arrested and sent to labor camp or shot if they told Joe to go fuck himself.

It seems to me that the Leninist conception of "democratic" centralism creates an atmosphere of servile obedience. If you've been trained in unquestioning obedience, then why wouldn't you be strongly inclined to follow the personality that you thought most prestigious?

It "naturally follows" from what you've already been taught is the most important duty of a "communist" -- to carry out the party's line with "iron discipline".

Believe it or not, we do learn from past mistakes.

I've noticed a few occasions where Leninist parties have attempted to deal with "errors of line"...and even that causes difficulties because it threatens the leadership's position.

But in terms of fundamental matters of principle...I don't see Leninists doing that; they'd almost have to stop being Leninists to manage it.

Can you imagine a Leninist party saying something like "the vanguard party should not hold state power; only rank-and-file non-party workers should serve in official positions"? Or, "no party member should serve more than one term in a party leadership position"? Or, "the party leadership may only say and/or do what the party membership has already approved of"?

Maybe that will happen. But as someone said, "maybe a ground-hog will learn to fly -- but, man, that will be one strange-looking bird."

:redstar2000:

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