Anarchists

[Northern Revolutionary]

So I made the test that gives me an answer to that what kind of communist I am. And it said that I´m anarchist.
But I really dont know what kind of people are anarchists. :blink:
So could someone tell me simply what kind of people are "we". :D

[spartafc]

what kind of people are anarchists?

advocates of inverted bourgeois philosophy!

:D

[ComradeOm]

They’re scary, scary people :P

Seriously though, both anarchists and Marxists want the same thing (communism) but while anarchists believe that it is possible to go straight from capitalism to communism, Marxists insist that a intermediate stage (socialism) is necessary. It basically comes down to a difference in definitions on the nature of the state. Anarchists insist that the state is the source of class struggle (and thus removing it will create a classless society) while Marxists know that the opposite is true (the state is a result, not the cause, of class struggle)

Of course it might be best to let someone who subscribes to that misguided ( ;) )ideology to explain it best.

[rioters bloc]

they're great!

[Livetrueordie]

what test?

[Morpheus]

For a comprehensive introduction to anarchism, see An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/)
For a shorter introduction, see Basic Principles of Anarchism (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html)
For some of the classic anarchist writings, see Anarchy Archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/)

At least one of these URLS should answer your question satisfactorally.

[Comrade Corinna]

Anarchists are cool. I dated an anarchist and he was seriously one of the most interesting people I had met. He firmly believed in the "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" line and he really desired ture equality.

I am not an anarchist because I dont think there should be no government at all- I believe in government by the proletariat. I believe in the transitional phase of socialism to lead to communism.

Also dont get thrown off by the stereotypes of anarchy, many people picture all anarchists to be violent, immature, and uneducated, or they think they all are into punk rock and death metal.

[Clarksist]

Anarchists are normal people.

They just believe that an egalitarian and decentralized worker's democracy should control the means of production, and not the "market". They want an abolished state, and some call it too idealist, and others say it isn't enough. :lol:

If you think there should be no socialism between revolution and the proletarian "utopia", your an anarchist.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:41 AM

what kind of people are anarchists?

advocates of inverted bourgeois philosophy!

:D
What is that supposed to mean?


So I made the test that gives me an answer to that what kind of communist I am. And it said that I´m anarchist.
But I really dont know what kind of people are anarchists. :blink:
So could someone tell me simply what kind of people are "we". :D

Check out this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421) thread in learning, feel free to post any questions you might have. Another good introductory source is the Anarchist F.A.Q. (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/). I hope this helps.

[Scars]

<<Seriously though, both anarchists and Marxists want the same thing (communism) but while anarchists believe that it is possible to go straight from capitalism to communism, Marxists insist that a intermediate stage (socialism) is necessary.>>

That&#39;s not the beginning and end of it. There&#39;s a whole lot of additional crap to think about, for instance the nature of the state (is any state oppressive or is a state only oppressive in the hands of the bourgeoise?), teh structure of the revolution (spontanious vs organised, along with issues regarding the role of the party, if there even is a party), the nature of the economy (collective socialist economics vs a gift economy) etc etc. I don&#39;t believe in Socialism, but I do not think of myself as an Anarchist, or an Anarcho-Communist.

Anarchists are human beings. They have a heart, atleast one lung, atleast one kidney, a liver, a stomach, a small intestine, a large intestine, a colon, a bowel, hundreds of veins, blood and most importantly a brain.

You can&#39;t generalise on the basis of their ideology.

[Poum_1936]

So I made the test that gives me an answer to that what kind of communist I am. And it said that I´m anarchist.

...

I posted one of those tests recently as a JOKE. And nothing more than a JOKE. Because thats exactly what they are, a gigantic flaming JOKE. Dont let anyone tell you your politics. Decide your own politics youself. Decide who has the better arguement and so forth.


But I really dont know what kind of people are anarchists.

Baby eaters.

JOKE

Anarchists are not generally bad people. Just a little misguided in my opinion. Im sure Im gonna get shit for this though.

But decide for yourself, and here is the "Marxist FAQ" so to speak.

Princples of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

[Black Dagger]

Seriously though, both anarchists and Marxists want the same thing (communism) but while anarchists believe that it is possible to go straight from capitalism to communism, Marxists insist that a intermediate stage (socialism) is necessary.

This is wrong. Anarchism is not the &#39;belief&#39; that you can go straight from capitalism to communism, of course there will be &#39;transistion&#39;- because revolution is a process not an &#39;event&#39;- it&#39;s not like a switch you can just turn &#39;on and off&#39;. Rather the difference is that anarchists don&#39;t &#39;believe&#39; that a state structure is needed to &#39;over-see&#39; this process of transisitons- rather that the transistion can be self-managed by the population through organs that are being built now, revolutionary trade unions, collectives etc.- and that will be built during a revolutionary period and beyond into a post-capitalist society.

It&#39;s a misreprenstation to say that because anarchists don&#39;t support the idea of a transistional state, they don&#39;t think they a period of transistiona is needed at all. It&#39;s impossible for there not to be a &#39;transistional&#39; period- private property will not abolished instantly, more thorough organsation is needed and will perputally evolve, improve&#33; etc.
Rather that a state does not need to be erected to organise, oversee or &#39;run&#39; this process. We can help our future struggles now by building as much as we can these structures now, direct democracy--&#62; collectives, revolutionary workers structures etc., as these will provide a strong foundation for the time when capitalism and the bourgeois state are to be smashed. From that point onwards there will of course be more changes, more evolution in our organisations.

And i think, i&#39;ve just totally repeated the last paragraph- :P



It basically comes down to a difference in definitions on the nature of the state.

Yes and no. Between some marxists and anarchists this is the case - More &#39;libertarian&#39; marxists, as well &#39;classical&#39; marxists (terms are of course contentious, people generally who don&#39;t refer to hypenated marxism) often conceive the marxian &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; in the same or a very similar way as to what an anarchist would see as the (extra-state) self-organisation of the working class- the anarchist transitional process towards a communist society.

However, marxist leninists- onwards, more often conceptualise the DOP to be a more &#39;real&#39; state structure--&#62; that is more centralisation, with a central leadership or group, a more historically orthodox construction of a &#39;state&#39;, sometimes a vanguard party etc. However, not all marxists leninists-etc. conceptualise the state in this way- many have more in common with anarchists and libertarian marxists than they know or have thought- but nevertheless many do not, and rather conceputalise the state in more rigidly material terms. That is the &#39;difference&#39;. A convergence of anarchism and marxism is not unfeasible.



Anarchists insist that the state is the source of class struggle (and thus removing it will create a classless society) while Marxists know that the opposite is true (the state is a result, not the cause, of class struggle)

This statement is quite ignorant.

It is illogical to assert that the state is the source of the class struggle, when ones&#39; class is determined by its relationship to the means of production- the class struggle therefore being linked to capital, and those who control it- capitalists. To say that anarchists disagree with the above statement is a lie. Anarchists, like all communists, see the source of the class struggle, as the conflict between the capitalist and working classes (and the exploitation of the latter by the former).

There is a relationship betweent the capitalist class and the state, in that the rulers of the state are overwhelmingly comprised of individuals from the capitalist class.

Moreover, the state is constructed to protect the interests of the capitalist class, that is to uphold private property (the source of capitalist wealth/prosperity)---&#62; and to protect the capitalist system from the guns of the working class, by providing the police and military as counter-revolutionary organs.

During a period of revolutionary class struggle it is the state that is the biggest impediment to successful revolution, it&#39;s violent arms, the police and the military react with force to supress class conflict. But this does not mean they are the source of this conflict, the conflict between workers and the state is merely a symptom of the conflict between the workers and capitalists.




Just a little misguided in my opinion

How patronising&#33; Cheers&#33; :)

[ComradeOm]

This is what you get when you ask for someone to explain it better… someone does <_<


This is wrong. Anarchism is not the &#39;belief&#39; that you can go straight from capitalism to communism, of course there will be &#39;transistion&#39;- because revolution is a process not an &#39;event&#39;- it&#39;s not like a switch you can just turn &#39;on and off&#39;. Rather the difference is that anarchists don&#39;t &#39;believe&#39; that a state structure is needed to &#39;over-see&#39; this process of transisitons- rather that the transistion can be self-managed by the population through organs that are being built now, revolutionary trade unions, collectives etc.- and that will be built during a revolutionary period and beyond into a post-capitalist society.
In short anarchists do not believe in socialism, certainly not in the same way as Marxists do. You’re perfectly right to say that there will be a revolutionary transitional period, that much is obvious. What I was referring to (must probably poorly) was the socialist stage as a separate epoch distinct from both capitalism and communism and quite possibly lasting a number of decades, if not centuries. The state will still exist and still direct affairs, to a much reduced degree, before fading away while class distinctions cease to exist. C’est socialism.


Yes and no. Between some marxists and anarchists this is the case - More &#39;libertarian&#39; marxists, as well &#39;classical&#39; marxists (terms are of course contentious, people generally who don&#39;t refer to hypenated marxism) often conceive the marxian &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; in the same or a very similar way as to what an anarchist would see as the (extra-state) self-organisation of the working class- the anarchist transitional process towards a communist society.

However, marxist leninists- onwards, more often conceptualise the DOP to be a more &#39;real&#39; state structure--&#62; that is more centralisation, with a central leadership or group, a more historically orthodox construction of a &#39;state&#39;, sometimes a vanguard party etc. However, not all marxists leninists-etc. conceptualise the state in this way- many have more in common with anarchists and libertarian marxists than they know or have thought- but nevertheless many do not, and rather conceputalise the state in more rigidly material terms. That is the &#39;difference&#39;. A convergence of anarchism and marxism is not unfeasible.
Name one point of communist theory that everyone agrees on. There are rarely very defined labels, it is of course possible for theories and labels to run into each other at the extremes. I’m aware that some anarchists make use of Marxist theory (historical materialism for example) but I’ve always been under the impression that the considerable majority of anarchists (at least those that I’ve spoken to) tend not to stick with the, fairly rigid, Marxist definition of a state.


This statement is quite ignorant.

It is illogical to assert that the state is the source of the class struggle, when ones&#39; class is determined by its relationship to the means of production- the class struggle therefore being linked to capital, and those who control it- capitalists. To say that anarchists disagree with the above statement is a lie. Anarchists, like all communists, see the source of the class struggle, as the conflict between the capitalist and working classes (and the exploitation of the latter by the former).

There is a relationship betweent the capitalist class and the state, in that the rulers of the state are overwhelmingly comprised of individuals from the capitalist class.

Moreover, the state is constructed to protect the interests of the capitalist class, that is to uphold private property (the source of capitalist wealth/prosperity)---&#62; and to protect the capitalist system from the guns of the working class, by providing the police and military as counter-revolutionary organs.
Meh. Again its who you talk to. I have discussed this with a number of anarchists who I know personally and, unless I’ve misunderstood them, their basic argument for skipping socialism has been that the state is a separate entity, as opposed to merely an extension of the ruling class), which perpetuates class conflict. Their theory has been that as long as the state exists one class will be oppressing another ergo remove the state you remove class antagonism. It most likely depends on your definition of the state, perhaps a more Marxist inclined anarchist has a different view. Like I said earlier my knowledge of anarchism is derived from second hand sources and their contrast with Leninism.


During a period of revolutionary class struggle it is the state that is the biggest impediment to successful revolution, it&#39;s violent arms, the police and the military react with force to supress class conflict. But this does not mean they are the source of this conflict, the conflict between workers and the state is merely a symptom of the conflict between the workers and capitalists.
I think there are very few communists who will argue that the capitalist state must be pulled down during the revolution. Its what happens afterwards that the arguments appear. I don’t particularly feel the need to get into another debate on the necessity of socialism but I obviously feel that some degree of centralisation is required to both secure and maintain those gains made the revolution. And if someone don’t agree with that then they’re probably an anarchist.

[black magick hustla]

I want to point something out though.

Many anarchists do believe in a form of stateless socialism, because for ecample, I find it myself impossible that after the revolution, everyone would have the communist mindset.
You can&#39;t just automatically abolish superstition, for example.

[bombeverything]

What I was referring to (must probably poorly) was the socialist stage as a separate epoch distinct from both capitalism and communism and quite possibly lasting a number of decades, if not centuries. The state will still exist and still direct affairs, to a much reduced degree, before fading away while class distinctions cease to exist. C’est socialism.

Yes, in general we oppose this "transition phase" as the state still exists to "direct affairs". However I believe that Black Dagger was simply pointing out that many Marxists seem to believe that the working class are so incapable of organising themselves and functioning without some form of centralised authority, that they often assume that anarchists do not believe in any transition period at all. An insulting and conceited assumption at that.

Also, although there is no way that we advocate an anarchist society overnight, we would also reject the view that we should “wait centuries”. Surely the working masses have the capacity to conduct their own affairs on equal and communal lines, in free communities. Either way anarchists believe that the workers must free themselves. That is, that we have nothing to wait for.


Their theory has been that as long as the state exists one class will be oppressing another ergo remove the state you remove class antagonism.

I don&#39;t know any anarchists who believe this.


I don’t particularly feel the need to get into another debate on the necessity of socialism but I obviously feel that some degree of centralisation is required to both secure and maintain those gains made the revolution.

Sorry I can&#39;t help it. Feel free to ignore this if necessary. Why?

[Amusing Scrotum]

but I’ve always been under the impression that the considerable majority of anarchists (at least those that I’ve spoken to) tend not to stick with the, fairly rigid, Marxist definition of a state.

:lol:

Because Leninist states have had so much in common with Marx and Engel&#39;s view on the state. Please don&#39;t say that you actually believe that Leninist states resemble the Marxist definition of the workers&#39; state. Clearly someone has been reading too much of the Russian CP&#39;s propaganda.

As for the issue of Marxists and Anarchists, I think most serious Marxists and most serious Anarchists realise that there isn&#39;t a whole lot of difference between the two. Serious Anarchists regularly use historical materialism and other parts of Marx, and so they should and from time to time Marxists borrow Anarchist ideas. If this is going to be the Anarchist century as some suggest, then I&#39;d hate to miss out because of a century long feud. Though Marx was in the right. *Sticks tongue out and salutes picture of Lenin.* :lol:

[Hiero]

I support the USSR 1921-1953, China mostly from 1949-1970&#39;s, Cuba and the DPRK and i have done tests and they say im an Anarchists.

[spartafc]

advocates of inverted bourgeois philosophy&#33;
What is that supposed to mean?

Lenin - Socialism and Anarchism (1905)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/24.htm

[drain.you]

Mmm...anarchy tastes nice.
Comrade Morpheus, that link you provided, &#39;Basic Principles of Anarchism&#39; was a nice easy read and would recommend people interested in anarchy should read it.

[Northern Revolutionary]

Thanks to you all guys.
I dont know, maybe Im not anarchist. :blink:
I dont really know yet to what I believe but its not capitalism or imperialism for sure. :blink:
I really have to find out who I am... :D

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 4 2005, 01:52 PM
Because Leninist states have had so much in common with Marx and Engel&#39;s view on the state. Please don&#39;t say that you actually believe that Leninist states resemble the Marxist definition of the workers&#39; state. Clearly someone has been reading too much of the Russian CP&#39;s propaganda.
Give me some credit :rolleyes: Since when did Leninist state equal Stalinist? And for that matter, why do people insist on shitting on Lenin these days? The man only became the first to put Marx’s theories into real practice. Bah, that’s what you get for dying too early.

This is what I get for offering my views on where anarchism and Marxism diverge. Let me take another stab at this using some pretty clear language.
1) Marxist theory (and Leninist practice) states that following the demise of capitalism a socialist state will arise. Now, unless I’ve been grossly misinformed, this will not occur in anarchism.

2) Most Marxists and anarchists have differing definitions on the nature of the state. Obviously, as with everything on the left, the two ideologies tend to blur together at the edges.

Now, and without getting into a pointless discussion on the merits of each, can we at least agree on those two points?

[bombeverything]

And for that matter, why do people insist on shitting on Lenin these days? The man only became the first to put Marx’s theories into real practice

I think this would be because it is debatable whether Lenin "put Marxist theories into real practice". As for us anarchists, I believe it is quite obvious why we criticise Lenin.


1) Marxist theory (and Leninist practice) states that following the demise of capitalism a socialist state will arise. Now, unless I’ve been grossly misinformed, this will not occur in anarchism.

Yes this is correct. We do not believe in the creation of a "socialist state".


2) Most Marxists and anarchists have differing definitions on the nature of the state.

I guess I agree with that.


Obviously, as with everything on the left, the two ideologies tend to blur together at the edges.

Maybe with libertarian Marxism, but I wouldn&#39;t really say anarchism has all that much in common with Leninism. The assumptions of vanguardism leads to party rule over the working class, something which we strongly oppose. Although I am sure you would disagree.

:P


Thanks to you all guys.
I dont know, maybe Im not anarchist.
I dont really know yet to what I believe but its not capitalism or imperialism for sure.
I really have to find out who I am...

No problem. Just read, and talk to people. You will eventually work something out. Good luck&#33;

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:54 PM
(the state is a result, not the cause, of class struggle)


The state is and has been a tool to control the lower classes by the ruling class, regardless of what the ruling class may call itself.

Thier has got be a better way. F**k the state.

[ComradeOm]

[/QUOTE]
Almost there...


Maybe with libertarian Marxism, but I wouldn&#39;t really say anarchism has all that much in common with Leninism. The assumptions of vanguardism leads to party rule over the working class, something which we strongly oppose. Although I am sure you would disagree.

:P
Leninism has little in common with anarchism, that&#39;s true. Although where do anarchists stand on Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism? I was referring to Marxist theory as a whole, of which Leninism is but a subset.

Party rule is required only during the revolutionary transition stage. When the counter-revolutionaries have been defeated either the Party will broaden the scope of its membership or simply withdraw from all but the most critical government functions. No doubt you disagree as to the feasibility of that ;)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Give me some credit Since when did Leninist state equal Stalinist? And for that matter, why do people insist on shitting on Lenin these days? The man only became the first to put Marx’s theories into real practise. Bah, that’s what you get for dying too early.


If he had really planned on putting Marx&#39;s theories into practise he would have realised that it was virtually impossible to create a Communism in a backward underdeveloped country such as Russia. I guess he skipped that part of Marx&#39;s work.

As for him dying early, bah, don&#39;t be so silly as to buy into the great man in history argument. No one man can create history and Lenin&#39;s death made little or no difference as to how Russia would have turned out.


This is what I get for offering my views on where anarchism and Marxism diverge. Let me take another stab at this using some pretty clear language.
1) Marxist theory (and Leninist practice) states that following the demise of capitalism a socialist state will arise. Now, unless I’ve been grossly misinformed, this will not occur in anarchism.


1. Leninist practise is not Marxist theory.

2. The idea that Socialism was being built in Russia is silly at best. The NEP was a policy that openly tried to create Capitalism in Russia.

Lenin was a Menshivik without even knowing it, but thats what material reality will do to you.


Leninism has little in common with anarchism, that&#39;s true. Although where do anarchists stand on Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism? I was referring to Marxist theory as a whole, of which Leninism is but a subset.

Marxist theory and Leninist theory are completely different. Leninism is not an advance on Marxism and it is better to say that Communism has two competing core theories, Marxism and Leninism. I know which of these theories is better, do you?


Party rule is required only during the revolutionary transition stage. When the counter-revolutionaries have been defeated either the Party will broaden the scope of its membership or simply withdraw from all but the most critical government functions. No doubt you disagree as to the feasibility of that

Been as not Leninist inspired party has ever withered away, any sensible person would be misguided to think that suddenly it may start to happen. We have had a whole century of failed Leninist parties on which to base our judgements on. Thats a lot of evidence.

[ComradeOm]

If he had really planned on putting Marx&#39;s theories into practise he would have realised that it was virtually impossible to create a Communism in a backward underdeveloped country such as Russia. I guess he skipped that part of Marx&#39;s work.
And so what should he have done? Watched the Tsar fall and anarchy grip the country? For that matter what should we do now, merely sit back and wait until the material conditions become more favourable? Marx was not an economic determinant, the economic base can be influenced to such a degree as to bring about the right material conditions. Lenin knew full well about Russia’s backwardness and he decided to do something about it. To lead what proletariat there was to take power and hold on until the country had been transformed into one capable of building socialism. It may have been a long shot but it was certainly worth a go.


As for him dying early, bah, don&#39;t be so silly as to buy into the great man in history argument. No one man can create history and Lenin&#39;s death made little or no difference as to how Russia would have turned out.
Probably true but I’d love to know what would’ve changed. Lenin didn’t recognise the creeping bureaucracy until it was too late. Personally I consider him to be the finest Marxist theorist since Marx himself so I’d like to know what he would’ve done to counteract the problem.


1. Leninist practise is not Marxist theory.

2. The idea that Socialism was being built in Russia is silly at best. The NEP was a policy that openly tried to create Capitalism in Russia.
Then please show me someone else who has come even close to implementing Marxism.

When Lenin died the USSR was still in its revolutionary phase. As I said above, the idea was to build the material conditions so that Socialism could take root. Obviously that failed and provided some valuable lessons.


Marxist theory and Leninist theory are completely different. Leninism is not an advance on Marxism and it is better to say that Communism has two competing core theories, Marxism and Leninism. I know which of these theories is better, do you?
Tell me, if Marxism and Leninism are competing ideologies, and I don’r for a second believe they are, why does capitalism still exist? Lenin’s theory of imperialism is the only explanation that I have heard that makes any sort of sense. But if you have a different theory then feel free to share it.

Imperialism was Lenin’s major contribution to Marxism and one that I think benefits all Marxists. The rest of wha could be considered Leninism is Marxism applied to an imperialistic world. Seeing as how the capitalists can exploit the proletariat of under developed nations to buy off their own workers, its only common sense to encourage revolution there in an effort to destabilize the first world as well.


Been as not Leninist inspired party has ever withered away, any sensible person would be misguided to think that suddenly it may start to happen. We have had a whole century of failed Leninist parties on which to base our judgements on. Thats a lot of evidence.
And the evidence to the contrary? 150 years on from the Manifesto and capitalism is still going strong. That’s a dangerous road you’re walking down as either Marxism will prevail "eventually" or the entire ideology is bolloxs. Generations of workers have being telling themselevs the former as they slaved away and I certainly don&#39;t believe the latter. Capitalism evolved and so did Marxism.

And please distinguish between Stalinist dictatorships and Lenin’s efforts. The man was involved in a single revolution before that Georgian bastard stole his ideals and perverted them beyond belief.

[Amusing Scrotum]

And so what should he have done? Watched the Tsar fall and anarchy grip the country? For that matter what should we do now, merely sit back and wait until the material conditions become more favourable? Marx was not an economic determinant, the economic base can be influenced to such a degree as to bring about the right material conditions. Lenin knew full well about Russia’s backwardness and he decided to do something about it. To lead what proletariat there was to take power and hold on until the country had been transformed into one capable of building socialism. It may have been a long shot but it was certainly worth a go.


Theres many things Lenin could have done, some of them probably would have worked others may have failed miserably. My personal suggestion would be that he had left the original Parliament in place, Menshiviks and all and helped create a social democracy of sorts.

I don&#39;t particularly blame Lenin for Russia&#39;s downfall and with hindsight its easy to point the finger. But basically I just wish he had been more faithful to the people. The result could have been interesting if he&#39;d allowed the Kronstadt uprising to happen etc. Basically if power had been given to the people I think we may have seen an interesting experiment with radical democracy of sorts, not Communism but an interesting version of Capitalism. Sort of like the Paris Commune of 1871, a kind of social Capitalism which may have allowed a transition to Communism when the material conditions were there.

As for what we should do now, well agitate, annoy and destroy. We can&#39;t create the material conditions but we may be able to help make them arise and if those conditions arise no party should seize state power as the guardians of the proletariat. Just let the proletariat have the power they will quite rightly have fought for.


Probably true but I’d love to know what would’ve changed. Lenin didn’t recognise the creeping bureaucracy until it was too late. Personally I consider him to be the finest Marxist theorist since Marx himself so I’d like to know what he would’ve done to counteract the problem.

Maybe things would have been different. Less purges, possibly more democracy etc. But the result really wouldn&#39;t have been all that different, Capitalism.

As for the finest Marxist theorist since Marx, well thats debatable. I suppose some Leninist theory is okay, other parts are poop. There have probably been better Marxist theoreticians since Marx. I don&#39;t know of many because on this count I haven&#39;t yet read much post Marx Communist theory.


Then please show me someone else who has come even close to implementing Marxism.

When Lenin died the USSR was still in its revolutionary phase. As I said above, the idea was to build the material conditions so that Socialism could take root. Obviously that failed and provided some valuable lessons.

Russia was still in the revolutionary stage as it was progressing towards Capitalism pretty quickly. Stalin and his five year plans did the most to bring about modern Capitalism.

As for the material conditions for Socialism, not really. I think two plans needed to be carried out, rapid industrialisation and increasing workers&#39; control. The industrialisation was followed but the workers&#39; control was pretty much abandoned under Lenin. A huge mistake, as the only way workers&#39; will learn to control their workplace is by letting them. They&#39;ll made huge fuck ups of course, but they&#39;ll learn from them. Thats the valuable lesson we can learn from Russia.

On the question of implementing Marxism, the closest anyone has come is probably the Anarchists in the Spanish civil war. They may not have called it a Marxist society, but it was pretty close.


Tell me, if Marxism and Leninism are competing ideologies, and I don’r for a second believe they are, why does capitalism still exist? Lenin’s theory of imperialism is the only explanation that I have heard that makes any sort of sense. But if you have a different theory then feel free to share it.

Imperialism was Lenin’s major contribution to Marxism and one that I think benefits all Marxists. The rest of wha could be considered Leninism is Marxism applied to an imperialistic world. Seeing as how the capitalists can exploit the proletariat of under developed nations to buy off their own workers, its only common sense to encourage revolution there in an effort to destabilize the first world as well.

Capitalism still exists because it has still not really reached its peak, I think the peak of Capitalism is probably now, maybe it is starting its gradual decline. Though what you should not forget is that Feudalism and the other orders took centuries before they died out. Capitalism is still pretty new in this respect and theres still a lot of life in the old dog yet.

It will take at least a century or so until we see the downfall of Capitalism in the advanced Capitalist nations. As for the third world it will probably take another two hundred years until they even achieve modern Capitalism, though even that looks optimistic. History does drag on and for the moment patience is required, however annoying it may seem.

You see that is whats basically wrong with Lenin&#39;s theory of western workers&#39; being bought off. It discards material conditions and trys to come up with an answer as to why western workers&#39; have not yet overthrown Capitalism. Its a theory devised solely out of Lenin&#39;s frustration towards the western worker and therefore not really a Marxist theory at all.


And the evidence to the contrary? 150 years on from the Manifesto and capitalism is still going strong. That’s a dangerous road you’re walking down as either Marxism will prevail "eventually" or the entire ideology is bolloxs. Generations of workers have being telling themselevs the former as they slaved away and I certainly don&#39;t believe the latter. Capitalism evolved and so did Marxism.

And please distinguish between Stalinist dictatorships and Lenin’s efforts. The man was involved in a single revolution before that Georgian bastard stole his ideals and perverted them beyond belief.

Capitalism did evolve because thats what happens with social orders, they evolve. The basic theories of Marx however don&#39;t need to evolve, as they still hold true. Certainly parts of Marx&#39;s work can be discarded because he didn&#39;t get everything right. But the basics of Marxism still hold true and the only thing that needs to evolve is the language in which they were written. Marxism in modern English would be a great addition, but other than that none of the important parts need to change.

As for distinguishing between Stalinist parties and Leninist parties, theres really not a lot to distinguish between. Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and Maoist parties all have the same basic characteristics, obedience to the the great and enlightened leader.

Now I don&#39;t know about you, but I don&#39;t want any fucker telling me what to do. I have my own mind and while I&#39;m probably wrong on a lot of things, I&#39;ll discover in my own time and in my own way.

Just look at the RCP and the RCPers&#39;, its Bob this and Bob that. Bob&#39;s no God, theres no such thing as God and he&#39;s probably wrong about loads of things. The enlightened and brilliant Bob is just as enlightened and brilliant as you or I and therefore I don&#39;t need Bob to tell me what I should think and neither does anyone one else.

[ComradeOm]

Theres many things Lenin could have done, some of them probably would have worked others may have failed miserably. My personal suggestion would be that he had left the original Parliament in place, Menshiviks and all and helped create a social democracy of sorts.

I don&#39;t particularly blame Lenin for Russia&#39;s downfall and with hindsight its easy to point the finger. But basically I just wish he had been more faithful to the people. The result could have been interesting if he&#39;d allowed the Kronstadt uprising to happen etc. Basically if power had been given to the people I think we may have seen an interesting experiment with radical democracy of sorts, not Communism but an interesting version of Capitalism. Sort of like the Paris Commune of 1871, a kind of social Capitalism which may have allowed a transition to Communism when the material conditions were there.
You have to put Lenin’s actions in perspective. Its easy to point out what could’ve been done from the lofty vantage point of today but when you’re in the midst of the action its rarely clear cut. Kronstadt is a perfect example – the sailor’s motives may be admirable but Lenin, sitting in the Kremlin with the country in chaos, could hardly be expected to see them as anything but a challenge to the revolution.

And it was the revolution that Lenin was acting to protect. He was trying to bring the country out of capitalism while shaking off the feudal past and into a socialist future. He saw what had to be done and did it. It wasn’t the perfect revolution but it worked, to a degree. Remember that there was a democracy of sorts at work within the Party itself. There were various factions constantly suggesting new courses of action and it wasn’t until the Purges over a decade later that the CPSU became a puppet organization parroting the leader’s line.

You also have to remember that the country was disintegrating at an alarming degree. I suspect that the softly-softly democratic approach would’ve simply cause the whole edifice to fall apart. No challenge to the Bolsheviks could be tolerated until the country settled down.


As for what we should do now, well agitate, annoy and destroy. We can&#39;t create the material conditions but we may be able to help make them arise and if those conditions arise no party should seize state power as the guardians of the proletariat. Just let the proletariat have the power they will quite rightly have fought for.
Now ask yourself what you would’ve done in Russia at that time. Remember that it was still a peasant state barely even capitalist. The proletariat were concentrated in major cities and there was no possible way that a “traditional” Marxist revolution could’ve taken place. So Lenin did what he could to “agitate, annoy and destroy” all in the hopes of making life better for the people.


Maybe things would have been different. Less purges, possibly more democracy etc. But the result really wouldn&#39;t have been all that different, Capitalism.
Again, what would you have done? The chance arises and we have to grasp it. I’d rather one failed revolution than a dozen that never started.


As for the finest Marxist theorist since Marx, well thats debatable. I suppose some Leninist theory is okay, other parts are poop. There have probably been better Marxist theoreticians since Marx. I don&#39;t know of many because on this count I haven&#39;t yet read much post Marx Communist theory.
Lenin was certainly the most complete revolutionary seen since Marx. He had it all. A brilliant grasp of philosophy, political and economic theory, and practice. That’s one of the reasons that he has cast such a shadow over Marxism. I honestly can’t think of anyone else who approaches his influence on post-Marx theory (for good or bad). He made mistakes and was wrong on issues like any human but he was right far more than he was wrong.


Russia was still in the revolutionary stage as it was progressing towards Capitalism pretty quickly. Stalin and his five year plans did the most to bring about modern Capitalism.

As for the material conditions for Socialism, not really. I think two plans needed to be carried out, rapid industrialisation and increasing workers&#39; control. The industrialisation was followed but the workers&#39; control was pretty much abandoned under Lenin. A huge mistake, as the only way workers&#39; will learn to control their workplace is by letting them. They&#39;ll made huge fuck ups of course, but they&#39;ll learn from them. Thats the valuable lesson we can learn from Russia.

On the question of implementing Marxism, the closest anyone has come is probably the Anarchists in the Spanish civil war. They may not have called it a Marxist society, but it was pretty close.
As I said above Lenin was not in a perfect revolution. He had to deal with the Reds, the Whites and, most importantly, the peasants. The latter still made up the vast bulk of the population and were not necessarily friendly towards the Bolsheviks. Rapid industrialisation was necessary to create a proletariat who could take possession of the factories. Democratic ideals had to be put on the back burner for the initial revolution. If all had gone to plan, after the security of Russia was secured progress could’ve been made on that issue. And I remain convinced that Lenin fully intended to carry through on his promises made in his writings. The whole point of the revolution was to liberate the workers.

As for Spain, both the International Brigades and the anarchists did well there. But it was not a revolution per se and the Republicans relied heavily on Soviet support (now there’s an irony). Of course if you’re going solely by end results then Spain folded far quicker than the USSR and led on to fascism.


Capitalism still exists because it has still not really reached its peak, I think the peak of Capitalism is probably now, maybe it is starting its gradual decline. Though what you should not forget is that Feudalism and the other orders took centuries before they died out. Capitalism is still pretty new in this respect and theres still a lot of life in the old dog yet.

It will take at least a century or so until we see the downfall of Capitalism in the advanced Capitalist nations. As for the third world it will probably take another two hundred years until they even achieve modern Capitalism, though even that looks optimistic. History does drag on and for the moment patience is required, however annoying it may seem.

You see that is whats basically wrong with Lenin&#39;s theory of western workers&#39; being bought off. It discards material conditions and trys to come up with an answer as to why western workers&#39; have not yet overthrown Capitalism. Its a theory devised solely out of Lenin&#39;s frustration towards the western worker and therefore not really a Marxist theory at all.
Its funny how every generation seems to think that theirs is capitalism’s last. You can be damned sure that Marx thought that; and those societies came far closer than we are today. I doubt capitalism will last centuries though, the productive forces at its control, and therefore ready to turn on it, are far, far greater than those of any previous historical society.

What material conditions does Lenin discard? I look around and I see exactly what he described – a proletariat too absorbed with consumer goods and wealth to think on their situation. They have been co-opted to the cause of their natural enemies. Marxism does not allow for this, the ruling class may win the proletariat’s loyalty through religion, nationalism etc, but not material wealth. Marxism does not account for imperialism – the practice of extracting a superprofit from underdeveloped nations. This superprofit can then be used to both buy off the workers and maintain profits. Leninism perfectly explains the new relationship between the classes.


Capitalism did evolve because thats what happens with social orders, they evolve. The basic theories of Marx however don&#39;t need to evolve, as they still hold true. Certainly parts of Marx&#39;s work can be discarded because he didn&#39;t get everything right. But the basics of Marxism still hold true and the only thing that needs to evolve is the language in which they were written. Marxism in modern English would be a great addition, but other than that none of the important parts need to change.
Capitalism evolved into imperialism ;) But I otherwise fully agree. Leninism does not replace an iota of Marxism, it merely complements and adds to it.


As for distinguishing between Stalinist parties and Leninist parties, theres really not a lot to distinguish between. Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and Maoist parties all have the same basic characteristics, obedience to the the great and enlightened leader.

Now I don&#39;t know about you, but I don&#39;t want any fucker telling me what to do. I have my own mind and while I&#39;m probably wrong on a lot of things, I&#39;ll discover in my own time and in my own way.
Again you’re mixing Lenin and Stalin. Lenin made no moves whatsoever to glorify himself. He freely admitted when he was wrong and was often criticised from within the Party. The problem was that the man was perhaps brilliant and people recognised that. Towards the end of his life people began to treat his word uncritically, as they often do/did with Marx. Both of those spoke out against this practice and urged the proletariat to question and probe their words as often as possible. Lenin was probably wrong, just as Marx undoubtedly was, on many things but the core of his writings and teaching remain solid. People will always elevate their heroes but that is rarely the fault of those at the centre of attention. Of course the likes of Stalin and Mao were totalitarian bastards who actively encouraged their own cults.

[enigma2517]

Just look at the RCP and the RCPers&#39;, its Bob this and Bob that. Bob&#39;s no God, theres no such thing as God and he&#39;s probably wrong about loads of things.

Please do not insult my deity like that

Chairman Avakian is one day going to transport all of his faithful followers to another utopian world in his mystical spacecraft...entirely powered by the might of the dialectic

;)

[Amusing Scrotum]

You have to put Lenin’s actions in perspective. Its easy to point out what could’ve been done from the lofty vantage point of today but when you’re in the midst of the action its rarely clear cut. Kronstadt is a perfect example – the sailor’s motives may be admirable but Lenin, sitting in the Kremlin with the country in chaos, could hardly be expected to see them as anything but a challenge to the revolution.

What you have to remember here is that the Kronstadt sailors were incredibly loyal, both during the original revolution and the civil war. The likelihood that anyone could see the Kronstadt sailors as a threat to the revolution is very low. So either Lenin was very stupid, I doubt this, or he disliked any challenge to his authority.

The Kronstadt sailors were only asking for what the revolution had promised, freedom, democracy etc. They were not the lackeys of western imperialism, only an idiot would think this and Lenin was no idiot. Therefore it is logical to conclude that due to the change in Lenin&#39;s own material conditions, his perspective had changed and the enlightened despot Lenin had therefore abandoned any ideals about workers&#39; control.


And it was the revolution that Lenin was acting to protect. He was trying to bring the country out of capitalism while shaking off the feudal past and into a socialist future. He saw what had to be done and did it. It wasn’t the perfect revolution but it worked, to a degree. Remember that there was a democracy of sorts at work within the Party itself. There were various factions constantly suggesting new courses of action and it wasn’t until the Purges over a decade later that the CPSU became a puppet organization parroting the leader’s line.

Firstly, the revolution Lenin was protecting was a coup. Now the rights and wrongs of the Russian coup are another debate, but it was a coup not a revolution. The revolution had been stolen when Lenin grabbed power.

Secondly, you can&#39;t bring a country out of Capitalism when it was still largely feudal. Its virtually impossible. Therefore it was also impossible for Russia to build a Socialist future.

Thirdly, that "democracy of sorts" you speak of had pretty much ended by 1918. The only democracy that existed was that of the Bolshevik leadership clique telling the Bolshevik party members what to do, and the membership in turn telling the workers&#39; what to do. Yes the factions of the leadership had discussions and differences, but the lower members of the party, who remember are supposed to be the most advanced workers&#39;, just took orders of the party leadership. The only difference between the party under Lenin and the party under Stalin is that under Stalin the party leadership was reduced to one. The process of the leadership telling everyone what to do, stayed the same.

So yes there was a "democracy of sorts" under Lenin and it was a poor version of bourgeois democracy. Present day America is more democratic than the Russian CP of Lenin&#39;s time and that says a lot.


You also have to remember that the country was disintegrating at an alarming degree. I suspect that the softly-softly democratic approach would’ve simply cause the whole edifice to fall apart. No challenge to the Bolsheviks could be tolerated until the country settled down.

Tiffle. The excuse that says democracy wouldn&#39;t have worked, is the same excuse the opponents of the Chartists and the Suffragettes used. The only difference between Leninists and the opponents of these movements, is that the opponents of the Suffragettes and the Chartists learned and changed their line, Leninists haven&#39;t.

The line "No challenge to the Bolsheviks could be tolerated until the country settled down," is perhaps the best line I&#39;ve ever seen against Leninism. Amusingly it actually comes from a Leninist, the irony.

You see this approach is exactly whats wrong with Leninism and is why it always disintegrates into authoritarian despots murdering anyone who says "boo." The revolution is all about question and challenge, anything else is a betrayal to the revolution. You see the view that says everything will be great after everything settles down is incredibly misguided because things never settle down, well at least thats what the leadership always says. So its really not surprising that Stalin emerged as Lenin&#39;s successor because Stalin was a much better Leninist than Lenin ever was.

On a side note, I suppose your all in favour of the anti terror bills, they seem to have a lot in common with the Leninist train of thought. "No challenge to Blair can be tolerated until the country settles down." :lol:


Now ask yourself what you would’ve done in Russia at that time. Remember that it was still a peasant state barely even capitalist. The proletariat were concentrated in major cities and there was no possible way that a “traditional” Marxist revolution could’ve taken place. So Lenin did what he could to “agitate, annoy and destroy” all in the hopes of making life better for the people.


Its interesting you say "traditional Marxist revolution" as if Marx&#39;s later changed his view on revolution. He didn&#39;t. Therefore all you can say is that is that there is no way a Marxist revolution could take place.

As for what I think should have happened, I pointed that out earlier. Devolve more power to the people and try to create a radical Capitalist democracy. Other than that anything else is impossible, material conditions get in the way. Another huge gain would be to get rid of the vanguard, its the most anti Marxist idea in the history of failed post Marxist ideas, except maybe Market Socialism.


Again, what would you have done? The chance arises and we have to grasp it. I’d rather one failed revolution than a dozen that never started.


Again you fall into the trap of thinking the coup was the revolution, it wasn&#39;t. The coup and the subsequent vanguard pretty much doomed any revolutionary thought to the dustbin.

As for what I would done in "Lenin&#39;s shoes," well its quite simple really, devolve all power to the people. Now material conditions would have probably led to failure in this respect, but only that would constitute a revolution that failed.


Lenin was certainly the most complete revolutionary seen since Marx. He had it all. A brilliant grasp of philosophy, political and economic theory, and practice. That’s one of the reasons that he has cast such a shadow over Marxism. I honestly can’t think of anyone else who approaches his influence on post-Marx theory (for good or bad). He made mistakes and was wrong on issues like any human but he was right far more than he was wrong.


True Lenin casts a shadow over Marxism, a bad one, but still a huge shadow. With any hope this will disappear over the next century and we&#39;ll see a Neo-Marxism of sorts.

As for Lenin making the mistakes, I think the fact that every Leninist state crashed and burned during the last century and that the remaining ones are actively restoring Capitalism with a big smile about it. Shows that whoever tries to put Leninist theory into practise, including Lenin, fails. Shouldn&#39;t this show that Leninist theory has major flaws. Unfortunately some people don&#39;t think so, but thats to be expected, some people still think religion is a force for the good.


As I said above Lenin was not in a perfect revolution. He had to deal with the Reds, the Whites and, most importantly, the peasants. The latter still made up the vast bulk of the population and were not necessarily friendly towards the Bolsheviks. Rapid industrialisation was necessary to create a proletariat who could take possession of the factories. Democratic ideals had to be put on the back burner for the initial revolution. If all had gone to plan, after the security of Russia was secured progress could’ve been made on that issue. And I remain convinced that Lenin fully intended to carry through on his promises made in his writings. The whole point of the revolution was to liberate the workers.


Lenin did participate in a near perfect coup, the aftermath was unfortunate with regards the Whites&#39; and the Kulaks&#39;. However doesn&#39;t it show you that if the majority of the population oppose the revolution, then the material conditions aren&#39;t there for the revolution to succeed?

As for democratic ideals back burner to ensure the revolutions success, well I suppose you would have a point if you were a Menshivik, or one of the other groups of Anarchists and Socialists in Russia pre coup. Now if they&#39;d abandoned democratic ideals then maybe Lenin&#39;s coup would have been a miserable failure. But they were pretty decent people who all kept reasonably true to the ideals they promised. Lenin abandoned his pretty quickly and I really don&#39;t think he had any intention of coming back to them. Power tastes to good.


As for Spain, both the International Brigades and the anarchists did well there. But it was not a revolution per se and the Republicans relied heavily on Soviet support (now there’s an irony). Of course if you’re going solely by end results then Spain folded far quicker than the USSR and led on to fascism.

My knowledge of history is not great, but as I remember Russia withdrew support for the various Republican groups pretty quickly.

As for it not being a revolution per se, perhaps, but what is true is that I&#39;d rather see a revolution crushed by outside help from Fascist Germany and Italy, than a revolution that slowly rots from the inside.

Russia may have lasted a long time, but it was rotten for nearly all that time, even you accept this. However Spain was beautiful for a short time and personally I&#39;d rather see short lived beauty than long lived ugliness.


Its funny how every generation seems to think that theirs is capitalism’s last. You can be damned sure that Marx thought that; and those societies came far closer than we are today. I doubt capitalism will last centuries though, the productive forces at its control, and therefore ready to turn on it, are far, far greater than those of any previous historical society.


I really don&#39;t think Capitalism is anywhere near its end, it has in my opinion at least another seventy years left. Though been as neither of us can predict the future any discussion on Capitalisms end will be pointless.


What material conditions does Lenin discard? I look around and I see exactly what he described – a proletariat too absorbed with consumer goods and wealth to think on their situation. They have been co-opted to the cause of their natural enemies. Marxism does not allow for this, the ruling class may win the proletariat’s loyalty through religion, nationalism etc, but not material wealth. Marxism does not account for imperialism – the practice of extracting a superprofit from underdeveloped nations. This superprofit can then be used to both buy off the workers and maintain profits. Leninism perfectly explains the new relationship between the classes.


Personally I don&#39;t agree with the theory of superprofit, it may be possible for a short period of time, but isn&#39;t something that lasts very long. As for Lenin&#39;s theory of nations as classes, thats also complete bullshit in my opinion.

Why do I think Lenin ignores material conditions with this analysis. Well its quite simple really, Lenin&#39;s working on the theory that Russia had the material conditions for Socialism and an emancipated proletariat, in truth it had neither, something history has quite clearly shown us.

Also the theory of workers&#39; being "bought off" suggests that the workers&#39; are no longer producing surplus value for the Capitalist, this is not true. They are still not receiving the full value of their labour.

Now been as there is and has never been an emancipated working class anywhere in the world, applying Lenin&#39;s theories means that every worker has been bought off. Therefore Leninist theory suggests that an elite group of revolutionaries has to create Communism for the worker. This leads me to suggest that there is really no point in anyone trying to install Communism for a group of people who can&#39;t be bothered to do it for themselves. Personally if this is the reason as to why we don&#39;t have Communism, then I&#39;d rather try and succeed in politics or business. So its not really surprising that so many Leninists have entered politics because using Lenin&#39;s theories, they realise that they&#39;re better off abandoning the cause.

However if you think Marx&#39;s was right then its logical to suggest that the material conditions have not been there for the western worker. They haven&#39;t "sold out," its just the material conditions haven&#39;t arisen yet.

I think Marx was right in his opinion, the evidence so far suggests he was. Therefore I think Lenin&#39;s theory pretty much abandoned material reality and is solely based on frustration. He tried to find an answer when if he&#39;d look at Marx&#39;s work he&#39;d see Marx already had an answer. This is why I discard Lenin&#39;s theory and your claim that he was a great Marxist thinker, because evidence shows he was not thinking in a remotely Marxist way.


Capitalism evolved into imperialism But I otherwise fully agree. Leninism does not replace an iota of Marxism, it merely complements and adds to it.


Marx took into account how Capitalism looks for foreign sources. Therefore Capitalism hasn&#39;t magically evolved into imperialism, it always has looked for foreign outlets and new markets. Marx took this into account, therefore Lenin&#39;s theory isn&#39;t really anything than an attempt to change a perfectly good theory.

As to what Leninism has added, the most notable thing is the vanguard which as history has shown us, is crap. It was worth a try but its been proven to be an abysmal failure and should now be completely abandoned.

So Leninism in my opinion has added to Marxism, poor theories, hero worship and a long list of failed states. Nothing to be proud of.


Again you’re mixing Lenin and Stalin. Lenin made no moves whatsoever to glorify himself. He freely admitted when he was wrong and was often criticised from within the Party. The problem was that the man was perhaps brilliant and people recognised that. Towards the end of his life people began to treat his word uncritically, as they often do/did with Marx. Both of those spoke out against this practice and urged the proletariat to question and probe their words as often as possible. Lenin was probably wrong, just as Marx undoubtedly was, on many things but the core of his writings and teaching remain solid. People will always elevate their heroes but that is rarely the fault of those at the centre of attention. Of course the likes of Stalin and Mao were totalitarian bastards who actively encouraged their own cults.

You treat his work incredibly uncritically, you abide by every ill thought out poopy theory. So maybe it is that he is that brilliant, though I doubt it as the last century has shown us that virtually every Leninist state along with many Leninist parties have crashed and burned. So Lenin&#39;s brilliance, is at best debatable.

Marx however has not been proved wrong in this respect. Perhaps when we see a revolution in an advanced Capitalist country we&#39;ll see gaping holes in Marx&#39;s theory. Until then any criticism lacks evidence. Of course Marx was wrong about how long Capitalism would be around for, this was Marx being un Marx like and writing what he hoped. Marx was brilliant but he was not able to predict the future in any meaningful way. He was likely wrong about dialectics too, I remain open minded on this though.

So the core of Marxism remains solid but the core of Leninism lies in tatters.

As for you saying that Lenin didn&#39;t want a hero status like Mao or Stalin, well maybe he didn&#39;t. But the position he created for himself as enlightened leader and master of the dialectic sure didn&#39;t help. To be honest I don&#39;t really care whether he wanted a hero status or not, I&#39;m more concerned with people still abiding by theories of his that have been completely disproved by the events of the last century. It reminds me of the creationists in a funny sort of way.

I don&#39;t see a problem with someone calling themselves a Marxist, Marx&#39;s theories have not been disproved to any great degree and I suspect they never will. Lenin&#39;s theories have been more or less completely disproved, therefore I can only conclude that Leninists see Lenin as some form of deity. That many of them constantly bring up a passage or two of Lenin&#39;s work in debate, as if it were scripture, really doesn&#39;t help with regards my view on them.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Please do not insult my deity like that

Chairman Avakian is one day going to transport all of his faithful followers to another utopian world in his mystical spacecraft...entirely powered by the might of the dialectic


Yeah I&#39;ve heard about the spaceship Saint Bob&#39;s been building. Though apparently their having trouble getting the dialectic to power it. :lol:

[ComradeOm]

Okay. After typing this out point by point I seem to be repeating myself again and again. The bulk of this discussion seems to centre on the fact that Lenin did not install a lasting democracy. Fair enough, let’s work through the revolution chronologically from coup to Kronstadt. Remind me if I miss a point you addressed earlier. History time then. I have far too much time on my hands.

First of all I want to make clear that this was not a perfect revolution, if indeed any revolution could be called that. It went on for five years and it took the country over a decade to recover. In the end it totally changed the face of Russia.

In 1917 Russia had its February Revolution. This could be defined as the start of the brief liberal rule in Russia. But even then many of the feudal structures remained under Kerensky and continued to rot away at an alarming rate. Russia was simply disintegrating. Unlike 1905, there was a proletariat strong enough to play a role in events. And, although the proletariat was nowhere near as large as those who existed in Western Europe at the time, Russia was unique in that both the bourgeois and aristocracy were significantly weakened.

Now Lenin looks around, sees the failings of the liberals, the temporary disarray of the aristocrats, and decided to go for broke. His support base is strong enough and so he decides to embark on the great socialist experiment. No more social democratic bullshit, time to put both his and Marx’s theories to the test. The coup, if you could even call it that, sparks off the revolution in which all the counter-revolutionaries come crawling out of the woodwork.

After all why should Russia go through capitalism if it could be avoided in any way? Lenin saw the misery that the capitalists had caused in Europe and was determined that the same system of grief should never appear in Russia. He was motivated purely by the desire to liberate the workers. That at least is apparent from his works.

You know the story of the next few years. War ravaged the countryside and the country descended into chaos. For all purposes Russia ceased to exist for those brief few years. It was all the Soviets could do just to hold the country together and beat off the foreigners and Whites. Debates and arguments flew freely within the Congress of the Soviets but elections or any serious democratic exercise would’ve been impossible in that climate. I trust you can see that. Even building “socialism from below” was impossible in a country filled with peasants. So both the war and the need to build the material conditions required for socialist would require much state direction. Of course this was queried by those in the Congress and even in the Council of Commissars. Lenin won the doubters over though and the Party marched on. But on with our trip…

By 1922 things has calmed down slightly but the country lay in ruins. The economy was in tatters with production a fraction of pre-war levels. Bands of brigades still roamed the countryside and low level fighting was still ongoing. Then in Kronstadt a group of anarchist sailors take up arms against the Reds. Like the rest of the challengers they were brushed aside. The revolution was still on course. Another year or so to ensure the survival of the state and by then the political situation would be stable. Then you could talk about “devolving power” Another decade, maybe two, and the material conditions would be ripe for the transition to socialism.

But that didn’t happen. The bureaucracy was too firmly entrenched within the Communist Party, the final question that Lenin was unable to answer. Maybe it was a consequence of such an imperfect revolution, maybe its inherent in party vanguards. Either way if I were to draw a lesson from the Russian revolution it would be on how to improve on Lenin, not automatically scrapping this theories because something went wrong along the way.

But Lenin did more than any other communist to bring the world closer to socialism. His feat has not been replicated since though few have tried. I stress that I would not expect a vanguard (though that was hardly a Leninist invention) to have much success in a developed nation. However it is the only way forward in an undeveloped one and its in those nations that the world revolution will start.


My knowledge of history is not great, but as I remember Russia withdrew support for the various Republican groups pretty quickly.

As for it not being a revolution per se, perhaps, but what is true is that I&#39;d rather see a revolution crushed by outside help from Fascist Germany and Italy, than a revolution that slowly rots from the inside.

Russia may have lasted a long time, but it was rotten for nearly all that time, even you accept this. However Spain was beautiful for a short time and personally I&#39;d rather see short lived beauty than long lived ugliness
Stalin grew bored after it became clear that the Popular Fronts would not succeed. But it was Soviet soldiers and tanks that enabled the Republicans to fight on as long as they could. In fact it was their only source of aid.

And, for the record, the USSR was rotten for the vast majority of its existence. It was trapped in some bureaucratic limbo, the means of production had been taken from the capitalists but not yet socialised. Now Lenin had his troubles but by the 30’s the USSR had secured both peace and the material conditions.


Personally I don&#39;t agree with the theory of superprofit, it may be possible for a short period of time, but isn&#39;t something that lasts very long. As for Lenin&#39;s theory of nations as classes, thats also complete bullshit in my opinion.

Why do I think Lenin ignores material conditions with this analysis. Well its quite simple really, Lenin&#39;s working on the theory that Russia had the material conditions for Socialism and an emancipated proletariat, in truth it had neither, something history has quite clearly shown us.

Also the theory of workers&#39; being "bought off" suggests that the workers&#39; are no longer producing surplus value for the Capitalist, this is not true. They are still not receiving the full value of their labour.
As I’ve said, the material conditions were not there. Lenin did not ignore this; he merely applied Marx’s theory of the base and superstructure. In one sentence the political superstructure exerts influence on the economic base. Of course the base wins every time but perhaps it should be possible for a strong enough state to create the required material conditions. That is where the Party comes in.

The workers are still being robbed of their labour – this ensures the capitalists’ profits. The superprofit merely allows them to increase/provide the likes of healthcare, generous wages, social security etc. And so the workers don’t feel the need for revolution. It takes a cursory glance at the Western workforce to know that revolutionary zeal is barely present in the general population.

And I imagine that Marx would be surprised to know that capitalism still exists. It has come close to falling once or twice. We’d be fools not to take advantage of a crisis simply because the material conditions are not perfect.


Marx took into account how Capitalism looks for foreign sources. Therefore Capitalism hasn&#39;t magically evolved into imperialism, it always has looked for foreign outlets and new markets. Marx took this into account, therefore Lenin&#39;s theory isn&#39;t really anything than an attempt to change a perfectly good theory.

As to what Leninism has added, the most notable thing is the vanguard which as history has shown us, is crap. It was worth a try but its been proven to be an abysmal failure and should now be completely abandoned.

So Leninism in my opinion has added to Marxism, poor theories, hero worship and a long list of failed states. Nothing to be proud of.
Marx dealt with colonialism. He did not foresee the mass rape of underdeveloped nations nor the enormous profits that accompanied it. He did not see the worker become a consumer of luxuries. He did not see his theories become adapted, to a degree, by Keynes to limit the boom and bust cycle. Marx dealt with a different form of capitalism one both purer and simpler than what we deal with now. The core theories hold true but it needs additions to explain capitalisms newer features.

Or do you hold Marxism to be such a perfect an ideology that it needs no updating? Besides translation into modern English of course.


As for you saying that Lenin didn&#39;t want a hero status like Mao or Stalin, well maybe he didn&#39;t. But the position he created for himself as enlightened leader and master of the dialectic sure didn&#39;t help. To be honest I don&#39;t really care whether he wanted a hero status or not, I&#39;m more concerned with people still abiding by theories of his that have been completely disproved by the events of the last century. It reminds me of the creationists in a funny sort of way.

I don&#39;t see a problem with someone calling themselves a Marxist, Marx&#39;s theories have not been disproved to any great degree and I suspect they never will. Lenin&#39;s theories have been more or less completely disproved, therefore I can only conclude that Leninists see Lenin as some form of deity. That many of them constantly bring up a passage or two of Lenin&#39;s work in debate, as if it were scripture, really doesn&#39;t help with regards my view on them.
Now you’re just nit picking. How did Lenin hold himself up as an “enlightened leader”? He was the man of the moment to be sure but you may as well criticise Marx for having the gall to come up with Marxism

I know I’ve already stated that Leninist states do not exist, and apart from those few years in Russia never have, but you seem intent in refusing to listen. Marxist-Leninism is not Leninism. Just as you may find it… distasteful that Leninism is derived from Marx, I find it equally infuriating that to Stalin used Lenin&#39;s name to push his position. Hopefully, though I consider it a long shot, my quick history of the revolution will have "enlightened" you as to Lenin’s nature.

But maybe I’m a hero worshiping fool. No doubt I’m simply unable to see this evidence that Lenin failed. Perhaps. But I see little fault with Lenin’s core theories (like Marx he can stuff his dialectics). They explain the continued existence of capitalism and offer a way to shorten capitalism’s reign. Other than simply waiting for the material conditions to click into place of course.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Okay. After typing this out point by point I seem to be repeating myself again and again. The bulk of this discussion seems to centre on the fact that Lenin did not install a lasting democracy. Fair enough, let’s work through the revolution chronologically from coup to Kronstadt. Remind me if I miss a point you addressed earlier. History time then. I have far too much time on my hands.


That sounds okay with me, but it is important for me to point out at this moment in time that my knowledge of Russian history is not particularly good and my interest in it is even lower. Though on we march.


First of all I want to make clear that this was not a perfect revolution, if indeed any revolution could be called that. It went on for five years and it took the country over a decade to recover. In the end it totally changed the face of Russia.


Revolutions tend to be incredibly destructive, if you want efficiency then don&#39;t propose revolution. That being said the material conditions of pre revolutionary Russia do make the Russian revolution particularly destructive. I&#39;ll will concede that much.


In 1917 Russia had its February Revolution. This could be defined as the start of the brief liberal rule in Russia. But even then many of the feudal structures remained under Kerensky and continued to rot away at an alarming rate. Russia was simply disintegrating. Unlike 1905, there was a proletariat strong enough to play a role in events. And, although the proletariat was nowhere near as large as those who existed in Western Europe at the time, Russia was unique in that both the bourgeois and aristocracy were significantly weakened.

This sounds about right to me. Russia was a shithole, material conditions meant that whatever the liberals, though they did call themselves Socialists if I&#39;m not mistaken, or Lenin did Russia would have remained a pretty horrid place when compared Western Europe.

That being said this one of the glaring flaws in Marx&#39;s work, the line that says a transition from Feudalism could be hijacked and Socialism installed. This was originally said with respect Germany and I can&#39;t remember whether Marx&#39;s or Engles&#39; said it, but whichever one did I would imagine they had taken temporary leave of their senses and let boyish excitement into their thinking process. Very un Marxist like of them but allowances for human emotion sometimes should be taken into account.


Now Lenin looks around, sees the failings of the liberals, the temporary disarray of the aristocrats, and decided to go for broke. His support base is strong enough and so he decides to embark on the great socialist experiment. No more social democratic bullshit, time to put both his and Marx’s theories to the test. The coup, if you could even call it that, sparks off the revolution in which all the counter-revolutionaries come crawling out of the woodwork.


Firstly, if I&#39;m not mistaken the Bolsheviks were part of the post revolution Parliament. So I think Lenin&#39;s coup was not just about the "liberals" failings it was also his sheer anger that the primitive Russian democracy had not seen him as the best candidate for the job. I think a mix of those two factors is probably right.

Now fair enough Lenin thought that he could make Socialism and make history. A huge failure of thinking on his part and a break with Marxist thinking as well, but still probably worth a try. Though what you are getting at by saying that his coup sparked revolution, is I think, the view that the civil war was a revolution. This point is debatable, but we&#39;ll accept it as true in order to allow the debate to progress.

So far we could conclude Lenin is perhaps being a bit righteous and arrogant, but this is probably excusable.


After all why should Russia go through capitalism if it could be avoided in any way? Lenin saw the misery that the capitalists had caused in Europe and was determined that the same system of grief should never appear in Russia. He was motivated purely by the desire to liberate the workers. That at least is apparent from his works.

Yes why should Russia go through Capitalism if it could be avoided. One can&#39;t blame Lenin for trying this theory. Though it proved not to work in countless backward countries, so promoting it as valid thought, is in my opinion, wrong.


You know the story of the next few years. War ravaged the countryside and the country descended into chaos. For all purposes Russia ceased to exist for those brief few years. It was all the Soviets could do just to hold the country together and beat off the foreigners and Whites. Debates and arguments flew freely within the Congress of the Soviets but elections or any serious democratic exercise would’ve been impossible in that climate. I trust you can see that. Even building “socialism from below” was impossible in a country filled with peasants. So both the war and the need to build the material conditions required for socialist would require much state direction. Of course this was queried by those in the Congress and even in the Council of Commissars. Lenin won the doubters over though and the Party marched on. But on with our trip…

Putting democracy on the back burner is perhaps justified in such circumstances, but one must remember no such thing was done in Paris 1871 or in the Spanish Civil War. Both got crushed militarily but to my knowledge they were still incredibly democratic at the point of being crushed.

So you have to make the decision, do you allow a democracy is more susceptible to be crushed or do you suspend all meaningful democracy at times of crisis. If you suspend democracy it becomes unlikely it will ever return. After all absolute power is a great temptation.

Also correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but wasn&#39;t the ability of the Soviets to act as functioning and democratic bodies abolished before the Civil War? The road to depotism started before the Civil War in my opinion, it started when just about all opponents of the Bolsheviks&#39; were sent to prison, many of these people being Anarchists and Socialists.

As for the need for a lot of state direction, well countless countries have tried this and all of them have tried. It seems the only way to build Socialism is from below, fuckups and all. It seems when the people are divorced from the process of Socialism, they become very a-political and are very unlikely to ever be able to take control.


By 1922 things has calmed down slightly but the country lay in ruins. The economy was in tatters with production a fraction of pre-war levels. Bands of brigades still roamed the countryside and low level fighting was still ongoing. Then in Kronstadt a group of anarchist sailors take up arms against the Reds. Like the rest of the challengers they were brushed aside. The revolution was still on course. Another year or so to ensure the survival of the state and by then the political situation would be stable. Then you could talk about “devolving power” Another decade, maybe two, and the material conditions would be ripe for the transition to socialism.


The Kronstadt sailors as Anarchists line often used to try and discredit them. Some of them may well of been Anarchists but when you look at their history and their involvement in the revolution and the civil war it becomes pretty unlikely that they were anything other than disaffected and revolutionary workers&#39; who felt completely betrayed by Lenin and companies promises.

You see Lenin should have welcomed workers&#39; becoming revolutionary, but he didn&#39;t. Why, because this is in direct breach with the Leninist gospel that only the professional enlightened revolutionaries can guide the workers&#39;, this is untrue. And if workers&#39; could become spontaneously revolutionary in a country as backward as Russia 1922, then they surely can become just as revolutionary now. Which really puts the last nail in the Leninist gospel.

As for talk of devolving power, this didn&#39;t happen in the next couple of years under Lenin. By this time Lenin and the party cliques position on society had completely changed. They were the ruling class and no ruling class is ever going to give up power.


But that didn’t happen. The bureaucracy was too firmly entrenched within the Communist Party, the final question that Lenin was unable to answer. Maybe it was a consequence of such an imperfect revolution, maybe its inherent in party vanguards. Either way if I were to draw a lesson from the Russian revolution it would be on how to improve on Lenin, not automatically scrapping this theories because something went wrong along the way.


Maybe we shouldn&#39;t be so quick to scrap Lenin, perhaps parts can be saved. But one thing is for sure, the vanguard and bureaucracy go hand in hand and definitely should be consigned to the dustbin.


But Lenin did more than any other communist to bring the world closer to socialism. His feat has not been replicated since though few have tried. I stress that I would not expect a vanguard (though that was hardly a Leninist invention) to have much success in a developed nation. However it is the only way forward in an undeveloped one and its in those nations that the world revolution will start.


The vanguard was not a Leninist invention no, I believe it was modelled on military hierarchies and structures. Iron will and obedience to the leadership.

As for the vanguard in developed nations, well hopefully an emancipated proletariat with see no need for that elitist crap. Whats the point in seizing power just to give it right back?

Though in my opinion a version of Cuban Socialism, social democracy or even liberal democracy is the best way forward for the underdeveloped world. Any wild notions that some shitbox country will create Communism is hopeful at best. If Marx was right the revolution will only come to advanced nations. I think Marx was right and the small amount of Socialist history we have does suggest that Communism won&#39;t work in backward nations and therefore if we are to believe that Communism will ever come, it seems Marx was right about where it would come.


Stalin grew bored after it became clear that the Popular Fronts would not succeed. But it was Soviet soldiers and tanks that enabled the Republicans to fight on as long as they could. In fact it was their only source of aid.


To my knowledge Stalin&#39;s support was limited at best and considering just how much support Germany and Italy was providing to the Fascists, Stalin&#39;s grudging support was poor at best. Though it is widely accepted by most historians that left alone the Republicans would have been victorious by quite a margin.

Anyway the biggest bastards in the whole process were the British and French, their lack of support for the Republicans really did come back and bite them on their ass.


And, for the record, the USSR was rotten for the vast majority of its existence. It was trapped in some bureaucratic limbo, the means of production had been taken from the capitalists but not yet socialised. Now Lenin had his troubles but by the 30’s the USSR had secured both peace and the material conditions.


I don&#39;t dispute Russia was rotten, I would say it was rotten from 1918 on wards, but feel free to think that it took longer to become rotten. Thats your decision.


As I’ve said, the material conditions were not there. Lenin did not ignore this; he merely applied Marx’s theory of the base and superstructure. In one sentence the political superstructure exerts influence on the economic base. Of course the base wins every time but perhaps it should be possible for a strong enough state to create the required material conditions. That is where the Party comes in.

Fair enough but this theory of creating a strong and enlightened state seems to ultimately lead to the restoration of Capitalism. Material conditions are a ***** and theres really no way to create them. At least no way that has become workable, the best you can do is try to create an advanced proletariat and you only do this by giving them power in their workplace, not by making an all knowing party.


The workers are still being robbed of their labour – this ensures the capitalists’ profits. The superprofit merely allows them to increase/provide the likes of healthcare, generous wages, social security etc. And so the workers don’t feel the need for revolution. It takes a cursory glance at the Western workforce to know that revolutionary zeal is barely present in the general population.

But Lenin wrote about the workers&#39; being bought off before any of the "great workers&#39; reforms." As I said Lenin thought of this out of frustration. Perhaps it did happen to a degree after Lenin&#39;s death, but those reforms are gradually disappearing and the living standards are going down for the Western worker. Therefore it likely no longer applies.

Though Britain has had more genuine labour movements than most of the third world combined. Therefore for me the amount of forced reforms is a good thing, as it shows the working class is gradually reaching the point of emancipation. Sooner or later they&#39;ll realise that reforms don&#39;t really solve much. A working class that hasn&#39;t even forced reforms is unlikely a working class that is ever likely to seize power.


And I imagine that Marx would be surprised to know that capitalism still exists. It has come close to falling once or twice. We’d be fools not to take advantage of a crisis simply because the material conditions are not perfect.

Perhaps Marx would be surprised to see that Capitalism is still alive and kicking, but we can&#39;t fall into the trap of trying to hijack any movement. The working class will either overthrow Capitalism or it won&#39;t. We can&#39;t do it for them.


Marx dealt with colonialism. He did not foresee the mass rape of underdeveloped nations nor the enormous profits that accompanied it. He did not see the worker become a consumer of luxuries. He did not see his theories become adapted, to a degree, by Keynes to limit the boom and bust cycle. Marx dealt with a different form of capitalism one both purer and simpler than what we deal with now. The core theories hold true but it needs additions to explain capitalisms newer features

Capitalism has changed, yes, but not to any substantial degree and not enough that traditional Marxism and as Redstar would say "the tools of Marxism" can no longer be used. Though if Marx&#39;s theories don&#39;t take into account develops, what makes you think the century old theories of Lenin still hold true? Surely Capitalism has changed since then.


Or do you hold Marxism to be such a perfect an ideology that it needs no updating? Besides translation into modern English of course.

I really don&#39;t think Marx got a lot wrong. Dialectics can be got rid of and the labour theory of value is supposedly sketchy, my Marxist economics are nowhere near good enough to offer an opinion on this. However the basic tools of Marxism still apply and other than "jazzing" them up a bit, they don&#39;t need much changing.


Now you’re just nit picking. How did Lenin hold himself up as an “enlightened leader”? He was the man of the moment to be sure but you may as well criticise Marx for having the gall to come up with Marxism

I know I’ve already stated that Leninist states do not exist, and apart from those few years in Russia never have, but you seem intent in refusing to listen. Marxist-Leninism is not Leninism. Just as you may find it… distasteful that Leninism is derived from Marx, I find it equally infuriating that to Stalin used Lenin&#39;s name to push his position. Hopefully, though I consider it a long shot, my quick history of the revolution will have "enlightened" you as to Lenin’s nature.

Perhaps Leninist states have not existed, con-try to the countless failed states that have claimed to uphold Lenin&#39;s ideas of the revolutionary vanguard. Maybe you&#39;re right, they haven&#39;t existed, but as you said the advanced proletariat no longer needs a vanguard, so what use is it now?


But maybe I’m a hero worshiping fool. No doubt I’m simply unable to see this evidence that Lenin failed. Perhaps. But I see little fault with Lenin’s core theories (like Marx he can stuff his dialectics). They explain the continued existence of capitalism and offer a way to shorten capitalism’s reign. Other than simply waiting for the material conditions to click into place of course.

Perhaps some of Lenin&#39;s theories are still valuable, perhaps, I don&#39;t claim to have the knowledge or the intelligence to offer a definite answer. Though if you look here (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/), Redstar2000 does offer some great insights into Lenin. There must be around ten papers on the subject, you may not agree with his views but their useful to read, as they give a far more coherent and intelligent analysis of Leninism than I could ever provide.

[Hiero]

If he had really planned on putting Marx&#39;s theories into practise he would have realised that it was virtually impossible to create a Communism in a backward underdeveloped country such as Russia. I guess he skipped that part of Marx&#39;s work.

Lenin wasn&#39;t trying to create Communism. He wasn&#39;t even implementing socialism over the whole Russian society, capitalist law in trading still existing in agriculture.

What they were doing was socialising what could be socialised, and allowing thoose sectors of the economy to grow infrastructure so they could get to the level where they could be socialised.


Been as not Leninist inspired party has ever withered away, any sensible person would be misguided to think that suddenly it may start to happen.

Maybe you should learn the theory behind the idea that the party withers away.


What you have to remember here is that the Kronstadt sailors were incredibly loyal, both during the original revolution and the civil war. The likelihood that anyone could see the Kronstadt sailors as a threat to the revolution is very low. So either Lenin was very stupid, I doubt this, or he disliked any challenge to his authority.

So we are going to allow anybody to do whatever they want and conclude they are correct based on loyalty?

We should not assume because someone was loyal or participated in revolution they did so for the benifits of the proleteriat. If we do this then we assume that all demands are as legimate as the demands of the revolutionary proleteriat.

So on that note there can only be one system, we can&#39;t make mulitple systems to comfort every person. We must think collectable and not be afriad to call certian people greedy and traitors, which the Kronstadt were doing thinking that they could demand to be under a system which benifited them.


Yes why should Russia go through Capitalism if it could be avoided. One can&#39;t blame Lenin for trying this theory. Though it proved not to work in countless backward countries, so promoting it as valid thought, is in my opinion, wrong.

Did not work?

Go back and look at Russia 1921, and then look at Russia after WWII.

Lenin and Stalin turned Russia from a feadul peasant nation to reasonable well developed industrial society where the working class developed very well. They developed in the fields of medical and sciences. For the proleteriat it was much better to live in the post war Russian society then the pre 1921 Russian society.

If you are to much of a naive Anarchist to admit this then you truely are an idiot and its not worth talking to you.

I am getting really pissed of that people can make things up as they go with the USSR and not be criticised. It seems people just make things up between the gaps that the history channel left out.

Armchair Socialism you have shown no evidence that you know what you are talking about it. There is to much to quote to dispute, so i will just say most of what you said has been trash and you probally wouldn&#39;t find any of it written down.

[bombeverything]

Although where do anarchists stand on Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism?

I don&#39;t wish to speak for all anarchists here but I certainly question its implications for practice today mainly in relation to two issues:

1) It&#39;s belief that capitalism is in its final stage of development.

Many anarchists question the assumption that the downfall of capitalism is "inevitable".

And …

2) It&#39;s resulting promotion of support for "struggles for national liberation".

Some would argue that support for nationalist struggles is problematic as all nationalism is inherently reactionary.

I would also question its sole focus on economic issues. This arguably sidelines issues related to politics and control, i.e. the possibilities of domination (and thus expansionism) by one militarily powerful state. This is important as it could be argued that imperialism is not unique to capitalism in that it existed throughout the ancient, medieval, and early modern eras.


No doubt you disagree as to the feasibility of that ;)

You are correct.

[Hiero]

Some would argue that support for nationalist struggles is problematic as all nationalism is inherently reactionary.

Thats because they don&#39;t understand the difference between the terms "national liberation" and "nationalism".

National liberation is the act of removing all foreign influences from ones country. it has nothing to with the idea of race or potong race ideologies.

National liberation movements are Veitnam, Palastine, Kurdistan, Iraq etc.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Lenin wasn&#39;t trying to create Communism. He wasn&#39;t even implementing socialism over the whole Russian society, capitalist law in trading still existing in agriculture.

What they were doing was socialising what could be socialised, and allowing thoose sectors of the economy to grow infrastructure so they could get to the level where they could be socialised.

That argument would work if anything had been socialised. By 1918 pretty much all industry was in the hands of the party clique. There were quite a few industries that could have been socialised under Lenin, they weren&#39;t and there were definitely many industries that could have been socialised under Stalin, they weren&#39;t. Russia was nationalised for most of its existence, not socialised.


Maybe you should learn the theory behind the idea that the party withers away.

Why do I need to learn the theory in depth. In every country that tried, the party grew bigger and bigger and the end result was the open and proud restoration of Capitalism. Why would I want to bother to learn such a poor theory?


So we are going to allow anybody to do whatever they want and conclude they are correct based on loyalty?

We should not assume because someone was loyal or participated in revolution they did so for the benifits of the proleteriat. If we do this then we assume that all demands are as legimate as the demands of the revolutionary proleteriat.

So on that note there can only be one system, we can&#39;t make mulitple systems to comfort every person. We must think collectable and not be afriad to call certian people greedy and traitors, which the Kronstadt were doing thinking that they could demand to be under a system which benifited them.

These men were genuine workers&#39; and defenders of the proletariat, all they were asking for was workers&#39; control. Now I realise you may see the idea of workers&#39; wanting control and freedom from the Party as a disgraceful idea, but generally speaking workers&#39; gaining control is what the revolution is about.


Did not work?

Go back and look at Russia 1921, and then look at Russia after WWII.

Lenin and Stalin turned Russia from a feadul peasant nation to reasonable well developed industrial society where the working class developed very well. They developed in the fields of medical and sciences. For the proleteriat it was much better to live in the post war Russian society then the pre 1921 Russian society.


It did not work in creating Socialism, what you are describing there is the benefits of an advanced Capitalist country. And an advanced Capitalist country is a much more pleasant place to live, than a Feudal society. So Lenin, Stalin and Kruschev all succeeded, its just it was modern Capitalism that they succeeded in creating. Thats all they could do, given the material conditions of the time.


If you are to much of a naive Anarchist to admit this then you truely are an idiot and its not worth talking to you.

Thank you for your kind words.


I am getting really pissed of that people can make things up as they go with the USSR and not be criticised. It seems people just make things up between the gaps that the history channel left out.

Armchair Socialism you have shown no evidence that you know what you are talking about it. There is to much to quote to dispute, so i will just say most of what you said has been trash and you probably wouldn&#39;t find any of it written down.

Its funny that you would say that I wouldn&#39;t find any of this written down, the Redstar2000 papers offer similar criticisms, just a lot better in structure and intelligence than mine. Though I guess Redstar2000 is just another "naive Anarchist" in your eyes.

[ComradeOm]

Firstly, if I&#39;m not mistaken the Bolsheviks were part of the post revolution Parliament. So I think Lenin&#39;s coup was not just about the "liberals" failings it was also his sheer anger that the primitive Russian democracy had not seen him as the best candidate for the job. I think a mix of those two factors is probably right.
When you look at the alternatives he probably was the best for the job. The Bolsheviks were a Marxist party, they saw little point in sitting down with landlords and liberals.


Putting democracy on the back burner is perhaps justified in such circumstances, but one must remember no such thing was done in Paris 1871 or in the Spanish Civil War. Both got crushed militarily but to my knowledge they were still incredibly democratic at the point of being crushed.

So you have to make the decision, do you allow a democracy is more susceptible to be crushed or do you suspend all meaningful democracy at times of crisis. If you suspend democracy it becomes unlikely it will ever return. After all absolute power is a great temptation.
Based on this writings I am convinced that Lenin would’ve surrendered power once the situation had stabilised. That was the whole purpose of the revolution. But remember that Lenin would’ve studied the Commune in great detail, just as we study his actions, and drawn lessons from it. One of those being a certain lack of direction present in Paris. Marx himself criticised the Commune for wasting time on elections when there was revolutionary business to attend to. The first move must be to carry out and defend the revolution, after that you can get down to the real business of socialism.

Of course you have to ask yourself which you prefer – a failed but perfectly democratic revolution or a revolution that succeeds in overthrowing the bourgeois but lacks democratic components. To my mind both are failures but both provide valuable lessons for the future.


Also correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but wasn&#39;t the ability of the Soviets to act as functioning and democratic bodies abolished before the Civil War? The road to depotism started before the Civil War in my opinion, it started when just about all opponents of the Bolsheviks&#39; were sent to prison, many of these people being Anarchists and Socialists.
As I suggested above, any revolution has to strike a balance between democracy and purpose. Its perfectly possible that Lenin went too far in the pursuit of the latter.


The Kronstadt sailors as Anarchists line often used to try and discredit them. Some of them may well of been Anarchists but when you look at their history and their involvement in the revolution and the civil war it becomes pretty unlikely that they were anything other than disaffected and revolutionary workers&#39; who felt completely betrayed by Lenin and companies promises.

You see Lenin should have welcomed workers&#39; becoming revolutionary, but he didn&#39;t. Why, because this is in direct breach with the Leninist gospel that only the professional enlightened revolutionaries can guide the workers&#39;, this is untrue. And if workers&#39; could become spontaneously revolutionary in a country as backward as Russia 1922, then they surely can become just as revolutionary now. Which really puts the last nail in the Leninist gospel.
One armed group is much like the others. They decided to go their own way and to hell with the Soviets. Can you imagine what would’ve happened if Lenin had actually agreed? The entire country would’ve simply pulled apart again. There’d already been those anarchists in the Ukraine the last thing the country needed was a couple of impatient sailors.


As for talk of devolving power, this didn&#39;t happen in the next couple of years under Lenin. By this time Lenin and the party cliques position on society had completely changed. They were the ruling class and no ruling class is ever going to give up power.
A difficulty with Leninist theory to be sure and one that must be guarded against. There must be some accountability within the Party, something that should not be difficult to instil now that we’re aware of the issue. As for Lenin, there was still fighting going on when he died. It would take years for the country to completely settle down.


The vanguard was not a Leninist invention no, I believe it was modelled on military hierarchies and structures. Iron will and obedience to the leadership.

As for the vanguard in developed nations, well hopefully an emancipated proletariat with see no need for that elitist crap. Whats the point in seizing power just to give it right back?

Though in my opinion a version of Cuban Socialism, social democracy or even liberal democracy is the best way forward for the underdeveloped world. Any wild notions that some shitbox country will create Communism is hopeful at best. If Marx was right the revolution will only come to advanced nations. I think Marx was right and the small amount of Socialist history we have does suggest that Communism won&#39;t work in backward nations and therefore if we are to believe that Communism will ever come, it seems Marx was right about where it would come.
In 150 years there have been a mere handful of occasions where the Western proletariat have come even close to revolution. Why? Because capitalism has evolved to the point where it can pay off the workers, as I’ve gone into already. The worldwide revolution will start in an undeveloped nation which will undermine the first world bourgeois. Then we can progress to communism.


To my knowledge Stalin&#39;s support was limited at best and considering just how much support Germany and Italy was providing to the Fascists, Stalin&#39;s grudging support was poor at best. Though it is widely accepted by most historians that left alone the Republicans would have been victorious by quite a margin.

Anyway the biggest bastards in the whole process were the British and French, their lack of support for the Republicans really did come back and bite them on their ass.
Two thousand men (who made of the bulk of the Republic’s experienced troops) and almost a thousand tanks are hardly miniscule. Its hardly the 50,000 men that Italy was sending though to be honest I suspect that Britain and France would be far more hostile to any mass Soviet contributions than they were to the fascists. Personally I think the Nationalists would’ve won even without fascist support, their soldiers were simply the better trained and better organised. That’s professionals for you.


Fair enough but this theory of creating a strong and enlightened state seems to ultimately lead to the restoration of Capitalism. Material conditions are a ***** and theres really no way to create them. At least no way that has become workable, the best you can do is try to create an advanced proletariat and you only do this by giving them power in their workplace, not by making an all knowing party.
But the USSR did create the material conditions. By the 30’s the country was ready for socialism but by the political structure was unwilling to divulge power. A flaw in the practice, not the theory.


But Lenin wrote about the workers&#39; being bought off before any of the "great workers&#39; reforms." As I said Lenin thought of this out of frustration. Perhaps it did happen to a degree after Lenin&#39;s death, but those reforms are gradually disappearing and the living standards are going down for the Western worker. Therefore it likely no longer applies.

Though Britain has had more genuine labour movements than most of the third world combined. Therefore for me the amount of forced reforms is a good thing, as it shows the working class is gradually reaching the point of emancipation. Sooner or later they&#39;ll realise that reforms don&#39;t really solve much. A working class that hasn&#39;t even forced reforms is unlikely a working class that is ever likely to seize power.
I don’t have an exact date for when Lenin put forward his theory but the effects of imperialism were clearly noticeable from the mid 1880s. Lenin observed that this allowed capitalism to adapt to the increasing worker demands. Today physical imperialism has given way to economic imperialism to even greater effect. Today the burden of labour has been shifted to the Far East where production can take place at a fraction of the costs involved with manufacture in the West.

In addition trade unions, supposedly the highest expression of organised labour, have proven to be very compatible with capitalism. The aim is not to bargain with the capitalists but to overthrow them. A sentiment that is sadly lacking in the leadership of most unions I’ve observed.


Capitalism has changed, yes, but not to any substantial degree and not enough that traditional Marxism and as Redstar would say "the tools of Marxism" can no longer be used. Though if Marx&#39;s theories don&#39;t take into account develops, what makes you think the century old theories of Lenin still hold true? Surely Capitalism has changed since then.
Marx’s theories hold true, they just need some updating. As I said above imperialism still exists, just in a different form.


Perhaps Leninist states have not existed, con-try to the countless failed states that have claimed to uphold Lenin&#39;s ideas of the revolutionary vanguard. Maybe you&#39;re right, they haven&#39;t existed, but as you said the advanced proletariat no longer needs a vanguard, so what use is it now?
All of those regimes also claimed to uphold Marxist ideals. Do you believe them? The vanguard will be used in underdeveloped nations where the material conditions are not yet perfect.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You missed a quote button somewhere so its quite hard to see the which arguments are yours and which are mine. If I missed anything out, please tell me.


Based on this writings I am convinced that Lenin would’ve surrendered power once the situation had stabilised. That was the whole purpose of the revolution. But remember that Lenin would’ve studied the Commune in great detail, just as we study his actions, and drawn lessons from it. One of those being a certain lack of direction present in Paris. Marx himself criticised the Commune for wasting time on elections when there was revolutionary business to attend to. The first move must be to carry out and defend the revolution, after that you can get down to the real business of socialism.


Fair enough, if you truly believe Lenin intended to do what he said, then I&#39;m not going to convince you otherwise. Really theres no way of proving this point either way, but my opinion is that while he may have been committed to his ideals early on, after a while in the "drivers seat" his outlook changed. This happens to loads of people, just look at the New Labour clique many of them used to be Socialists of the revolutionary brand and is to some extent excusable.


Of course you have to ask yourself which you prefer – a failed but perfectly democratic revolution or a revolution that succeeds in overthrowing the bourgeois but lacks democratic components. To my mind both are failures but both provide valuable lessons for the future.


This is a very good question and I don&#39;t think it can be answered easily. My opinion is that straight after the revolution egalitarian militias should be formed. How militarily effective they would be is anyones guess. Obviously there are more details, but that is my short answer to the question.


As I suggested above, any revolution has to strike a balance between democracy and purpose. Its perfectly possible that Lenin went too far in the pursuit of the latter.

Brilliant, thats all I think is needed that you are prepared to look at Lenin with a critical eye. You can still agree with many of his theories, but the problems start when people wrap Lenin and Marx up in cotton wool and treat their words as gospel. Question everything.


One armed group is much like the others. They decided to go their own way and to hell with the Soviets. Can you imagine what would’ve happened if Lenin had actually agreed? The entire country would’ve simply pulled apart again. There’d already been those anarchists in the Ukraine the last thing the country needed was a couple of impatient sailors.

The sailors had already set up a commune in Kronstadt, their were advancing the revolution. This is perhaps my main beef with the Leninist doctrine, it tries to control the revolution and you only end up destroying the revolution this way. You need to let the workers&#39; take the initiative, however misguided their proposals may seem.


A difficulty with Leninist theory to be sure and one that must be guarded against. There must be some accountability within the Party, something that should not be difficult to instil now that we’re aware of the issue. As for Lenin, there was still fighting going on when he died. It would take years for the country to completely settle down.


So far though the attempts to guard against this have resulted in huge purges of party members. The best way to guard against this is to devolve power to at least the bottom of the party, if not the workers&#39; themselves.

The party leadership will never stop the bureaucracy because whether they know it or not, their material perspective has changed so much that they are now the bureaucracy.


In 150 years there have been a mere handful of occasions where the Western proletariat have come even close to revolution. Why? Because capitalism has evolved to the point where it can pay off the workers, as I’ve gone into already. The worldwide revolution will start in an undeveloped nation which will undermine the first world bourgeois. Then we can progress to communism.


You are mistaking national liberation movements for genuine revolutions. Undoubtedly if many third world countries blocked Western capital they would help create the material conditions for revolution in the West. However its misguided to think these third world liberation movements are revolutions of a Communist nature, because material conditions will only allow them to create a native bourgeois, something which will be hugely effective in creating the material conditions for Western revolution.


Two thousand men (who made of the bulk of the Republic’s experienced troops) and almost a thousand tanks are hardly miniscule. Its hardly the 50,000 men that Italy was sending though to be honest I suspect that Britain and France would be far more hostile to any mass Soviet contributions than they were to the fascists. Personally I think the Nationalists would’ve won even without fascist support, their soldiers were simply the better trained and better organised. That’s professionals for you.

I&#39;m not 100% positive on this, but to my knowledge most military historians agree that left alone the Republicans would have defeated the Fascists, professional soldiers and all.


I don’t have an exact date for when Lenin put forward his theory but the effects of imperialism were clearly noticeable from the mid 1880s. Lenin observed that this allowed capitalism to adapt to the increasing worker demands. Today physical imperialism has given way to economic imperialism to even greater effect. Today the burden of labour has been shifted to the Far East where production can take place at a fraction of the costs involved with manufacture in the West.


True and liberation movements in the third world which have protectionist economic policies will help bring about the material conditions in the West. Though this doesn&#39;t mean the Western worker has sold out, the process of emancipation is a slow and gradual process and just because we haven&#39;t seen an emancipated working class yet, doesn&#39;t in my opinion mean they have sold out.


In addition trade unions, supposedly the highest expression of organised labour, have proven to be very compatible with capitalism. The aim is not to bargain with the capitalists but to overthrow them. A sentiment that is sadly lacking in the leadership of most unions I’ve observed.

I suspect the Unions over the next thirty years will become far more militant, there are signs that this is happening already. Nothing stays still and therefore thinking that just because the Unions are shit now, they will be shit forever, is in my opinion a mistake.


All of those regimes also claimed to uphold Marxist ideals. Do you believe them? The vanguard will be used in underdeveloped nations where the material conditions are not yet perfect.

True, though Marxism and the vanguard are polar opposites. There is no substantial evidence Marx ever proposed a vanguard of the people, all Marx proposed was direct workers&#39; control.

Its my opinion however that the third world countries should follow the economic position of the early Labour Party, protectionist, with some nationalised industries and a small amount of free enterprise. Its not easy to achieve modern Capitalism and therefore other than blocking foreign capital, third world countries should experiment with many different domestic economic models. Restricting development to one model will cause stagnation in my opinion.

[ComradeOm]

Meh. I usually preview my posts first. My standards must be slipping.


This is a very good question and I don&#39;t think it can be answered easily. My opinion is that straight after the revolution egalitarian militias should be formed. How militarily effective they would be is anyones guess. Obviously there are more details, but that is my short answer to the question.
If you could draw one lesson from the Spanish Civil War it would be the weakness of militias when faced with professional soldiers. And any revolution, wherever it takes place, can expect fierce resistance from the capitalists. But that is the question that I feel needs to be answered before we can have a successful transition to socialism.


Brilliant, thats all I think is needed that you are prepared to look at Lenin with a critical eye. You can still agree with many of his theories, but the problems start when people wrap Lenin and Marx up in cotton wool and treat their words as gospel. Question everything.
Well I only question Lenin and Marx because they called for us to question everything :P Seriously though, I agree with much of what they said but that’s after evaluating and examining their theories. If we’re to simply accept everything uncritically then we might as well start praying to their spirits for guidance.


The sailors had already set up a commune in Kronstadt, their were advancing the revolution. This is perhaps my main beef with the Leninist doctrine, it tries to control the revolution and you only end up destroying the revolution this way. You need to let the workers&#39; take the initiative, however misguided their proposals may seem.
This ties into the above question – how much control must the leaders of the revolution have? Its safe to say that Lenin advocated relativity high levels of control, but I again point out the chaos of Russia at the time. In situations like that, with so many foes still to be defeated, the workers cannot be allowed to make critical errors lest the entire revolution fail.


So far though the attempts to guard against this have resulted in huge purges of party members. The best way to guard against this is to devolve power to at least the bottom of the party, if not the workers&#39; themselves.

The party leadership will never stop the bureaucracy because whether they know it or not, their material perspective has changed so much that they are now the bureaucracy.
Every revolution, perhaps even that elusive “perfect” one, will have some form of leadership. Every movement requires coordinators and some degree of bureaucracy. That’s inevitable. What we have to ensure is that the bureaucracy do not become powerful enough to usurp the revolution. And that can only be done through the grass-roots.


You are mistaking national liberation movements for genuine revolutions. Undoubtedly if many third world countries blocked Western capital they would help create the material conditions for revolution in the West. However its misguided to think these third world liberation movements are revolutions of a Communist nature, because material conditions will only allow them to create a native bourgeois, something which will be hugely effective in creating the material conditions for Western revolution.
In themselves, no. But national liberation can quite often be tied into revolutionary movements. A revolution will automatically liberate the people from Western exploitation. As I’ve said already, material conditions can be created, not out of nothing of course, but a revolutionary government can create the conditions for a proletariat to arise.


I&#39;m not 100% positive on this, but to my knowledge most military historians agree that left alone the Republicans would have defeated the Fascists, professional soldiers and all.
Very possibly, I’m hardly an historian. But I’d be interested in their reasoning, the Nationalists pretty much had most of the advantages, even without the fascist aid.


True and liberation movements in the third world which have protectionist economic policies will help bring about the material conditions in the West. Though this doesn&#39;t mean the Western worker has sold out, the process of emancipation is a slow and gradual process and just because we haven&#39;t seen an emancipated working class yet, doesn&#39;t in my opinion mean they have sold out.
Hence the Leninst focus on underdeloped nations where the capitalist class are weakers. The knockon effects will do much to create the required material conditions in the West.

The workers haven’t “sold out” per se. They’ve just been co-opted by the capitalist system. There’s so much money sloshing around that its hardly surprising. The need for revolution has been removed.


suspect the Unions over the next thirty years will become far more militant, there are signs that this is happening already. Nothing stays still and therefore thinking that just because the Unions are shit now, they will be shit forever, is in my opinion a mistake.
I’m not just judging my opinion on the unions of today. A quick glance through history shows that unions are perfectly capable of getting along fine with the capitalists. That may change in time but I wouldn’t rely on it.


True, though Marxism and the vanguard are polar opposites. There is no substantial evidence Marx ever proposed a vanguard of the people, all Marx proposed was direct workers&#39; control.
Lenin got far more into the nitty gritty of socialism and ruling than ever Marx did. Plus Marx dealt with developed nations where the need for a vanguard is either reduced or eliminated.


Its my opinion however that the third world countries should follow the economic position of the early Labour Party, protectionist, with some nationalised industries and a small amount of free enterprise. Its not easy to achieve modern Capitalism and therefore other than blocking foreign capital, third world countries should experiment with many different domestic economic models. Restricting development to one model will cause stagnation in my opinion.
I have little taste for capitalism, no matter how mild. If the situation presents itself we should not tolerate the capitalists for any longer than necessary.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Meh. I usually preview my posts first. My standards must be slipping.


;)


If you could draw one lesson from the Spanish Civil War it would be the weakness of militias when faced with professional soldiers. And any revolution, wherever it takes place, can expect fierce resistance from the capitalists. But that is the question that I feel needs to be answered before we can have a successful transition to socialism.


Militias may not be ideal, I&#39;m no military expert so I couldn&#39;t give a very insightful comment on this issue. However if a European country was to have a revolution, there will likely be the material conditions in other advanced nations, therefore America and the other nations will likely be trying to deal with movements or revolutions in their own country.

Also say Britain were to have a revolution we would instantly have nuclear weapons, is anyone really going to fuck with the revolution?


Well I only question Lenin and Marx because they called for us to question everything Seriously though, I agree with much of what they said but that’s after evaluating and examining their theories. If we’re to simply accept everything uncritically then we might as well start praying to their spirits for guidance.


Looking up to the spirit of the Mao,
&#39;cause we all know he&#39;s the guy,
we&#39;re going to look to the spirit of the Mao.

:lol:


This ties into the above question – how much control must the leaders of the revolution have? Its safe to say that Lenin advocated relativity high levels of control, but I again point out the chaos of Russia at the time. In situations like that, with so many foes still to be defeated, the workers cannot be allowed to make critical errors lest the entire revolution fail.


I&#39;m all for no leaders, complete workers&#39; control. Anything else and I feel we&#39;re selling out the revolution and I&#39;d rather fail fighting for something I want, than not try at all.


Every revolution, perhaps even that elusive “perfect” one, will have some form of leadership. Every movement requires coordinators and some degree of bureaucracy. That’s inevitable. What we have to ensure is that the bureaucracy do not become powerful enough to usurp the revolution. And that can only be done through the grass-roots.


Revolutions will probably produce figureheads and heroes, but the key is to never rely on these people to give us the answers. After all they&#39;re mortal just like the rest of us.


In themselves, no. But national liberation can quite often be tied into revolutionary movements. A revolution will automatically liberate the people from Western exploitation. As I’ve said already, material conditions can be created, not out of nothing of course, but a revolutionary government can create the conditions for a proletariat to arise.

The problem is these liberation movements tend to happen in places that are around a century off having the infastructure to even support Socialism. If they can create the conditions for modern Capitalism and some form of social democracy then they&#39;ve done a good job in my book.


Very possibly, I’m hardly an historian. But I’d be interested in their reasoning, the Nationalists pretty much had most of the advantages, even without the fascist aid.


I&#39;m not sure but I think there was a link to a study floating around the board somewhere.


Hence the Leninst focus on underdeloped nations where the capitalist class are weakers. The knockon effects will do much to create the required material conditions in the West.

The workers haven’t “sold out” per se. They’ve just been co-opted by the capitalist system. There’s so much money sloshing around that its hardly surprising. The need for revolution has been removed.

The Leninist focus really ignores that all you&#39;ll ever be able to achieve in those countries is modern Capitalism and personally I think there are better and more efficient policies in which to achieve modern Capitalism. The Chinese for instance certainly seem to have done it more quickly.

As for the need for revolution, thats a tricky one. Been as we&#39;ve probably never seen the material conditions for revolution its difficult to speculate as to why there hasn&#39;t been one. We&#39;ll probably be able to pin down the answer once we see a revolution in the advanced world.


I’m not just judging my opinion on the unions of today. A quick glance through history shows that unions are perfectly capable of getting along fine with the capitalists. That may change in time but I wouldn’t rely on it.


There have been good Unions and there have been terrible ones. Personally I think the Union structure is pretty rotten, just look at the miners&#39; strike. Scargill and co. completely sold out the miners&#39;.

I think we might see a revival of Communist and Anarchist Unions in the next century, but even they don&#39;t have great histories.


Lenin got far more into the nitty gritty of socialism and ruling than ever Marx did. Plus Marx dealt with developed nations where the need for a vanguard is either reduced or eliminated.


Though the question is, what do you think Marx would have thought about Lenin and his attempts at creating Socialism, vanguard and all?


I have little taste for capitalism, no matter how mild. If the situation presents itself we should not tolerate the capitalists for any longer than necessary.

What you seem to miss is that Capitalism is necessary. Russia was always Capitalist despite the noises to the contry. You can&#39;t skip a whole step of history, material conditions won&#39;t allow. Therefore despite not liking it, if Marx was correct we need Capitalism and therefore the only relevant question is just how quickly modern Capitalism can be created. And that I&#39;m afraid is a question for the economists.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:18 PM
Mmm...anarchy tastes nice.
Comrade Morpheus, that link you provided, &#39;Basic Principles of Anarchism&#39; was a nice easy read and would recommend people interested in anarchy should read it.
Thanks. I wrote it. :)

[Hiero]

Why do I need to learn the theory in depth. In every country that tried, the party grew bigger and bigger and the end result was the open and proud restoration of Capitalism. Why would I want to bother to learn such a poor theory?

Well this shows there is really no point talking to you, i might as well ask George Bush what he thinks about the Vangaurd theory as he has done as much reading on the subject.

Basically what your saying is you know nothing of the theory but you criticise based on assumption. Thats means you can never make a educated statement why your against the Vangaurd theory.

This is shown through you posts and the amount of false things you say. It is quite obvious you are assuming what happen and have not done any research.


Its funny that you would say that I wouldn&#39;t find any of this written down, the Redstar2000 papers offer similar criticisms, just a lot better in structure and intelligence than mine. Though I guess Redstar2000 is just another "naive Anarchist" in your eyes.

Redstar is not a quotable source. Redstars work is his own ideas based on reading of Leninist writers and other sources. Though i haven&#39;t check it&#39;s validity, but i assume based on his age he does have the knowledge that gives his ideas some credibility.

You on the other hand are just assuming and piecing bits together and just trying to sound like you have an idea of socialist politcs. It is so easy to say "i support the kronstadt as they wanted workers control, and Lenin just wanted party control" without actually understanding what both stood for and are they in the realm of whats good for the overall proletariat.

So there is no point talking to some who doesn&#39;t have a clue. You should go read Lenin and other Leninist outlooks, if not stay in your dark corner.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Well this shows there is really no point talking to you, i might as well ask George Bush what he thinks about the Vangaurd theory as he has done as much reading on the subject.

Basically what your saying is you know nothing of the theory but you criticise based on assumption. Thats means you can never make a educated statement why your against the Vangaurd theory.

Suit yourself. If you notice I said "Why do I need to learn the theory in depth" I have read bits and pieces of Leninist and Maoist theory, I&#39;ve also read a lot of what the Leninists and Maoists on this board have had to say, plus I&#39;ve also read what Anarchists and Marxists say about the theory. Now I apologise that I am not an expert on all things "vanguard" but there are other things I need to do with my time. Maybe in future I&#39;ll read more Lenin, but even then you&#39;d probably just say I was misinterpreting him.


This is shown through you posts and the amount of false things you say. It is quite obvious you are assuming what happen and have not done any research.


Where are these glaring errors? If I&#39;ve made erroneous statements, correct me. After all this is the learning forum.


Redstar is not a quotable source. Redstars work is his own ideas based on reading of Leninist writers and other sources. Though i haven&#39;t check it&#39;s validity, but i assume based on his age he does have the knowledge that gives his ideas some credibility.

You on the other hand are just assuming and piecing bits together and just trying to sound like you have an idea of socialist politcs. It is so easy to say "i support the kronstadt as they wanted workers control, and Lenin just wanted party control" without actually understanding what both stood for and are they in the realm of whats good for the overall proletariat.


If Redstar&#39;s views have credibility and I repeat them, doesn&#39;t this give credit to what I&#39;m saying? I may show that my intellect is not in the realms of demi Gods like yourself, but it does show that I am at least presenting a credible view.

As for the Kronstadt and the good of the proletariat, unless I&#39;ve missed something obvious they were the proletariat and therefore what right does Lenin and the Party have to deny the proletariat the right to rule themselves.


So there is no point talking to some who doesn&#39;t have a clue. You should go read Lenin and other Leninist outlooks, if not stay in your dark corner.

Dark corner? Well as I said I can only hope to compete with the intellect of a demi God like yourself.

[ComradeOm]

Militias may not be ideal, I&#39;m no military expert so I couldn&#39;t give a very insightful comment on this issue. However if a European country was to have a revolution, there will likely be the material conditions in other advanced nations, therefore America and the other nations will likely be trying to deal with movements or revolutions in their own country.

Also say Britain were to have a revolution we would instantly have nuclear weapons, is anyone really going to fuck with the revolution?
I consider the US to be a number of years, if not decades, behind Europe in terms of revolutionary consciousness. But regardless, for the state to be overthrown large counterrevolutionary within elements the army and police will have to be overcome. Of course Russia was a worst case scenario with five years of civil war and a complete breakdown of order.


Revolutions will probably produce figureheads and heroes, but the key is to never rely on these people to give us the answers. After all they&#39;re mortal just like the rest of us.
A problem that occurred towards the end of Lenin’s life. Once he and his policies became associated with victory people were unwilling to question or criticise his theories to the degree that they did previously. Of course once he died those same theories were wrapped up in Marxist-Leninism and held to be gospel.


The problem is these liberation movements tend to happen in places that are around a century off having the infastructure to even support Socialism. If they can create the conditions for modern Capitalism and some form of social democracy then they&#39;ve done a good job in my book.
I don’t think Stalin was too wrong when he estimated that Russia was a good hundred years behind the West. Less than a decade later and the Soviet Union was among the most industrialised nations on earth. In this case tight government control can be used to create the material conditions necessary for the leap to socialism. Certainly it can be accomplished faster than capitalism’s natural growth.


The Leninist focus really ignores that all you&#39;ll ever be able to achieve in those countries is modern Capitalism and personally I think there are better and more efficient policies in which to achieve modern Capitalism. The Chinese for instance certainly seem to have done it more quickly.
Keep an eye on China. I have the feeling that the country will explode within the next decade or two. But even China’s explosive growth in the past two decades has been the result of careful state planning. Nothing like the five year plans of course, but there’s been a lot of direction as to when to open a sector of the economy and what degree of foreign investment should be tolerated. Again something that a democratic capitalist government would have great difficulty to do, if its even possible.


As for the need for revolution, thats a tricky one. Been as we&#39;ve probably never seen the material conditions for revolution its difficult to speculate as to why there hasn&#39;t been one. We&#39;ll probably be able to pin down the answer once we see a revolution in the advanced world
Looking back at history I personally think that the fall of capitalism in the West came closest in 1918 Germany. It had it all – active labour movement, vast proletariat and weakened state. After the Commune that’s really the only period that the entire system tottered on a knife edge and it took a devastating war to accomplish even that. I find it worrying, and proof of Lenin’s theories, that the past century was largely devoid of the sort of workers risings that marked the previous one. Remember that Marxism isn’t an ideology that predicted worker unrest, its one that grew out of it.


Though the question is, what do you think Marx would have thought about Lenin and his attempts at creating Socialism, vanguard and all?
I think Marx would’ve been glad that someone (apart from redstar of course ;) ) was actually doing something to forward and implement his theories. So far there have been too few socialists either capable or willing to make meaningful contributions to what should be a “living doctrine”. On a personal level I’ve always though that Marx shared the same ruthless streak as Lenin. But these sort of questions are always impossible to answer.


What you seem to miss is that Capitalism is necessary. Russia was always Capitalist despite the noises to the contry. You can&#39;t skip a whole step of history, material conditions won&#39;t allow. Therefore despite not liking it, if Marx was correct we need Capitalism and therefore the only relevant question is just how quickly modern Capitalism can be created. And that I&#39;m afraid is a question for the economists.
Don’t get me wrong, some degree of capitalism is always needed before the revolution can kick off. It was the proletariat who marched in Petrograd to depose of the Tsar. China tried to go one step further and do it all with peasants, I don’t think I even need comment on Mao’s disastrous efforts. But, as I mentioned above, there are easier and quicker ways to build a proletariat body without going through the entire capitalist murder machine.

Of course if Lenin is right and imperialism is the key to capitalisms continued existence then either way is good. Eventually China and the Far East will develop to the point where there is no significant difference in wages with the West. Then things will get interesting.

[ComradeOm]

Now here&#39;s a surprise. 88 years ago today (Nov 7th) the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace and kicked off the Revolution.

[Pandii]

Quite the topic discussion you started&#33; Hope somewhere in there you got your answer&#33; Enjoy your stay.
Pandii_

[Amusing Scrotum]

I consider the US to be a number of years, if not decades, behind Europe in terms of revolutionary consciousness. But regardless, for the state to be overthrown large counterrevolutionary within elements the army and police will have to be overcome. Of course Russia was a worst case scenario with five years of civil war and a complete breakdown of order.

I would probably agree with you that the US seems to be decades behind Europe, but things could change rapidly. At the moment India seems a very interesting situation, its almost as technologically advanced as the West and there seems to be an increasing labour militancy from what I have read.

As for the counter revolutionary elements trying to launch a second attack, I dunno. The lower ranks of the army, the grunts, will probably desert, parts of the police may do the same (Look at the New Orleans police force) and all that will be left is a few rich bastards and I expect them to flee.

I really don&#39;t see that there would be a significant internal or external counter revolutionary element.


A problem that occurred towards the end of Lenin’s life. Once he and his policies became associated with victory people were unwilling to question or criticise his theories to the degree that they did previously. Of course once he died those same theories were wrapped up in Marxist-Leninism and held to be gospel.

This is why I think we should constantly bang on about how damaging this is and how counter revolutionary it turns out to be. We should abandon any theory that says certain enlightened people will guard the revolution. If classes are what it takes to guard against counter revolution, then I&#39;d rather fail straight away trying to create a classless society, than fail thirty years down the line not having come any closer to our goals.


I don’t think Stalin was too wrong when he estimated that Russia was a good hundred years behind the West. Less than a decade later and the Soviet Union was among the most industrialised nations on earth. In this case tight government control can be used to create the material conditions necessary for the leap to socialism. Certainly it can be accomplished faster than capitalism’s natural growth.

The living standards when compared to Europe were still abysmal, you need the whole package and I really don&#39;t think you can achieve that in a decade.

It possibly can be achieved more quickly through central planning, but central planning leaves individual choice by the wayside. Personally I think to reach modern Capitalism, you need certain "free market" elements in society. Private business in commodity goods etc. Certainly nationalise the essentials, but I think you need limited private enterprise to achieve modern Capitalism.


Keep an eye on China. I have the feeling that the country will explode within the next decade or two. But even China’s explosive growth in the past two decades has been the result of careful state planning. Nothing like the five year plans of course, but there’s been a lot of direction as to when to open a sector of the economy and what degree of foreign investment should be tolerated. Again something that a democratic capitalist government would have great difficulty to do, if its even possible.

A economically protectionist Government could probably achieve a degree of central planning.

China is incredibly interesting, I don&#39;t see it imploding but anythings possible. I expect that the new ruling class will be selling anything thats not nailed down, including people, within the next twenty years.

It will certainly be interesting to watch.


Looking back at history I personally think that the fall of capitalism in the West came closest in 1918 Germany. It had it all – active labour movement, vast proletariat and weakened state. After the Commune that’s really the only period that the entire system tottered on a knife edge and it took a devastating war to accomplish even that. I find it worrying, and proof of Lenin’s theories, that the past century was largely devoid of the sort of workers risings that marked the previous one. Remember that Marxism isn’t an ideology that predicted worker unrest, its one that grew out of it.

Paris of 68&#39; is my high point, with the Black Panther movement coming close behind. Mind you I haven&#39;t read a lot about that period in German history, which is why at the moment I don&#39;t rate it that highly.

I really don&#39;t think the conditions will arise for quite a while yet. For me Capitalism is only just becoming middle aged, its got quite a while left until it "picks up its bus pass."

As for Marxism, its a social study of class society throughout history, not a romantic ideology that grew out of worker unrest. Theres plenty of Utopian Socialist ideologies that can lay claim to those roots.


I think Marx would’ve been glad that someone (apart from redstar of course ) was actually doing something to forward and implement his theories. So far there have been too few socialists either capable or willing to make meaningful contributions to what should be a “living doctrine”. On a personal level I’ve always though that Marx shared the same ruthless streak as Lenin. But these sort of questions are always impossible to answer.


Marx was definitely an arrogant man and I think he be pretty pissed off that a man that by Marx&#39;s standard was an intellectual lightweight, (Lenin) had been so arrogant as to compare his own theories to those of Marx&#39;s. But thats just my opinion.


Don’t get me wrong, some degree of capitalism is always needed before the revolution can kick off. It was the proletariat who marched in Petrograd to depose of the Tsar. China tried to go one step further and do it all with peasants, I don’t think I even need comment on Mao’s disastrous efforts. But, as I mentioned above, there are easier and quicker ways to build a proletariat body without going through the entire capitalist murder machine.


I think we need full blooded modern Capitalism with all the shit it brings before we can even start talking about revolution. The classes in every stage of class society needed to be fully developed before they went onto the next type of class society.


Of course if Lenin is right and imperialism is the key to capitalisms continued existence then either way is good. Eventually China and the Far East will develop to the point where there is no significant difference in wages with the West. Then things will get interesting.

You see I don&#39;t see imperialism as anything other than bog standard exploitation in another country. Its not particularly special and its not a new phenomena, exploitation of other countries is one of Capitalisms trademarks, just like wage slavery is one of its trademarks.

As for the development of other parts of the world, well thats going to take a while. However if it does happen and the world does find some capital equality then things will certainly become interesting.

[Erythromycin-diazepam]

In my opinion theres 2 diffirent kinda anarchists.

The kinda "poser" anarchist, who just calls themself a anarchist because they call everyone a "coformnist" (i cant spell)

and the real kinda that actully studies and reads about anarchism.

thats just my opinion.

Badsanta170.

[Everyday Anarchy]

The "poser Anarchists" are known as lifestylists. They use anarchy as a fashion statement.

Then you&#39;ve got real Anarchists that are more of "professors of anarchism" (Bit contradictory there... but you get it) and revolutionists.

[Guerrilla22]

I did a test to tell me what kind of communist I am, however the test results revealed that I am pregnant.

[ComradeOm]

As for the counter revolutionary elements trying to launch a second attack, I dunno. The lower ranks of the army, the grunts, will probably desert, parts of the police may do the same (Look at the New Orleans police force) and all that will be left is a few rich bastards and I expect them to flee.

I really don&#39;t see that there would be a significant internal or external counter revolutionary element.
Hopefully you’re right. I suspect though that the capitalist state will not go down without some semblance of a fight. And if the Americans do lag behind the rest of the world you can expect any revolutionaries to face a stiff test from the US.


This is why I think we should constantly bang on about how damaging this is and how counter revolutionary it turns out to be. We should abandon any theory that says certain enlightened people will guard the revolution. If classes are what it takes to guard against counter revolution, then I&#39;d rather fail straight away trying to create a classless society, than fail thirty years down the line not having come any closer to our goals.

I think we need full blooded modern Capitalism with all the shit it brings before we can even start talking about revolution. The classes in every stage of class society needed to be fully developed before they went onto the next type of class society.
I disagree with this notion that capitalism is something to be suffered until its time runs out. As communists we should be striving to end this travesty as soon as possible. I’m not willing to wait until the material conditions simply occur and things get so bad that a revolution is the only way out.

It is possible to bring about the material conditions required for socialism through determined action. Capitalism is too strong in the West today (see imperialism) and so the task of revolution falls to the most heavily exploited – the workers in the underdeveloped nations. And, because these nations are underdeveloped, a vanguard is necessary to force revolution. Vanguardism is not particularly desirable but unavoidable when the material conditions are not correct.


The living standards when compared to Europe were still abysmal, you need the whole package and I really don&#39;t think you can achieve that in a decade.
Compared to Tsarist times the people were far, far better off. Whether you approve of the Revolution, along with the perversion that followed, or not its hard to deny that the lot of the Russian people did rise dramatically.


It possibly can be achieved more quickly through central planning, but central planning leaves individual choice by the wayside. Personally I think to reach modern Capitalism, you need certain "free market" elements in society. Private business in commodity goods etc. Certainly nationalise the essentials, but I think you need limited private enterprise to achieve modern Capitalism.
I again question the necessity of reaching modern capitalism. If it can be avoided then let’s do so. If previous efforts have failed then let’s try something new. I do not subscribe to the fatalist view that the entire world must go through the same brutal process. I cannot sit back and accept that things will get much worse for the proletariat without doing something to try and prevent it. If the chance arises to bypass or shorten the process then we should grasp it with both hands.


A economically protectionist Government could probably achieve a degree of central planning.
There is only so much influence a government can maintain on its economy before you spill over to five year plans and the like. The problem is that any market based economy will ultimately be at the mercy of the market. All a government can do is try and steer the market in the desired direction.


China is incredibly interesting, I don&#39;t see it imploding but anythings possible. I expect that the new ruling class will be selling anything thats not nailed down, including people, within the next twenty years.

It will certainly be interesting to watch.
Personally I think the country has a 50/50 chance of imploding, depending on the actions of the CP. If they try and resist change and maintain their power there’ll be a revolution, if they go with the flow and liberalise the politics we’ll see them reach modern capitalism with all the living costs and higher wages that that entails. Either way I’m glad that I’ll live (hopefully&#33;) to watch China’s transformation. Interesting times are ahead.


Paris of 68&#39; is my high point, with the Black Panther movement coming close behind. Mind you I haven&#39;t read a lot about that period in German history, which is why at the moment I don&#39;t rate it that highly.
You should have a look at some material on the Berlin uprising of 1919 or the Bavarian Soviet Republic, even wikipedia will do. If nothing else it shows what happens when those doing the organising are inefficient.

I’ve always seen Paris ’68 as more of a symptom of that decades swing against the establishment. It was a brief and glorious stand against the state but I don’t think there was any real possibility of a socialist state forming.


As for Marxism, its a social study of class society throughout history, not a romantic ideology that grew out of worker unrest. Theres plenty of Utopian Socialist ideologies that can lay claim to those roots.
Marx didn’t sit down one day and predict that the coming decades would be littered with worker unrest. He observed class struggle firsthand and derived his general theories from what he saw and heard in the slums. The same applies to Engels, he saw the conditions that the poor in Manchester existed in and drew his conclusions from that.


You see I don&#39;t see imperialism as anything other than bog standard exploitation in another country. Its not particularly special and its not a new phenomena, exploitation of other countries is one of Capitalisms trademarks, just like wage slavery is one of its trademarks.
What marks economic imperialism out as something special is the degree of wealth that it generates for the capitalist. Even today the savings to be gained from relocating a factory from Europe to China are huge. That gulf in wealth simply wasn’t there when Marx wrote his, admittedly Eurocentric, theories. The capitalists had always taken advantage of foreign markets and workforces but they rarely ventured outside Europe and the superprofits to be earned were miniscule.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Hopefully you’re right. I suspect though that the capitalist state will not go down without some semblance of a fight. And if the Americans do lag behind the rest of the world you can expect any revolutionaries to face a stiff test from the US.

Obviously there will be fights during the revolutionary period, its just I really don&#39;t think a defeated Capitalist class will have either the means or willpower to launch a counter attack. Western Capitalists are way to pampered and are nothing like the Contras&#39;.

As for America, well, as I said if there were a revolution in Britain or France America is hardly likely to try anything, because the post revolutionary country would posses nuclear capabilities and the American Government has never invaded a country with nuclear weapons.


I disagree with this notion that capitalism is something to be suffered until its time runs out. As communists we should be striving to end this travesty as soon as possible. I’m not willing to wait until the material conditions simply occur and things get so bad that a revolution is the only way out.

It is possible to bring about the material conditions required for socialism through determined action. Capitalism is too strong in the West today (see imperialism) and so the task of revolution falls to the most heavily exploited – the workers in the underdeveloped nations. And, because these nations are underdeveloped, a vanguard is necessary to force revolution. Vanguardism is not particularly desirable but unavoidable when the material conditions are not correct.


You see you are looking at the third world and saying "bugger, the material conditions are not there so we need to force them." However the material conditions are there, just these material conditions are for national liberation not Socialism. Therefore if a group decides to try Socialism there, they will only ever be able to produce modern Capitalism no matter how much Socialist rhetoric they use. Believe me, liberation of the third world and modern Capitalism in these places is highly desirable to what is there now.

Therefore the vanguard can call itself Socialist, Anarchist, Martian or Hindu, it doesn&#39;t matter because material conditions will not allow them to skip over Capitalism. If countries were able to skip over Capitalism then surely one of the "backward" nations which tried Socialism in the last century would have managed it by now.

Now in this sense a Leninist vanguard could be a good theory for producing modern Capitalism quickly, though most of the strides towards modern Capitalism in Russia were made under Stalin, however I personally think large scale economic protectionism will do the trick a lot better, the kind practised by the emerging European and American Capitalist powers.

Now Communists may well despair that the material conditions are not there and pin their hopes on some "enlightened vanguard" to produce them, but if Marx was right this will fail because material conditions cannot be forced. Therefore if we think Marx was right all we need is patience (However annoying it may seem) because one day the conditions will arise.

Its like when you are 17 and go out drinking, if a bouncer asks for ID you are doomed however if you are patient and wait until you are 18 and old enough to drink, you can drink. You may try to fool the system by using a fake ID, but this is no substitute for actually being old enough.

Do you like that analogy?


Compared to Tsarist times the people were far, far better off. Whether you approve of the Revolution, along with the perversion that followed, or not its hard to deny that the lot of the Russian people did rise dramatically.


Of course Russia did advance rapidly, but many countries have gone through advances just as rapid. If you think about the advances in living standards made in Britain from the 50&#39;s on wards, you realise that rapid advancement can be made.

However you can only speed up advancement so much, this was my point, you may be able to advance at two or three times the normal rate, but you can&#39;t advance a ten times the normal rate which is what Russia needed to do.

Russia as well benefited from having an abundance of natural resources, other countries will not be as lucky. So really we need to ask not just how good was the workman, but how good were his tools, if we want to decide just how much Russia advanced.


I again question the necessity of reaching modern capitalism. If it can be avoided then let’s do so. If previous efforts have failed then let’s try something new. I do not subscribe to the fatalist view that the entire world must go through the same brutal process. I cannot sit back and accept that things will get much worse for the proletariat without doing something to try and prevent it. If the chance arises to bypass or shorten the process then we should grasp it with both hands.


If you can think of a theory that will skip Capitalism, then please deliver it. So far Socialism has failed at doing this, theocracies too have failed etc. All the ideologies that I can think of that dislike Capitalism and want to "skip it" have only ever ended in the creation of Capitalism, the only question remaining is how good were they at doing this.

Also you say "I cannot sit back and accept that things will get much worse for the proletariat without doing something to try and prevent it." You know from what I know, Capitalism has to come in order for there to even be a proletariat. Its undesirable, but inevitable.

As for shortening the process, well that is a good idea. This is where we need to look at various economic models and decide which ones can produce modern Capitalism the quickest. Why take 200 years making it when it can be achieved in 150 or 100 years. Marx if I&#39;m not wrong, thought colonialism would produce modern Capitalism in "backward" nations, however it has been shown that this only hyper develops a few areas of a countries economy while leaving the rest to rot.

Therefore if we wish to discuss how to achieve modern Capitalism we need to look into various economic theories. Personally I prefer economic protectionism and think that it is the most well rounded method, though Maoism and Leninism have their merits.


There is only so much influence a government can maintain on its economy before you spill over to five year plans and the like. The problem is that any market based economy will ultimately be at the mercy of the market. All a government can do is try and steer the market in the desired direction.

Fair enough, but economic protectionism was the path all the major Capitalist countries (bar China and Russia) used to reach their desired goal. And so far it seems as if the European and American Capitalist countries created a "better" modern Capitalism than either China or Russia. Though this could change over the next century, as its still far too early to offer a conclusive verdict.


Personally I think the country has a 50/50 chance of imploding, depending on the actions of the CP. If they try and resist change and maintain their power there’ll be a revolution, if they go with the flow and liberalise the politics we’ll see them reach modern capitalism with all the living costs and higher wages that that entails. Either way I’m glad that I’ll live (hopefully&#33;) to watch China’s transformation. Interesting times are ahead.


Hopefully I too will still be alive to see China&#39;s transformation, I was too young to see Russia&#39;s, therefore I will be watching how China does this with great interest.


You should have a look at some material on the Berlin uprising of 1919 or the Bavarian Soviet Republic, even wikipedia will do. If nothing else it shows what happens when those doing the organising are inefficient.

If only they&#39;d had a Lenin or a Trotsky. ;)

Though I think that if there had actually been the conditions present for the overthrow of Capitalism, it would have happened, I don&#39;t think any amount of "organising" can change this.


I’ve always seen Paris ’68 as more of a symptom of that decades swing against the establishment. It was a brief and glorious stand against the state but I don’t think there was any real possibility of a socialist state forming.


Probably true, if there had been the conditions for the overthrow of Capitalism then even when the Unions had sold out the rebellion/revolution would have carried on. Though I do think Paris of 68&#39; will be similar to what we see when the revolution eventually happens.


Marx didn’t sit down one day and predict that the coming decades would be littered with worker unrest. He observed class struggle firsthand and derived his general theories from what he saw and heard in the slums. The same applies to Engels, he saw the conditions that the poor in Manchester existed in and drew his conclusions from that.


This would be true if Marx had just predicted this, he didn&#39;t. He went about conducting a study of society, present and past and then predicted what he thought the future would be based on the trends he observed.

The romantic Socialists just saw these things and decided Socialism will follow. They based their theories on hope without trying to really explain anything in depth, the working class will revolt because they should. Not a very good explanation of what will happen and therefore its not that surprising that followers of these utopian theories have often just given up on the ideas and gone into politics.


What marks economic imperialism out as something special is the degree of wealth that it generates for the capitalist. Even today the savings to be gained from relocating a factory from Europe to China are huge. That gulf in wealth simply wasn’t there when Marx wrote his, admittedly Eurocentric, theories. The capitalists had always taken advantage of foreign markets and workforces but they rarely ventured outside Europe and the superprofits to be earned were miniscule.

When Marx was alive the British were making masses of money in India and the other colonies. Possibly more than they are making today. Slavery was also around which allowed great profits to be made.

Really I don&#39;t think Capitalism has ever invented new theories to exploit, its just some of the older theories have evolved and in some cases improved. Its like saying left wing Capitalism is not the same as right wing Capitalism. They are, because they both stem from basic Capitalism its just they offer different explanations on how to be efficient. Theres nothing new about them, its just they have improved and evolved previous theories, not invented whole new ones.

[ComradeOm]

As for America, well, as I said if there were a revolution in Britain or France America is hardly likely to try anything, because the post revolutionary country would posses nuclear capabilities and the American Government has never invaded a country with nuclear weapons.
I don’t like thinking about nukes. They’re the one thing that could derail the whole program. Think about it – when the capitalists know they’ve lost, and those capitalists have access to nuclear arms… our survival would depend on whichever counterrevolutionary leader was the least stable.

And I wouldn’t count on getting the UK’s nukes. Right now they’re on four submarines scattered around the globe.


You see you are looking at the third world and saying "bugger, the material conditions are not there so we need to force them." However the material conditions are there, just these material conditions are for national liberation not Socialism. Therefore if a group decides to try Socialism there, they will only ever be able to produce modern Capitalism no matter how much Socialist rhetoric they use. Believe me, liberation of the third world and modern Capitalism in these places is highly desirable to what is there now.

You see you are looking at the third world and saying "bugger, the material conditions are not there so we need to force them." However the material conditions are there, just these material conditions are for national liberation not Socialism. Therefore if a group decides to try Socialism there, they will only ever be able to produce modern Capitalism no matter how much Socialist rhetoric they use. Believe me, liberation of the third world and modern Capitalism in these places is highly desirable to what is there now.

Therefore the vanguard can call itself Socialist, Anarchist, Martian or Hindu, it doesn&#39;t matter because material conditions will not allow them to skip over Capitalism. If countries were able to skip over Capitalism then surely one of the "backward" nations which tried Socialism in the last century would have managed it by now.

Now in this sense a Leninist vanguard could be a good theory for producing modern Capitalism quickly, though most of the strides towards modern Capitalism in Russia were made under Stalin, however I personally think large scale economic protectionism will do the trick a lot better, the kind practised by the emerging European and American Capitalist powers.

Now Communists may well despair that the material conditions are not there and pin their hopes on some "enlightened vanguard" to produce them, but if Marx was right this will fail because material conditions cannot be forced. Therefore if we think Marx was right all we need is patience (However annoying it may seem) because one day the conditions will arise.

Its like when you are 17 and go out drinking, if a bouncer asks for ID you are doomed however if you are patient and wait until you are 18 and old enough to drink, you can drink. You may try to fool the system by using a fake ID, but this is no substitute for actually being old enough.

Do you like that analogy?
Marx was not an economic determinant, he recognised that those with political will can alter the material conditions of society. You’re perfectly right, the material conditions for a socialist revolution do not exist in the world today. But Lenin simply took this to its logical conclusion by suggesting that if the conditions existed for the development of a small and dedicated proletariat, that body could force change on society. Obviously it hasn’t worked, as I said its only really been tried once before Marxism-Leninism arrived, but I certainly don’t think its at the point where the entire theory must be discarded.

As for the analogy, you fool the bouncer and get drink while avoiding the angst of spending Saturday nights at home. I fail to see the downside ;)


Of course Russia did advance rapidly, but many countries have gone through advances just as rapid. If you think about the advances in living standards made in Britain from the 50&#39;s on wards, you realise that rapid advancement can be made.

However you can only speed up advancement so much, this was my point, you may be able to advance at two or three times the normal rate, but you can&#39;t advance a ten times the normal rate which is what Russia needed to do.

Russia as well benefited from having an abundance of natural resources, other countries will not be as lucky. So really we need to ask not just how good was the workman, but how good were his tools, if we want to decide just how much Russia advanced.
Russia’s industrialisation is still the most rapid and impressive transformation of an economy ever recorded. Only China’s growth in the last two decades has given it a run for its money and that’s been achieved with Western capital. It really was a stunning growth which really did make up a century in a decade.

Obviously Russia couldn’t advance to modern capitalism, well until the eighties at least, but I again question whether that is necessary, never mind desirable. Marx certainly though that capitalism was on its last legs when he was alive, and the material conditions bore him out, and that capitalism was hardly modern.


If you can think of a theory that will skip Capitalism, then please deliver it. So far Socialism has failed at doing this, theocracies too have failed etc. All the ideologies that I can think of that dislike Capitalism and want to "skip it" have only ever ended in the creation of Capitalism, the only question remaining is how good were they at doing this.
Skip, no, not quite. Don’t forget that it was the proletariat of Petrograd that led the way in 1917. But the worst excess of it can, in theory at least, be avoided. That’s one reason why I have no time for Maoism – it attempts to do it all with peasants.


Also you say "I cannot sit back and accept that things will get much worse for the proletariat without doing something to try and prevent it." You know from what I know, Capitalism has to come in order for there to even be a proletariat. Its undesirable, but inevitable.

As for shortening the process, well that is a good idea. This is where we need to look at various economic models and decide which ones can produce modern Capitalism the quickest. Why take 200 years making it when it can be achieved in 150 or 100 years. Marx if I&#39;m not wrong, thought colonialism would produce modern Capitalism in "backward" nations, however it has been shown that this only hyper develops a few areas of a countries economy while leaving the rest to rot.

Therefore if we wish to discuss how to achieve modern Capitalism we need to look into various economic theories. Personally I prefer economic protectionism and think that it is the most well rounded method, though Maoism and Leninism have their merits.
The problem with thinking along those lines is that you end up cheering the capitalists on. Go on, destroy another country, enslave another population, we’ll get socialism sooner. True, but hardly revolutionary or admirable. In effect you’re simply compressing all the horrors of capitalism into a shorter time frame. The same numbers will die, the same masses exploited etc etc. In the end the result is the same but I for one see no reason to go through the pain if it can be in any way avoided.

Once there is a proletariat body strong enough with willing peasant allies they should begin to prepare. When the state is rocked, which happens all too often in the third world, their window of opportunity opens. Then we’re into familiar territory. Easier said than done of course and much more difficult than simply letting capitalism run its course but the possible rewards are well worth it.

And ironically enough Marx will probably end up being right about the imperialists creating a proletariat in the “colonies”. Its happening right now in the Far Eastern sweatshops.


Fair enough, but economic protectionism was the path all the major Capitalist countries (bar China and Russia) used to reach their desired goal. And so far it seems as if the European and American Capitalist countries created a "better" modern Capitalism than either China or Russia. Though this could change over the next century, as its still far too early to offer a conclusive verdict.
And it took them centuries to reach that goal. To my mind no Western nation has ever applied protectionist measures to the degree that I’d envisage necessary to build domestic industry to such heights. Whether you’d be allowed to would be another issue. Neither the US multinationals or domestic bourgeoisie would tolerate a nation closing its doors to the economic world.


If only they&#39;d had a Lenin or a Trotsky.

Though I think that if there had actually been the conditions present for the overthrow of Capitalism, it would have happened, I don&#39;t think any amount of "organising" can change this.
But how close to the perfect conditions need you be? From all the evidence presented by history you need to be right on the mark, there’s no room for error. Which is one of my biggest objections, not to Marx but to those who interpret him to literally. Marx predicted the actions of classes and there’s always a tendency to only think in those terms. But individuals can and will play a vital role in any revolution. In those two examples I provided mistakes were made which could have been avoided. If that had happened then I see no reason why we couldn’t have had socialism a century ago.

So really a Lenin or Trotsky, or someone with any organisational ability in the right place at the right, could’ve made a huge difference. Funny, no? ;)


[b]This would be true if Marx had just predicted this, he didn&#39;t. He went about conducting a study of society, present and past and then predicted what he thought the future would be based on the trends he observed.

The romantic Socialists just saw these things and decided Socialism will follow. They based their theories on hope without trying to really explain anything in depth, the working class will revolt because they should. Not a very good explanation of what will happen and therefore its not that surprising that followers of these utopian theories have often just given up on the ideas and gone into politics.
I think we’re getting our wires slightly crossed here. But as I can’t remember the original point I’m not too concerned. What I was getting at though is that Marx drew his conclusions from the unrest he witnessed, as opposed to him predicting unrest in his theories. Communism is a result of those protests, not vice versa. I was probably trying to point out that capitalism was tottering all those years ago and has since settled down somewhat. Or something like that.

You’re perfectly right on the Utopians. They saw the unrest but, unlike Marx, they were unable to realise it for what it was.


[b]When Marx was alive the British were making masses of money in India and the other colonies. Possibly more than they are making today. Slavery was also around which allowed great profits to be made.

Really I don&#39;t think Capitalism has ever invented new theories to exploit, its just some of the older theories have evolved and in some cases improved. Its like saying left wing Capitalism is not the same as right wing Capitalism. They are, because they both stem from basic Capitalism its just they offer different explanations on how to be efficient. Theres nothing new about them, its just they have improved and evolved previous theories, not invented whole new ones.
I’m not entirely clued up on Imperial history in India and Marx’s conclusions on the issue (I know there were some). Unfortunately Marx missed the wider picture, hardly surprising since it didn’t kick off fully until after his death. Slavery is another symptom of imperialism but not one that Marx would’ve had too much contact with.

Capitalism evolves. It rarely does so consciously but it does evolve. While there were plenty of reasons to kick off the “Scramble for Africa” the main one was simple greed. It was the desire for new, docile, markets and cheap raw materials that led the Europeans to carve up the continent and Asia. Its clear, to me at least, that the increased superprofit to be gained from these foreign ventures began to increase as worker discontent waned.

Now Marxism doesn’t allow for the capitalist to “pay off” (for lack of better term) the proletariat because it shouldn’t be possible to wring so much profit from the workers. So either Marx is dead wrong on the economic front or something else is at play.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I don’t like thinking about nukes. They’re the one thing that could derail the whole program. Think about it – when the capitalists know they’ve lost, and those capitalists have access to nuclear arms… our survival would depend on whichever counterrevolutionary leader was the least stable.

And I wouldn’t count on getting the UK’s nukes. Right now they’re on four submarines scattered around the globe.

True they could do something as brutal as that, but it would likely mean they would be overthrown by their own population. Also nuking Britain will result in them losing any chance to win it back and return to Capitalism, all kind of economic opportunities would be lost and they would probably rather wait for the egalitarian society to implode, because thats what they think it would do. So I guess its unlikely, though not impossible.

Though I thought Britain had some nukes in storage and that not all of them are on the Trident submarines?


Marx was not an economic determinant, he recognised that those with political will can alter the material conditions of society. You’re perfectly right, the material conditions for a socialist revolution do not exist in the world today. But Lenin simply took this to its logical conclusion by suggesting that if the conditions existed for the development of a small and dedicated proletariat, that body could force change on society. Obviously it hasn’t worked, as I said its only really been tried once before Marxism-Leninism arrived, but I certainly don’t think its at the point where the entire theory must be discarded.

Maybe it shouldn&#39;t be discarded, it probably does need some alterations because as I see the vanguard ended up detaching the people from the revolution. It created a kind of apathy within the proletariat.

Simply put if I were to advocate a particular brand of the vanguard theory, I would probably advocate the Cuban model as the best. It has a lot of devolved democracy, but still keeps a "revolutionary council" of sorts, a group of enlightened men looking after the revolution. However the Cuban model economically has been tested, as Cuban advancement was and is hampered by both America and the "Socialist" powers.


As for the analogy, you fool the bouncer and get drink while avoiding the angst of spending Saturday nights at home. I fail to see the downside.

grhhh..... :lol:


Russia’s industrialisation is still the most rapid and impressive transformation of an economy ever recorded. Only China’s growth in the last two decades has given it a run for its money and that’s been achieved with Western capital. It really was a stunning growth which really did make up a century in a decade.

What you have to consider into this though is that Russia didn&#39;t develop anything new like the original developing powers did. They didn&#39;t need to have an industrial revolution because the technology is already there. So I guess this helped their development greatly not having to develop the technology first.

You can build a house a lot quicker if the theories on house building are already there. Now thats a better analogy.


Obviously Russia couldn’t advance to modern capitalism, well until the eighties at least, but I again question whether that is necessary, never mind desirable. Marx certainly though that capitalism was on its last legs when he was alive, and the material conditions bore him out, and that capitalism was hardly modern.

I think this development is necessary. People need the treats, the TVs, the computers etc. before they can progress. I personally think the material conditions will arise when the ability to obtain the treats dry up.

We all want the treats and to most of the third world the treats are indeed desirable, any African would jump at the chance of having running water and will therefore see modern Capitalism as incredibly desirable.

Therefore I believe Capitalism must run its course before we can advance, because Capitalism is in itself an advancement on the previous orders. We need the advances of modern Capitalism before we can advance to Communism.


Skip, no, not quite. Don’t forget that it was the proletariat of Petrograd that led the way in 1917. But the worst excess of it can, in theory at least, be avoided. That’s one reason why I have no time for Maoism – it attempts to do it all with peasants.


Perhaps the worse excesses of it can be avoided, I would suggest social-democracy to achieve this, the Scandinavian form is probably the best type, it seems the most well rounded.

It would be interesting to hear the view of impartial (if there is such a thing) economists on this.


The problem with thinking along those lines is that you end up cheering the capitalists on. Go on, destroy another country, enslave another population, we’ll get socialism sooner. True, but hardly revolutionary or admirable. In effect you’re simply compressing all the horrors of capitalism into a shorter time frame. The same numbers will die, the same masses exploited etc etc. In the end the result is the same but I for one see no reason to go through the pain if it can be in any way avoided.

I don&#39;t think we need to cheer them along, we need to protest against them, especially the imperialistic Capitalists of the first world and to some extent we do need to be cheering on the native bourgeois of the third world, the Chavez&#39;s etc. We should also cheer on attempts at radical Capitalist democracy (see Venezuela) because in my opinion this helps develop class consciousness, not retard it.

We can&#39;t avoid the pain, no, but it is are revolutionary duty to piss and moan about the pain endlessly and hopefully when we have a Communist society, school children will be taught about the best pissers and moaners. ;)


Once there is a proletariat body strong enough with willing peasant allies they should begin to prepare. When the state is rocked, which happens all too often in the third world, their window of opportunity opens. Then we’re into familiar territory. Easier said than done of course and much more difficult than simply letting capitalism run its course but the possible rewards are well worth it.

Of course it is possible, but the likelihood it will lead to Communism is in my opinion minuscule. The evidence kind of supports this too. I won&#39;t discard it completely, what I will do is wait until I see evidence of it actually happening in the third world before I start encouraging it.

Therefore I&#39;m not going to start gushing with pride and devotion every time some national liberation movement starts using Socialist rhetoric. I&#39;ll support most of these movements, but I&#39;m not going to start believing they can do anything other than produce modern Capitalism in their respective countries.


And ironically enough Marx will probably end up being right about the imperialists creating a proletariat in the “colonies”. Its happening right now in the Far Eastern sweatshops.

Yeah I suppose, but these sweatshops tend to just make profit for the foreign Capitalists, they don&#39;t actually develop the respective countries much.

Marx&#39;s view on this is understandable given the view of intelligentsias&#39; of that particular period that the European powers could "civilise" those "backward" folks. I think he&#39;d probably revise that opinion after seeing just how little the colonial powers achieved in most of their colonies.


And it took them centuries to reach that goal. To my mind no Western nation has ever applied protectionist measures to the degree that I’d envisage necessary to build domestic industry to such heights. Whether you’d be allowed to would be another issue. Neither the US multinationals or domestic bourgeoisie would tolerate a nation closing its doors to the economic world.

The American and British Capitalists are famous for sticking high tariffs on outside industries they couldn&#39;t beat.

Perhaps a Leninist or Maoist inspired bourgeois make the best Capitalists because they don&#39;t realise thats what they are and will be incredibly stern when faced with foreign Capitalists. So I suppose Leninism or Maoism may be a very good cloak to wear when developing modern Capitalism, because it makes the developers "do it better."


But how close to the perfect conditions need you be? From all the evidence presented by history you need to be right on the mark, there’s no room for error. Which is one of my biggest objections, not to Marx but to those who interpret him to literally. Marx predicted the actions of classes and there’s always a tendency to only think in those terms. But individuals can and will play a vital role in any revolution. In those two examples I provided mistakes were made which could have been avoided. If that had happened then I see no reason why we couldn’t have had socialism a century ago.

My opinion is that if the movement is good enough it will produce those "individuals" who can "organise." I don&#39;t doubt that any revolution we see will have "organisers." What I dispute is that the individual themselves can "do" the revolution instead of the masses. The individual is no one without mass support.

As for seeing Socialism a century ago, I doubt it. I think Socialism even in this century is optimistic as Capitalism still has a long way to go and I expect its going to be on its deathbed for a long time as well. You see I suppose I am too much of a dogmatic Marxist in that I think the reason we haven&#39;t had Socialism yet is because we haven&#39;t had the material conditions. Though it seems the more logical and dare I say Marxist, way to look at things.


So really a Lenin or Trotsky, or someone with any organisational ability in the right place at the right, could’ve made a huge difference. Funny, no?

The masses when the time is right, will organise themselves. Communism will only come when the workers&#39; themselves take power, we can&#39;t organise this for them, however much we&#39;d like to do this.


I think we’re getting our wires slightly crossed here. But as I can’t remember the original point I’m not too concerned. What I was getting at though is that Marx drew his conclusions from the unrest he witnessed, as opposed to him predicting unrest in his theories. Communism is a result of those protests, not vice versa. I was probably trying to point out that capitalism was tottering all those years ago and has since settled down somewhat. Or something like that.

You’re perfectly right on the Utopians. They saw the unrest but, unlike Marx, they were unable to realise it for what it was.

I get you now, basically Marx saw the unrest, looked into it and then established his theories as to why it was happening. So maybe the unrest spurred his interest, but he certainly took a more scientific view of it than anyone else at that time or since then.


I’m not entirely clued up on Imperial history in India and Marx’s conclusions on the issue (I know there were some). Unfortunately Marx missed the wider picture, hardly surprising since it didn’t kick off fully until after his death. Slavery is another symptom of imperialism but not one that Marx would’ve had too much contact with.

I don&#39;t think Marx went into that much detail about either colonisation or slavery, though I personally think other than that they are particularly horrible theres nothing that "special" about them. Lenin like all of us was a product of his time and his emphasis on Imperialism is I think, explained by this.


Capitalism evolves. It rarely does so consciously but it does evolve. While there were plenty of reasons to kick off the “Scramble for Africa” the main one was simple greed. It was the desire for new, docile, markets and cheap raw materials that led the Europeans to carve up the continent and Asia. Its clear, to me at least, that the increased superprofit to be gained from these foreign ventures began to increase as worker discontent waned.

The "superprofit" theory is an idea I find bizarre. Normal profit is a perfectly reasonable term. Again I really think these theories of Lenin&#39;s were based more on emotion than anything else, he tried to find explanations for why the European worker hadn&#39;t risen up partly because I think he actually believed, mistakingly, that the Russian worker had risen up.


Now Marxism doesn’t allow for the capitalist to “pay off” (for lack of better term) the proletariat because it shouldn’t be possible to wring so much profit from the workers. So either Marx is dead wrong on the economic front or something else is at play.

Yet see the workers&#39; are not "bought off" in my opinion, they still have their labour value stolen off them by the Capitalist. The Capitalist is not making superprofit in the third world just so he can pay the workers&#39; more than their labours value, because if this were the case he wouldn&#39;t be making a profit off the worker, however he is making a profit.

Also if you use Lenin&#39;s theory then third world workers must also be "bought off" because the majority of them, just like the majority of first world workers&#39;, are not throwing off the chains of Capitalism. Is this the case?

[ComradeOm]

True they could do something as brutal as that, but it would likely mean they would be overthrown by their own population. Also nuking Britain will result in them losing any chance to win it back and return to Capitalism, all kind of economic opportunities would be lost and they would probably rather wait for the egalitarian society to implode, because thats what they think it would do. So I guess its unlikely, though not impossible.

Though I thought Britain had some nukes in storage and that not all of them are on the Trident submarines?
I’m not too worried about the US using nukes against Britain or Europe, I’m far more worried about them simply being used indiscriminately when revolution finally does occur in the States. When the capitalists have no options remaining they may well do the unthinkable.

I may be wrong about the nukes, there could well be some stashed in a bunker somewhere. Actually just thinking about it that would make sense. But having the warheads themselves isn’t much and Britain’s only delivery system is the subs.


Maybe it shouldn&#39;t be discarded, it probably does need some alterations because as I see the vanguard ended up detaching the people from the revolution. It created a kind of apathy within the proletariat.

Simply put if I were to advocate a particular brand of the vanguard theory, I would probably advocate the Cuban model as the best. It has a lot of devolved democracy, but still keeps a "revolutionary council" of sorts, a group of enlightened men looking after the revolution. However the Cuban model economically has been tested, as Cuban advancement was and is hampered by both America and the "Socialist" powers.
Obviously Russia did not turn out as it could have. Countless books and posts have been written on just why that was. But I still have complete faith in the underlying theory and the need for discipline in both creating and defending the revolution. The challenge is to incorporate the necessary democratic measures without diluting this discipline.

Cuba I tend to reserve judgement on. There’s so much propaganda on the state of the nation that I find it hard to get an accurate picture of just how democratic or socialist the nation could be considered. Castro’s death and the resulting governmental transition should answer those questions.


What you have to consider into this though is that Russia didn&#39;t develop anything new like the original developing powers did. They didn&#39;t need to have an industrial revolution because the technology is already there. So I guess this helped their development greatly not having to develop the technology first.

You can build a house a lot quicker if the theories on house building are already there. Now thats a better analogy.
That is a much better analogy ;) I question the underlying theory though. Remember that Britain has industrialised a good 30-100 lead over the rest of Europe. Its true that the USSR didn’t have to develop the new technologies but then neither did any other nation. And yet no other power was able to go from such extremes in such a short period of time.


I think this development is necessary. People need the treats, the TVs, the computers etc. before they can progress. I personally think the material conditions will arise when the ability to obtain the treats dry up.

We all want the treats and to most of the third world the treats are indeed desirable, any African would jump at the chance of having running water and will therefore see modern Capitalism as incredibly desirable.
And how do these luxuries come about? After all how can the capitalists continue to pay wages that allow the proletariat to own two cars and a dishwasher? Marx didn’t factor that in because as far as he was concerned it couldn’t happened. At this point do I need to say more about Imperialism?


Therefore I believe Capitalism must run its course before we can advance, because Capitalism is in itself an advancement on the previous orders. We need the advances of modern Capitalism before we can advance to Communism.
Bog standard capitalism isn’t enough? We have the proletariat so why wait. If you have a horrible disease you try to find a cure instead of sitting around confident that eventually it’ll pass. You get yourself a cure and take two spoonfuls a day. You’re not the only one who can analogise ;)


I don&#39;t think we need to cheer them along, we need to protest against them, especially the imperialistic Capitalists of the first world and to some extent we do need to be cheering on the native bourgeois of the third world, the Chavez&#39;s etc. We should also cheer on attempts at radical Capitalist democracy (see Venezuela) because in my opinion this helps develop class consciousness, not retard it.

We can&#39;t avoid the pain, no, but it is are revolutionary duty to piss and moan about the pain endlessly and hopefully when we have a Communist society, school children will be taught about the best pissers and moaners.
But ultimately we are pushed to the side as capitalism marches onwards. That wasn’t a problem in Marx’s day when they were certain that capitalism was about to fall. But its a slightly depressing viewpoint today. I’m human too and I’m not too keen to surrender myself to such a future. We must take every opportunity to not just moan or protest but to overthrow capitalism. Obviously that’s not easy in the West but opportunities will arise and we must be ready.


Of course it is possible, but the likelihood it will lead to Communism is in my opinion minuscule. The evidence kind of supports this too. I won&#39;t discard it completely, what I will do is wait until I see evidence of it actually happening in the third world before I start encouraging it.

Therefore I&#39;m not going to start gushing with pride and devotion every time some national liberation movement starts using Socialist rhetoric. I&#39;ll support most of these movements, but I&#39;m not going to start believing they can do anything other than produce modern Capitalism in their respective countries.
Naturally the motives and actions of every movement must be analysed before being either endorsed or condemned. I hold out hope though that Leninism is the only hope that we have of seeing socialism in our lives.


Yeah I suppose, but these sweatshops tend to just make profit for the foreign Capitalists, they don&#39;t actually develop the respective countries much.
If a development of a nation is judged by the stage of worker co-operation and organisation then I think these firms are doing quite well in destroying themselves. There’s nothing quite like a brutal 12 hour shift on a factory floor for miniscule wages to create a militant proletariat.


The American and British Capitalists are famous for sticking high tariffs on outside industries they couldn&#39;t beat.
Traditionally there’s been few industries that the US or Britain couldn’t beat. But it depends on what period you’re referring to. Both nations have swapped between free trade and protectionism, as have most other nations, depending on the economic circumstances and their relative dominance of the markets.


My opinion is that if the movement is good enough it will produce those "individuals" who can "organise." I don&#39;t doubt that any revolution we see will have "organisers." What I dispute is that the individual themselves can "do" the revolution instead of the masses. The individual is no one without mass support.
I don’t think it can be taken for granted. The capitalists are good at organising. We don’t have to be better; we just need to be as good. In theory there should be people with organisational skills among the proletariat but ensuring that the full use of their abilities is felt should not be taken for granted. And say what you want about vanguardism but it does allow excellent to rise to the top.


As for seeing Socialism a century ago, I doubt it. I think Socialism even in this century is optimistic as Capitalism still has a long way to go and I expect its going to be on its deathbed for a long time as well. You see I suppose I am too much of a dogmatic Marxist in that I think the reason we haven&#39;t had Socialism yet is because we haven&#39;t had the material conditions. Though it seems the more logical and dare I say Marxist, way to look at things.
Marx expected socialism a century ago and I’d agree with him. The material conditions were very favourable towards the proletariat in those days. It was those riots and protests that inspired this Marxism we’re all going on about. Then capitalism evolved and the material conditions started to disperse. It’s a veritable rollercoaster ride.


The "superprofit" theory is an idea I find bizarre. Normal profit is a perfectly reasonable term. Again I really think these theories of Lenin&#39;s were based more on emotion than anything else, he tried to find explanations for why the European worker hadn&#39;t risen up partly because I think he actually believed, mistakingly, that the Russian worker had risen up.
Meh. Its an economic term. But imperialism makes sense to me. It explains the retreat from the favourable material conditions that Marx witnessed and the need to the dominance of international capital. It works for me and I can’t really see why it should be disgarded.


Yet see the workers&#39; are not "bought off" in my opinion, they still have their labour value stolen off them by the Capitalist. The Capitalist is not making superprofit in the third world just so he can pay the workers&#39; more than their labours value, because if this were the case he wouldn&#39;t be making a profit off the worker, however he is making a profit.
Oh the capitalist is still making a profit, that’s the one constant that will never change in capitalism. In Marx’s day the capitalist simply extracted his wealth from the worker but this generated huge unrest and worker agitation, ie communist movements. The savings first offered by cheaper raw materials allowed the capitalist to basically ease up on the workers. This extra stream of income allowed the likes of shorter working days, pensions and all the other measures that make working tolerable.


Also if you use Lenin&#39;s theory then third world workers must also be "bought off" because the majority of them, just like the majority of first world workers&#39;, are not throwing off the chains of Capitalism. Is this the case?
Oh don’t worry, the sweatshop workers are boiling away as we speak. Sooner or later they’ll reach the same level of consciousness as Europe saw over a century ago. Right now the biggest obstacle to that is the sheer size of the labour pool which dilutes the workers’ powers. And when they begin to call for what is theirs there’ll be no one else to bear the burden. Capitalism will have run out of “get out of jail” cards and the revolution proper will get under way.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I’m not too worried about the US using nukes against Britain or Europe, I’m far more worried about them simply being used indiscriminately when revolution finally does occur in the States. When the capitalists have no options remaining they may well do the unthinkable.

That is a valid point, its also quite a disturbing one and you&#39;ve actually made me quite depressed now. :(


I may be wrong about the nukes, there could well be some stashed in a bunker somewhere. Actually just thinking about it that would make sense. But having the warheads themselves isn’t much and Britain’s only delivery system is the subs.

Haven&#39;t you seen the Communist Superman threads, you know we get him after the revolution right?

There we go that cheered me up. :)


Obviously Russia did not turn out as it could have. Countless books and posts have been written on just why that was. But I still have complete faith in the underlying theory and the need for discipline in both creating and defending the revolution. The challenge is to incorporate the necessary democratic measures without diluting this discipline.

I suppose I would maybe support a "revolutionary council" directly elected by the people. We could keep the House of Parliament and use it in this capacity. Though I tend to think theres only so much we can concede to "defend the revolution" until the revolution really isn&#39;t the revolution any more.

I guess this, like everything else, will largely be decided by the material conditions of the time. If there is a need for a democratic vanguard, there will be one, if theres not, then lets not bother.


Cuba I tend to reserve judgement on. There’s so much propaganda on the state of the nation that I find it hard to get an accurate picture of just how democratic or socialist the nation could be considered. Castro’s death and the resulting governmental transition should answer those questions.

Personally I think Cuba is Socialist, well sort of. However at this pace it will never advance to Communism, its probably regressing at the current moment in time. However I really hope that it stays this way after the demise of Castro, I think it will but I wouldn&#39;t bet on it.


That is a much better analogy. I question the underlying theory though. Remember that Britain has industrialised a good 30-100 lead over the rest of Europe. Its true that the USSR didn’t have to develop the new technologies but then neither did any other nation. And yet no other power was able to go from such extremes in such a short period of time.

Even Britain stole a lot of ideas, though I still think at the time of Russia&#39;s industrialisation the technology was easier to "get hold of."

Though another factor I forgot to mention that is pretty important is the workers&#39; themselves. They worked harder, especially under Stalin, because they thought they were "doing it for themselves." Orwell hit the mark at the end of Animal Farm, when the pigs and all the local farmers were sitting there drinking and the farmers praised the pigs for how much hard work they got out of the animals. The pigs then said by how telling the animals they were "doing it for themselves" they got them to work a lot harder.


And how do these luxuries come about? After all how can the capitalists continue to pay wages that allow the proletariat to own two cars and a dishwasher? Marx didn’t factor that in because as far as he was concerned it couldn’t happened. At this point do I need to say more about Imperialism?

Marx described how the Capitalist needed to pay enough for the proletariat to live. Its just these days the proletariat needs a lot more accessories to live. I really don&#39;t think imperialism factors into all of this because this can all still happen under the fist world Capitalist Worker relationship.

The Capitalist merely looks for new territories because he can make greater profits by exploiting them, if you want to call this process "superprofit" then thats fine by me. What I don&#39;t accept that this is done to appease class struggle by "buying off" the workers&#39;.

If anything the advances of the first world working class were brought about not because the Capitalist feared workers&#39; revolution, but because he feared a Soviet invasion would be welcomed by the workers&#39;. This seems more plausible because if you notice since the fall of the Soviet Union those gains have been gradually slipping away.

Which wouldn&#39;t be possible under Lenin&#39;s theory, as Lenin says that the thing stopping the workers&#39; rebelling in the first world is that they are bought off, yet the workers&#39; advances are being eroded however the first world worker is still not rising up.

So basically I believe its not a case of anyone being bought off, its just we haven&#39;t yet had the material conditions for a workers&#39; revolution.


Bog standard capitalism isn’t enough? We have the proletariat so why wait. If you have a horrible disease you try to find a cure instead of sitting around confident that eventually it’ll pass. You get yourself a cure and take two spoonfuls a day. You’re not the only one who can analogise.

I think so far the evidence suggests primitive or bog standard Capitalism is not enough. Of course the evidence is not conclusive and we will only see the answer once there are two or three Communist societies which we can study. Though so far the evidence suggests that modern Capitalism is a requirement because it hasn&#39;t worked with primitive or bog standard Capitalism.

Also no matter how much you would like to find the cure, you have to wait for the science to develop one. So far we ahven&#39;t reached the point where the cure has been found. ;)


But ultimately we are pushed to the side as capitalism marches onwards. That wasn’t a problem in Marx’s day when they were certain that capitalism was about to fall. But its a slightly depressing viewpoint today. I’m human too and I’m not too keen to surrender myself to such a future. We must take every opportunity to not just moan or protest but to overthrow capitalism. Obviously that’s not easy in the West but opportunities will arise and we must be ready.

Of course if the situation arises we should be out there trying to advance it. However it is my opinion that when the revolution does come, us self declared revolutionaries will make little difference. When the working class seizes power, they will do it because they want too, not because we told them too.


Naturally the motives and actions of every movement must be analysed before being either endorsed or condemned. I hold out hope though that Leninism is the only hope that we have of seeing socialism in our lives.

Possibly Leninism is the only way our generation will taste Socialism, but we have to ask ourselves do we really want Capitalism without the Capitalists or do we want Communism?


If a development of a nation is judged by the stage of worker co-operation and organisation then I think these firms are doing quite well in destroying themselves. There’s nothing quite like a brutal 12 hour shift on a factory floor for miniscule wages to create a militant proletariat.

Personally I think if anythings going to change in these countries, it will be when the native bourgeois either emerges or grows a backbone. They will obviously carry the workers&#39; and their support along with them, but the third world would benefit greatly from some bourgeois revolutions.


Traditionally there’s been few industries that the US or Britain couldn’t beat. But it depends on what period you’re referring to. Both nations have swapped between free trade and protectionism, as have most other nations, depending on the economic circumstances and their relative dominance of the markets.

Yes the American and British Capitalists&#39; have usually been able to beat most industries, however when they couldn&#39;t they raised the tariffs. Britain&#39;s actions in India and America&#39;s reaction to British Steel are good examples of this.


I don’t think it can be taken for granted. The capitalists are good at organising. We don’t have to be better; we just need to be as good. In theory there should be people with organisational skills among the proletariat but ensuring that the full use of their abilities is felt should not be taken for granted. And say what you want about vanguardism but it does allow excellent to rise to the top.

True enough, but the organisers don&#39;t have a great record. So I believe that for the time being we should let the proletariat do it for themselves.


Marx expected socialism a century ago and I’d agree with him. The material conditions were very favourable towards the proletariat in those days. It was those riots and protests that inspired this Marxism we’re all going on about. Then capitalism evolved and the material conditions started to disperse. It’s a veritable rollercoaster ride.

There have been favourable conditions in the last century too, the 20&#39;s, 30&#39;s, 60&#39;s and 80&#39;s all had possibilities. I think its easy for our generation to despair because we&#39;ve grown up in relative calm, but if history is anything to go by the unrest will come again and thats when things get really exciting.


Meh. Its an economic term. But imperialism makes sense to me. It explains the retreat from the favourable material conditions that Marx witnessed and the need to the dominance of international capital. It works for me and I can’t really see why it should be disgarded.

I think we should possibly draw a line under this, neither of us is going to change our opinion and therefore its a bit silly to for both of us to go round in circles repeating the same arguments.

Agree?


Oh the capitalist is still making a profit, that’s the one constant that will never change in capitalism. In Marx’s day the capitalist simply extracted his wealth from the worker but this generated huge unrest and worker agitation, ie communist movements. The savings first offered by cheaper raw materials allowed the capitalist to basically ease up on the workers. This extra stream of income allowed the likes of shorter working days, pensions and all the other measures that make working tolerable.

I think I answered a similar point a few lines up. The point that starts "Marx described how the Capitalist needed to pay....."


Oh don’t worry, the sweatshop workers are boiling away as we speak. Sooner or later they’ll reach the same level of consciousness as Europe saw over a century ago. Right now the biggest obstacle to that is the sheer size of the labour pool which dilutes the workers’ powers. And when they begin to call for what is theirs there’ll be no one else to bear the burden. Capitalism will have run out of “get out of jail” cards and the revolution proper will get under way.

Definitely a few good bourgeois revolutions would damage the Western Capitalists greatly. It will help create the downfall of Capitalism in the first world. A bourgeois revolution is however I&#39;m afraid the most we can expect.

[ComradeOm]

I suppose I would maybe support a "revolutionary council" directly elected by the people. We could keep the House of Parliament and use it in this capacity. Though I tend to think theres only so much we can concede to "defend the revolution" until the revolution really isn&#39;t the revolution any more.

I guess this, like everything else, will largely be decided by the material conditions of the time. If there is a need for a democratic vanguard, there will be one, if theres not, then lets not bother.
Which is why I don’t advocate traditional vanguardism in the West. The material conditions won’t, most likely, require it. As for a council, the socialist state will have a government in the beginning anyway so its work can start with the revolution.


Even Britain stole a lot of ideas, though I still think at the time of Russia&#39;s industrialisation the technology was easier to "get hold of."
They did? Of whom? It was in Britain that it all kicked off when Watt first built his steam engine.


Though another factor I forgot to mention that is pretty important is the workers&#39; themselves. They worked harder, especially under Stalin, because they thought they were "doing it for themselves." Orwell hit the mark at the end of Animal Farm, when the pigs and all the local farmers were sitting there drinking and the farmers praised the pigs for how much hard work they got out of the animals. The pigs then said by how telling the animals they were "doing it for themselves" they got them to work a lot harder.
Undoubtably true. France certainly saw the same revolutionary zeal after its revolution. Well amongst the soldiers anyway.

But weighted up against all this is the heights that Russia had to climb. The amount of disadvantages were staggering. To go from a huge backwards country full of illiterate peasants to the second most industrialised nation in the world in a matter of decades and in complete isolation is very impressive.


Marx described how the Capitalist needed to pay enough for the proletariat to live. Its just these days the proletariat needs a lot more accessories to live. I really don&#39;t think imperialism factors into all of this because this can all still happen under the fist world Capitalist Worker relationship.
Not really. Living standards have gone up but the income needed to survive probably hasn’t gone up by a huge degree, in relative terms. And that’s the core figure – how much is needed to survive and work. Everything on top of that is surplus and merely serves to reduce worker agitation.


The Capitalist merely looks for new territories because he can make greater profits by exploiting them, if you want to call this process "superprofit" then thats fine by me. What I don&#39;t accept that this is done to appease class struggle by "buying off" the workers&#39;.
I’ll admit that I don’t like the term “buying off” but it is fairly accurate. Once a capitalist is able, and willing, to pay a worker more than is needed to survive then that worker is being… appeased. And the only way a capitalist can do that while maintaining a profit is via the superprofit (I’m not sure if Lenin though up that term or whether its an economic one). We know that big business is making record profits at a time when wages in the West are at record heights so clearly something is going on.


If anything the advances of the first world working class were brought about not because the Capitalist feared workers&#39; revolution, but because he feared a Soviet invasion would be welcomed by the workers&#39;. This seems more plausible because if you notice since the fall of the Soviet Union those gains have been gradually slipping away.
No doubt fear also played a role, although I again stress there were no consciousness decisions by any capitalists. Marx often went to pains to explain that intangible factors (such as religion, nationalist, Red Scare etc) can influence the economic base. In the end though it’s money that makes the world go round and I see a fear of communism, in particular the Soviets, to be too weak a sphere to direct economic policy. It probably influenced it but capitalism was evolving in that direction anyway.


Which wouldn&#39;t be possible under Lenin&#39;s theory, as Lenin says that the thing stopping the workers&#39; rebelling in the first world is that they are bought off, yet the workers&#39; advances are being eroded however the first world worker is still not rising up.

So basically I believe its not a case of anyone being bought off, its just we haven&#39;t yet had the material conditions for a workers&#39; revolution.
The fact that the workers of the West have so willing abandoned their rights and concerns is proof that something else is at play. Why would the proletariat surrender their unions and all safeguards so readily? Because they are not thinking like the proletariat any more. The labour aristocracy is larger then ever and they see their future as lying with the capitalists rather than Marxism. After all this mucking around with religion and nationalism the capitalists have found their most powerful weapon yet – greed.

The material conditions are not a straight line on a graph. They change with time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. When Marx was alive the conditions were rapidly favouring the revolutionaries, if the trend had continued then we’d probably have had socialism before Lenin even thought of revolution. But the conditions then swung towards the capitalists where, barring the disturbances brought about by two world wars, they have remained ever since. As Marxists we have to look at the world and ask why that is. Imperialism is as good a theory as any.


I think so far the evidence suggests primitive or bog standard Capitalism is not enough. Of course the evidence is not conclusive and we will only see the answer once there are two or three Communist societies which we can study. Though so far the evidence suggests that modern Capitalism is a requirement because it hasn&#39;t worked with primitive or bog standard Capitalism.

Also no matter how much you would like to find the cure, you have to wait for the science to develop one. So far we ahven&#39;t reached the point where the cure has been found
Ever notice that whenever we reach a new “stage” of communism the material conditions for the revolution weaken? It seems to be an awfully big leap of faith to assume that Marx will turn out to be right when capitalism goes from strength to strength like some mutating virus. Lenin’s additions do an excellent job of both explaining why this is and how it will end.

And the cure is Marxism. The problem is finding a syringe big enough to hold it all ;)


Possibly Leninism is the only way our generation will taste Socialism, but we have to ask ourselves do we really want Capitalism without the Capitalists or do we want Communism?
Luckily all the work will be done in the third world. They get to worry about the merits of vanguardism and all that. We can just sit back and ride the wave of worker discontent that will erupt when the sweatshop-less capitalists realise that they can’t continue to pay the workers so highly and maintain a profit.


Personally I think if anythings going to change in these countries, it will be when the native bourgeois either emerges or grows a backbone. They will obviously carry the workers&#39; and their support along with them, but the third world would benefit greatly from some bourgeois revolutions.
They’d benefit even more from some socialist ones ;)


I think we should possibly draw a line under this, neither of us is going to change our opinion and therefore its a bit silly to for both of us to go round in circles repeating the same arguments.

Agree?
And you couldn’t have said that at the start of the thread? :P Bah.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Which is why I don’t advocate traditional vanguardism in the West. The material conditions won’t, most likely, require it. As for a council, the socialist state will have a government in the beginning anyway so its work can start with the revolution.

Fair enough. I do see a fresh approach to Leninism in your posts, something which is very nice for us traditional Marxists to see when coming from a Leninist.


They did? Of whom? It was in Britain that it all kicked off when Watt first built his steam engine.

I&#39;m sure they stole some ideas from the colonies and previous empires. No empire has ever been completely original, they&#39;ve always borrowed the attractive ideas from previous empires and very often the unattractive ideas, namely Religion.


Undoubtably true. France certainly saw the same revolutionary zeal after its revolution. Well amongst the soldiers anyway.

But weighted up against all this is the heights that Russia had to climb. The amount of disadvantages were staggering. To go from a huge backwards country full of illiterate peasants to the second most industrialised nation in the world in a matter of decades and in complete isolation is very impressive.

It is impressive, its just I don&#39;t feel its that spectacular. I suspect we&#39;ll see a lot of rapid industrialisation over the next fifty years that will make Russia&#39;s development look sluggish.

Also Russia wasn&#39;t that isolated, it had foreign capital and at times it had foreign aid. Not to mention the amount to foreign specialists that worked in the country. For example many Nazi scientists took up well paid positions in both Russia and America after the war.


Not really. Living standards have gone up but the income needed to survive probably hasn’t gone up by a huge degree, in relative terms. And that’s the core figure – how much is needed to survive and work. Everything on top of that is surplus and merely serves to reduce worker agitation.

I don&#39;t know, it depends what you think is needed to survive. These days work is very different and therefore certain comforts are needed to keep a worker fit. Also the nature of the workplace requires different skills, a worker may well need a computer now because they need computer skills for work etc. Far more than just physical labour power is needed now, in fact mental labour power is fast becoming the required skill and this type of work is actually more tiring.

Also the comforts rather than reduce worker agitation help keep the worker productive. The happier and healthier a worker is the more they will produce and therefore certain comforts are necessary. Also these days to do a job, more training is required and therefore unlike in Marx&#39;s day, the Capitalist cannot afford his workers&#39; to die or go on the sick because replacing them costs money.


I’ll admit that I don’t like the term “buying off” but it is fairly accurate. Once a capitalist is able, and willing, to pay a worker more than is needed to survive then that worker is being… appeased. And the only way a capitalist can do that while maintaining a profit is via the superprofit (I’m not sure if Lenin though up that term or whether its an economic one). We know that big business is making record profits at a time when wages in the West are at record heights so clearly something is going on.

Real wages have been declining over the past fifty years, this is why you find a lot of families where both parents have to work now, unlike in the past when the husbands income could keep a family.

Also it depends what you consider living costs? .....for instance I think running water, electric, heating, some entertainment etc. all essential things for living. Certainly you could do away with some of these things in order to survive, but to be able to live and function these days, I believe certain comforts have become essential. I don&#39;t think people would be able to do certain jobs if they didn&#39;t have these things.


No doubt fear also played a role, although I again stress there were no consciousness decisions by any capitalists. Marx often went to pains to explain that intangible factors (such as religion, nationalist, Red Scare etc) can influence the economic base. In the end though it’s money that makes the world go round and I see a fear of communism, in particular the Soviets, to be too weak a sphere to direct economic policy. It probably influenced it but capitalism was evolving in that direction anyway.

Its certainly a factor and it also helped to keep productivity high. Things like the NHS meant the workforce was healthier and therefore more productive.

Also isn&#39;t Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism a break with Marxist theory with regards the economic base? .....as Lenin suggests the Capitalists are abandoning their economic base in order to appease worker agitation.


The fact that the workers of the West have so willing abandoned their rights and concerns is proof that something else is at play. Why would the proletariat surrender their unions and all safeguards so readily? Because they are not thinking like the proletariat any more. The labour aristocracy is larger then ever and they see their future as lying with the capitalists rather than Marxism. After all this mucking around with religion and nationalism the capitalists have found their most powerful weapon yet – greed.

The proletariat not thinking like the proletariat any more? ......rubbish, because they have never anywhere in the world thought like the proletariat because no proletariat has ever seized power.

Greed is a huge factor, but Leninists see this as a bad thing. I don&#39;t because it is this greed which will lead to the downfall of Capitalism. At the moment Capitalism is still able to provide certain things, it won&#39;t be able to do this forever and therefore when Capitalism stops working we will see the material conditions for revolution.

As I&#39;ve said Capitalism is still working pretty well, it will at some point start to become faulty and when this happens we will see a drastic change in societies makeup.

I guess this is the difference between you and I, I see that theres never been a revolution and conclude that we&#39;ve never had the material conditions, you see theres never been a revolution but believe the material conditions have been there its just the working class has sold out. And history has shown us that no class has ever "sold out" instead they have worked in the previous system until that system became obsolete. This is what is happening now.


The material conditions are not a straight line on a graph. They change with time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. When Marx was alive the conditions were rapidly favouring the revolutionaries, if the trend had continued then we’d probably have had socialism before Lenin even thought of revolution. But the conditions then swung towards the capitalists where, barring the disturbances brought about by two world wars, they have remained ever since. As Marxists we have to look at the world and ask why that is. Imperialism is as good a theory as any.

Of course the material conditions change, its just I don&#39;t think we&#39;ve ever seen the an extreme enough change to bring about revolution. Not in Marx&#39;s time, not now, not ever. If there had been revolutions in Marx&#39;s time which actually stayed alive they would have most likely turned out like Russia.

Also the 60&#39;s saw a huge shift in material conditions, not great enough for a revolution but still a huge shift. You see Lenin&#39;s theory does put material conditions as a straight line on a graph. Imperialism is a theory which overrides material conditions, which is not Marxist at all.

As for imperialism being as good a theory as any, well other than basically ignoring material reality as I stated above, I would remind you that there was a time when the flat earth theory was as good as any, but it wasn&#39;t right and neither is Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism. You see like lots of Lenin&#39;s theories, the theory of imperialism suggests that certain actions can suspend material conditions, when really you can&#39;t do any such thing.


Ever notice that whenever we reach a new “stage” of communism the material conditions for the revolution weaken? It seems to be an awfully big leap of faith to assume that Marx will turn out to be right when capitalism goes from strength to strength like some mutating virus. Lenin’s additions do an excellent job of both explaining why this is and how it will end.

I think of Capitalism as a person. When it was in its infancy it was weak and was at danger of being overthrown, when it was in its teens and its twenties it was careless and silly, its middle aged period, which we are in now, is where it basically goes along pretty steadily, nothing to great and nothing that disastrous, next we&#39;ll see it hit retirement age where it will become slow and less productive and will be overthrown and then it will die.

And just like a person, the last to stages, middle aged and retirement, will last a lot longer than the earlier stages and be less eventful. But like every person, at some point it will die.


And the cure is Marxism. The problem is finding a syringe big enough to hold it all

:lol:


Luckily all the work will be done in the third world. They get to worry about the merits of vanguardism and all that. We can just sit back and ride the wave of worker discontent that will erupt when the sweatshop-less capitalists realise that they can’t continue to pay the workers so highly and maintain a profit.


Yes they will get to worry about all that, but they&#39;ll never ever get anything but modern Capitalism from the vanguard. Any dreams of a third world country creating Communism via a vanguard, are well.... dreams.

Though bourgeois revolutions in the third world will help create discontent in the first world and that is highly desirable.


They’d benefit even more from some socialist ones

Yet they will never have a Socialist revolution. Material reality will always prevail despite all the Marxist rhetoric and therefore no matter if they call themselves Socialist revolutionaries or Martian revolutions, they will be conducting a bourgeois revolution and creating modern Capitalism. Material reality dictates that this will happen.


And you couldn’t have said that at the start of the thread? :P Bah.

Bah indeed. :lol:

[ComradeOm]

Fair enough. I do see a fresh approach to Leninism in your posts, something which is very nice for us traditional Marxists to see when coming from a Leninist.
Just because I subscribe to Lenin’s theories doesn’t mean that I’m some idiot who simply replaces Jesus with some other beardy figure. Like all Marxists I value criticism of everything. These days people tend to divorce the Lenin from the Marx, something that I feel is a great pity and an undoubted backlash against the perversion that is Marxism-Leninism. I do hate the fact that Stalin perverted that term so much because it does sum up the marriage of ideas that Marxism and Leninism should be.


I&#39;m sure they stole some ideas from the colonies and previous empires. No empire has ever been completely original, they&#39;ve always borrowed the attractive ideas from previous empires and very often the unattractive ideas, namely Religion.
Technology is a different matter though. While I’m sure some industrial inventions came from abroad, the basics (steam engine, locomotive) were British. In addition it was Britain where the entire package was put together for the first time. Nothing like it had been seen before, it really was a whole new society.


It is impressive, its just I don&#39;t feel its that spectacular. I suspect we&#39;ll see a lot of rapid industrialisation over the next fifty years that will make Russia&#39;s development look sluggish.

Also Russia wasn&#39;t that isolated, it had foreign capital and at times it had foreign aid. Not to mention the amount to foreign specialists that worked in the country. For example many Nazi scientists took up well paid positions in both Russia and America after the war.
You think? Apart from China and India (if it can ever realise its potential) I don’t see too many societies even capable of industrialising on Russia’s scale. Considering that most of the world has at least reached, or surpassed, pre-Soviet Russia’s stage of development I think that the scope for the same rapid transformation in such a short space of time is limited to say the least.

Were there many foreigners in Russia from 1918-1939? Considering the attitudes of most Western governments (either hostile or decidedly indifferent) I’ve never considered it likely. Its true that some Western capitalists had sought to exploit the Russian proletariat in a few concentrated pockets, it was the same exploited workers who lead the revolution of 1917.


I don&#39;t know, it depends what you think is needed to survive. These days work is very different and therefore certain comforts are needed to keep a worker fit. Also the nature of the workplace requires different skills, a worker may well need a computer now because they need computer skills for work etc. Far more than just physical labour power is needed now, in fact mental labour power is fast becoming the required skill and this type of work is actually more tiring.

Also the comforts rather than reduce worker agitation help keep the worker productive. The happier and healthier a worker is the more they will produce and therefore certain comforts are necessary. Also these days to do a job, more training is required and therefore unlike in Marx&#39;s day, the Capitalist cannot afford his workers&#39; to die or go on the sick because replacing them costs money.
The nature of work has certainly changed, in the West at least, but whether that automatically means that the living standards must necessarily rise… well its something I’ll need to put a bit of thought into. My initial reactions are though that most of the extras we take for granted (TV, enough food on the table to feed an African family for weeks, the Segway) are not needed to reproduce labour. Certainly when you look to India you see the IT industry taking root with very few of the same luxuries in place.

It all depends on the education resources and the subsequent pool of trained workers. In Marx’s day (and up until the past few decades) there was little need for such training apart from clerks. Now however the need is much greater and so is the pool from which such workers can be employed. Interesting, perhaps capitalism itself must encourage the development of a more advanced (in technical ability) proletariat to advance to its higher forms.



Real wages have been declining over the past fifty years, this is why you find a lot of families where both parents have to work now, unlike in the past when the husbands income could keep a family.

Also it depends what you consider living costs? .....for instance I think running water, electric, heating, some entertainment etc. all essential things for living. Certainly you could do away with some of these things in order to survive, but to be able to live and function these days, I believe certain comforts have become essential. I don&#39;t think people would be able to do certain jobs if they didn&#39;t have these things.
Again we’re talking about living costs that have been along rising with wages, this ties into the above. But this is how the market economy works – people have more disposable income and so the capitalists are able to increase their prices to take advantage of this. The monetary exchange value of basic goods and services thus rises. In the end people are better off in material terms than the were while Marx lived while at the same time the ratio of living costs to wages has remained (very) broadly the same for some decades.



Its certainly a factor and it also helped to keep productivity high. Things like the NHS meant the workforce was healthier and therefore more productive.
Like I said there are plenty of factors that influence the economic base. The major ones are the political superstructure and religion (in the old days) but I couldn’t begin to count everything that impacts the course of society.


Also isn&#39;t Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism a break with Marxist theory with regards the economic base? .....as Lenin suggests the Capitalists are abandoning their economic base in order to appease worker agitation.
I don’t quite follow. The economic base (ie relations of production) remains broadly the same, as can be evidenced by the fact that the power remains firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Imperialism bolsters the bourgeois control of the political superstructure due to the decrease in organised labour, worker co-operation, revolutionary thought etc that accompanies the development of finance capital. The core capitalist relationship with the worker (ie the theft of his labour) remains unchanged though.


Of course the material conditions change, its just I don&#39;t think we&#39;ve ever seen the an extreme enough change to bring about revolution. Not in Marx&#39;s time, not now, not ever. If there had been revolutions in Marx&#39;s time which actually stayed alive they would have most likely turned out like Russia.
So you think it’s the “swing” of the material conditions rather than the conditions themselves that provoke change?


Also the 60&#39;s saw a huge shift in material conditions, not great enough for a revolution but still a huge shift. You see Lenin&#39;s theory does put material conditions as a straight line on a graph. Imperialism is a theory which overrides material conditions, which is not Marxist at all.
I’ve never subscribed to the theory that the sixties were a fertile time for revolution. Even those few cases of revolution, or near revolution, were more down to local circumstances and a general anti-establishment attitude amongst the young bourgeoisie. What we saw there was the friction between the old and the new forms of capitalism. It was a poor gear change (had to get the analogy in) from the old established capitalism to what we now call “modern capitalism”. That also happened to coincide with the transition from colonial imperialism to economic imperialism.


As for imperialism being as good a theory as any, well other than basically ignoring material reality as I stated above, I would remind you that there was a time when the flat earth theory was as good as any, but it wasn&#39;t right and neither is Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism. You see like lots of Lenin&#39;s theories, the theory of imperialism suggests that certain actions can suspend material conditions, when really you can&#39;t do any such thing.
Imperialism does not override material conditions; it provides evidence to explain the changes in them. It serves as an explanation for why the material conditions have changed to such a degree. Marx was unable to make the connection because he did not live to see the rise of the labour aristocracy.


I think of Capitalism as a person. When it was in its infancy it was weak and was at danger of being overthrown, when it was in its teens and its twenties it was careless and silly, its middle aged period, which we are in now, is where it basically goes along pretty steadily, nothing to great and nothing that disastrous, next we&#39;ll see it hit retirement age where it will become slow and less productive and will be overthrown and then it will die.

And just like a person, the last to stages, middle aged and retirement, will last a lot longer than the earlier stages and be less eventful. But like every person, at some point it will die.
A(nother) nice analogy but it fails to explain why this happens. Why was capitalism capable of reaching “middle age”? By all accounts it should have been torn apart by class conflict at this stage.


Yes they will get to worry about all that, but they&#39;ll never ever get anything but modern Capitalism from the vanguard. Any dreams of a third world country creating Communism via a vanguard, are well.... dreams.

Though bourgeois revolutions in the third world will help create discontent in the first world and that is highly desirable.
Its clear that we’re unlikely to agree on this. I think that the material conditions can be changed enough to make a socialist government possible you… don’t. But I’ll say that at the very least we should encourage socialist revolutions in the third world. If they succeed then excellent; if not then history dictates that they’ll make it to capitalism sooner rather than later.

[enigma2517]

Though bourgeois revolutions in the third world will help create discontent in the first world and that is highly desirable.

Pretty much. This is the one place that Maoism actually has my support. Communism in the third world is, of course, a pipe dream. How can we decide what to do with our resources democratically if there aren&#39;t enough resources to go around :(. Socialism, on the other hand, is the kind of authoritarian force that can focus on developing various areas of the country, thereby bringing it closer to modern capitalism each day.

I, however, live in an advanced capitalist country and I have enough class consciousness to do my own part in the revolution...without being coerced. At the same time, I fail to see what good a parliament, or courts, or a "revolutionary council", or a vanguard, or anything else that consists of a nontransparent, permanent hierarchy can do for me. Why have power go top down? Do you WANT to be overthrown?

Of course we need to defend the revolution...let&#39;s look at how we&#39;ll do this.

Ever been slacking off, have a teacher or boss walk by, and immediately start working? Of course, as soon as they are gone, you resume your behavior. There aren&#39;t enough bosses in the world to keep you in check.

Likewise, there aren&#39;t enough "professional revolutionaries" out there that have "mastered the dialectic" and assesed the situation well enough to keep a nonclass conscious worker in check. Depending on the vanguard absolves an individuals own sense of responsibilty.

Who knows who the counter revolutionaries are better than the ones who live with them? Who can run the factories better than the workers who actually WORK in them?

More simply put, is there anything more powerful than a grassroots effort?

Everybody keeps mentioning that we NEED the vanguard, yet I&#39;ve never heard anybody actually state why.

So tell me, WHY do you need to institutionalize power to lead a sucessful revolution?

What purpose would it serve and why won&#39;t it meet the SAME EXACT FATE as any other Leninist experiment out there? Will you be "different"?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just because I subscribe to Lenin’s theories doesn’t mean that I’m some idiot who simply replaces Jesus with some other beardy figure. Like all Marxists I value criticism of everything. These days people tend to divorce the Lenin from the Marx, something that I feel is a great pity and an undoubted backlash against the perversion that is Marxism-Leninism. I do hate the fact that Stalin perverted that term so much because it does sum up the marriage of ideas that Marxism and Leninism should be.

I tend to think Leninism contradicts Marx in many ways, the vanguard, material conditions etc. However unless Marx were to directly comment on what he thought about Leninism, we&#39;ll never know.

Marx is my Jesus and I&#39;m therefore waiting for his resurrection so that he can tell me what he thinks of Leninism. :lol:


Technology is a different matter though. While I’m sure some industrial inventions came from abroad, the basics (steam engine, locomotive) were British. In addition it was Britain where the entire package was put together for the first time. Nothing like it had been seen before, it really was a whole new society.

True Britain was the first to "put it all together." However my point was that it really isn&#39;t anything special, it was mere luck that it happened and a lot of the ideas had been borrowed from previous societies. Also if memory serves me correctly, China in the 14th century was on the verge of Capitalism but the feudal lords managed to destroy the emerging bourgeois.


You think? Apart from China and India (if it can ever realise its potential) I don’t see too many societies even capable of industrialising on Russia’s scale. Considering that most of the world has at least reached, or surpassed, pre-Soviet Russia’s stage of development I think that the scope for the same rapid transformation in such a short space of time is limited to say the least.

Don&#39;t forget Africa, the Middle East and a lot of South America still has a long way to go before modern Capitalism. So theres certainly a decent chance some of the countries in these countries will develop incredibly quickly.

South America is a good potential continent for this, as from what I know it has a very well rounded supply of natural resources.


Were there many foreigners in Russia from 1918-1939? Considering the attitudes of most Western governments (either hostile or decidedly indifferent) I’ve never considered it likely. Its true that some Western capitalists had sought to exploit the Russian proletariat in a few concentrated pockets, it was the same exploited workers who lead the revolution of 1917.

I&#39;m pretty sure a lot of Westerners went to Russia early on to see "this new Communist paradise." Needless to say they were probably pretty disappointed. I can&#39;t quite remember, but I&#39;m pretty sure a lot of Engineers went to Russia during its industrialisation, there would certainly been a load of engineering positions available.

As for western capital exploiting Russian workers, well Lenin himself did favour that. Remember the NEP?


The nature of work has certainly changed, in the West at least, but whether that automatically means that the living standards must necessarily rise… well its something I’ll need to put a bit of thought into. My initial reactions are though that most of the extras we take for granted (TV, enough food on the table to feed an African family for weeks, the Segway) are not needed to reproduce labour. Certainly when you look to India you see the IT industry taking root with very few of the same luxuries in place.


I think its a decent hypothesis. ;)

Though your India comment is interesting. Don&#39;t forget that India has been experiencing a whole heap of labour activity demanding life&#39;s little luxuries. History has a way of repeating itself and right now we&#39;re seeing a load of Sanjeev Scargills emerging in India.


It all depends on the education resources and the subsequent pool of trained workers. In Marx’s day (and up until the past few decades) there was little need for such training apart from clerks. Now however the need is much greater and so is the pool from which such workers can be employed. Interesting, perhaps capitalism itself must encourage the development of a more advanced (in technical ability) proletariat to advance to its higher forms.

If I could remember the exact Marx quote, I&#39;d use it. However its along the lines of "Capitalism through its rapid development creates its own downfall."

Though the Stalin quote "When we hang the Capitalists, they&#39;ll sell us the rope." Is pretty good in this context as well.


Again we’re talking about living costs that have been along rising with wages, this ties into the above. But this is how the market economy works – people have more disposable income and so the capitalists are able to increase their prices to take advantage of this. The monetary exchange value of basic goods and services thus rises. In the end people are better off in material terms than the were while Marx lived while at the same time the ratio of living costs to wages has remained (very) broadly the same for some decades.

Though what you have to factor in to this explanation is that the price of commodities has been coming down for years as well. Computers for instance, are much cheaper now than they used to be and the same applies generally to most other commodities.


Like I said there are plenty of factors that influence the economic base. The major ones are the political superstructure and religion (in the old days) but I couldn’t begin to count everything that impacts the course of society.

Thats why I don&#39;t think Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism is that good. It tries to take all these factors and place them neatly into one box labelled imperialism. They just don&#39;t fit.


I don’t quite follow. The economic base (ie relations of production) remains broadly the same, as can be evidenced by the fact that the power remains firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Imperialism bolsters the bourgeois control of the political superstructure due to the decrease in organised labour, worker co-operation, revolutionary thought etc that accompanies the development of finance capital. The core capitalist relationship with the worker (ie the theft of his labour) remains unchanged though.

The core relationship remains the same, however Lenin says that it somehow evolves, I don&#39;t buy this theory that somehow what stays the say can somehow evolve.


So you think it’s the “swing” of the material conditions rather than the conditions themselves that provoke change?

Thats a good question and to be truthful I don&#39;t honestly know. Possibly a drastic change in material conditions, a sudden depression for example, would certainly help create labour agitation.

Though to say that is the only way the material conditions will arise, is for the minute foolish. We will be able to pinpoint more accurately what causes the material conditions for a full blooded workers revolution when we actually witness one.


I’ve never subscribed to the theory that the sixties were a fertile time for revolution. Even those few cases of revolution, or near revolution, were more down to local circumstances and a general anti-establishment attitude amongst the young bourgeoisie. What we saw there was the friction between the old and the new forms of capitalism. It was a poor gear change (had to get the analogy in) from the old established capitalism to what we now call “modern capitalism”. That also happened to coincide with the transition from colonial imperialism to economic imperialism.

Perhaps the 60&#39;s was more of a cultural revolution. However you can&#39;t really just label it a young bourgeois "uprising," there were a lot of angry proles in those days, not to mention the Black Panthers and the Civil Rights movement, which was hardly bourgeois.


Imperialism does not override material conditions; it provides evidence to explain the changes in them. It serves as an explanation for why the material conditions have changed to such a degree. Marx was unable to make the connection because he did not live to see the rise of the labour aristocracy.

It may serve as an explanation, its just it isn&#39;t a very good one. As I said it ignores a whole load of other factors.

Also the labour aristocracy is totally against material reality, it suggests that a few people are able to pervert the whole class struggle by selling out. It reminds me of the whole Maoist revisionist stance, which says if you can get rid of the individual revisionists you can save the revolution. It fails to take into account that no individual can shape material reality and therefore in the case of Maoism, material reality dictates that there can be no Communist revolution in the third world.


A(nother) nice analogy but it fails to explain why this happens. Why was capitalism capable of reaching “middle age”? By all accounts it should have been torn apart by class conflict at this stage.

Why does it have to reach "middle age"? ....well because all the other social orders did this to, and as a general rule of thumb, it&#39;s fair to say these things repeat themselves.


Its clear that we’re unlikely to agree on this. I think that the material conditions can be changed enough to make a socialist government possible you… don’t. But I’ll say that at the very least we should encourage socialist revolutions in the third world. If they succeed then excellent; if not then history dictates that they’ll make it to capitalism sooner rather than later.

I&#39;m all for encouraging Socialist revolutions in the third world, I&#39;d support a Christian revolution in the third world if I thought it would kick out the foreign capital and create modern Capitalism. I&#39;m just not going to expect that much from them.


I, however, live in an advanced capitalist country and I have enough class consciousness to do my own part in the revolution...without being coerced. At the same time, I fail to see what good a parliament, or courts, or a "revolutionary council", or a vanguard, or anything else that consists of a nontransparent, permanent hierarchy can do for me. Why have power go top down? Do you WANT to be overthrown?

When I suggest using a Parliament or a Revolutionary Council, what I mean is that this would be a place where each commune sends an elected delegate to discuss with delegates from the other communes what they had been doing.

For example,

Delegate from commune A - Delegate B, who did you manage to provide everyone with new TVs?

Delegate from commune B - Well we did X.

Delegate from commune C - Really because we did Y and got the same result as your commune.

Delegate from commune A - Now that is interesting, I will tell everyone at my commune about your experiences.

All I really propose is a place to gather and discuss ideas and decide on what action should be taken. It should all be driven from the bottom up though.


Likewise, there aren&#39;t enough "professional revolutionaries" out there that have "mastered the dialectic" and assesed the situation well enough to keep a nonclass conscious worker in check. Depending on the vanguard absolves an individuals own sense of responsibilty.

Who knows who the counter revolutionaries are better than the ones who live with them? Who can run the factories better than the workers who actually WORK in them?

More simply put, is there anything more powerful than a grassroots effort?

Everybody keeps mentioning that we NEED the vanguard, yet I&#39;ve never heard anybody actually state why.

So tell me, WHY do you need to institutionalize power to lead a sucessful revolution?

What purpose would it serve and why won&#39;t it meet the SAME EXACT FATE as any other Leninist experiment out there? Will you be "different"?

Has someone been reading the Redstar papers? ;)

[ComradeOm]

I tend to think Leninism contradicts Marx in many ways, the vanguard, material conditions etc. However unless Marx were to directly comment on what he thought about Leninism, we&#39;ll never know.
Bah. So much for my powers of persuasion.


True Britain was the first to "put it all together." However my point was that it really isn&#39;t anything special, it was mere luck that it happened and a lot of the ideas had been borrowed from previous societies. Also if memory serves me correctly, China in the 14th century was on the verge of Capitalism but the feudal lords managed to destroy the emerging bourgeois.
Well historians have been arguing for years as to why the industrial revolution took place in Britain. But it was there, for whatever reasons, that the material conditions for an industrial proletariat did come together. And while it obviously wasn’t a purposeful and directed program, the industrial revolution in Britain was really the first time the world had seen anything like it. The technology was new, the society was new and I don’t really see what factors could’ve been taken from other, less advanced, cultures.

As to why China didn’t make it, who knows. There’s plenty of theories ranging from the lack of necessity (due to the efficacy of the traditional methods), to the lack of foreign markets, to wholesale internal destruction.


Don&#39;t forget Africa, the Middle East and a lot of South America still has a long way to go before modern Capitalism. So theres certainly a decent chance some of the countries in these countries will develop incredibly quickly.

South America is a good potential continent for this, as from what I know it has a very well rounded supply of natural resources.
With the exception of Africa, which I hold little hope for, capitalism is well established in the other regions. Not necessarily liberal democracy (which I wouldn’t necessarily relate to modern capitalism anyway) but capitalism none the less. My point was that Russia was backward even by their standards and so there is less scope for such rapid growth.


I&#39;m pretty sure a lot of Westerners went to Russia early on to see "this new Communist paradise." Needless to say they were probably pretty disappointed. I can&#39;t quite remember, but I&#39;m pretty sure a lot of Engineers went to Russia during its industrialisation, there would certainly been a load of engineering positions available.
Remember that the Russia of 1917-1925 would’ve been seen as the Iraq of its day. Apart from a few idealists I doubt many would’ve risked a visit. Later Stalin’s paranoia of all things Western would’ve limited it even more. Of course it is possible that foreign engineers could have had a role in educating their Russian counterparts, every industrialisation program since Britain’s has had some outside influence.

And few Westerners who did visit were disappointed (remember Lincoln Steffens infamous quote – “I have seen the future and it works”?). As much as they may try to hide the fact today, most Western Communist Parties were Stalinist to the core.


As for western capital exploiting Russian workers, well Lenin himself did favour that. Remember the NEP?
The NEP was Lenin’s attempt to do exactly what you’ve suggested and allow market forces to create a proletariat and material conditions suitable for the transition to socialism.


Though your India comment is interesting. Don&#39;t forget that India has been experiencing a whole heap of labour activity demanding life&#39;s little luxuries. History has a way of repeating itself and right now we&#39;re seeing a load of Sanjeev Scargills emerging in India.
There’s always been a strong communist movement in India, a legacy of its relatively closed/protected market. How socialist they actually are I don’t know but you might get a laugh out of this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4374826.stm).


If I could remember the exact Marx quote, I&#39;d use it. However its along the lines of "Capitalism through its rapid development creates its own downfall."

Though the Stalin quote "When we hang the Capitalists, they&#39;ll sell us the rope." Is pretty good in this context as well.
Marx was referring to the more “primitive” proletariat that he observed in his day. The idea that there is a major difference in a proletariat created by physical labour and one created by mental labour is new to me. Especially if the latter is a requirement for the higher forms of capitalism. Meh. I wouldn’t give it too much weight though; ultimately it will eventually come down to proles and capis.

And say what you like about Uncle Joe but he’s certainly one for incisive quotes.


Though what you have to factor in to this explanation is that the price of commodities has been coming down for years as well. Computers for instance, are much cheaper now than they used to be and the same applies generally to most other commodities.
Most commodities have decreased in price but does that mean that the capitalists are making less money? Of course not. The price of computers has come down by a huge degree in the past few decades but that is balanced by the fact that far more people own them today. The exchange value per unit has decreased drastically but the volume of units sold has increased to an even greater degree.

To carry this true to the consumer, the average worker is paying less per item (for luxuries I imagine that the price of milk and bread have remained unchanged) but using the savings to buy far more unnecessary items.


Thats why I don&#39;t think Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism is that good. It tries to take all these factors and place them neatly into one box labelled imperialism. They just don&#39;t fit.
Not necessarily so. Imperialism is just another factor that impacts the economic relations between the classes. It just happens to be a very influential one, far more so than the likes of nationalism.


The core relationship remains the same, however Lenin says that it somehow evolves, I don&#39;t buy this theory that somehow what stays the say can somehow evolve.
That’s probably my mistake for taking too broad a scope there. The fundamental relations of production remain the same under imperialistic capitalism as they do under Marx’s capitalism – the capitalist is still stealing from the worker to generate profit. That is the basis of capitalism and will never change until socialism has reached.


Thats a good question and to be truthful I don&#39;t honestly know. Possibly a drastic change in material conditions, a sudden depression for example, would certainly help create labour agitation.

Though to say that is the only way the material conditions will arise, is for the minute foolish. We will be able to pinpoint more accurately what causes the material conditions for a full blooded workers revolution when we actually witness one.
Just looking at history I believe that while those “swing” situations don’t create the material conditions for socialism, they weaken the bourgeois state enough for the possibility of revolution. As we’ve discussed at length the two are not the one and the same, though I still hold that the latter can lead to the former.


Perhaps the 60&#39;s was more of a cultural revolution. However you can&#39;t really just label it a young bourgeois "uprising," there were a lot of angry proles in those days, not to mention the Black Panthers and the Civil Rights movement, which was hardly bourgeois.
Like I said, local circumstances played a huge role. In the US the civil rights movement was led by religious preachers and you’d be hard pressed to find a revolutionary among them. On the other hand the civil right movement in N Ireland was tied into both the radical nationalist and, to a growing degree, socialist currents prevalent at the time.


Also the labour aristocracy is totally against material reality, it suggests that a few people are able to pervert the whole class struggle by selling out. It reminds me of the whole Maoist revisionist stance, which says if you can get rid of the individual revisionists you can save the revolution. It fails to take into account that no individual can shape material reality and therefore in the case of Maoism, material reality dictates that there can be no Communist revolution in the third world.
The labour aristocracy are not a couple of individuals, they are a subset of the proletariat, a distinct class of their own; one that has resulted from the changing material conditions. I would go so far as to say that today the labour aristocracy make up the bulk of the proletariat. Individually they cannot make an impact on the material reality, as a class they dictate it.


Why does it have to reach "middle age"? ....well because all the other social orders did this to, and as a general rule of thumb, it&#39;s fair to say these things repeat themselves.
That’s hardly a scientific reason. You can say that all previous stages of history have been overthrown by revolution but that can hardly be expected to occur in the transition of socialism to communism. We take lessons from history but qualify them with reason.


Has someone been reading the Redstar papers?
Sometimes I think that too many people have been reading the Redstar papers :P

[Amusing Scrotum]

Bah. So much for my powers of persuasion.

It really doesn&#39;t matter whether my opinion changes or not in a debate like this. What matters is what the reader thinks and whether they are influenced by this debate and the arguments being put forward.

That being said I don&#39;t think that many people are still bothering with this thread. If anyone other then Comrade Om, enigma2517 and I, is still reading this thread please speak up. :lol:


Well historians have been arguing for years as to why the industrial revolution took place in Britain. But it was there, for whatever reasons, that the material conditions for an industrial proletariat did come together. And while it obviously wasn’t a purposeful and directed program, the industrial revolution in Britain was really the first time the world had seen anything like it. The technology was new, the society was new and I don’t really see what factors could’ve been taken from other, less advanced, cultures.

I agree with that analysis on every part bar the last sentence. In my (humble) opinion the industrial revolution was the culmination of many different civilisations advances. They all contribute a bit and the British were the first to put together the complete package and kaboom&#33;

I believe the last part is how Marx described it as well. ;) :lol:


As to why China didn’t make it, who knows. There’s plenty of theories ranging from the lack of necessity (due to the efficacy of the traditional methods), to the lack of foreign markets, to wholesale internal destruction.

From what I have read it was the feudal lords who held back the emerging Chinese Capitalists. Though I must admit I haven&#39;t read that much about the subject and nothing regarding the other theories.


With the exception of Africa, which I hold little hope for, capitalism is well established in the other regions. Not necessarily liberal democracy (which I wouldn’t necessarily relate to modern capitalism anyway) but capitalism none the less. My point was that Russia was backward even by their standards and so there is less scope for such rapid growth.

South America, the Middle East and parts of Asia have a kind of hyper developed specific industry Capitalism. By that I mean foreign capital has hyper developed one or two industries and left the rest to rot. This then creates a very unbalanced Capitalism and means there is still plenty of development left to go.

Russia was similar in a way, because pre 1917 it was Europe&#39;s "third world" and certain sections of the Russian economy were hyper developed for European profit.

As for Africa I share your doubts on this. If somehow everything does well, then it may start to become a less horrendous place in around 100 years time. Though 300 years is a more realistic estimate.


Remember that the Russia of 1917-1925 would’ve been seen as the Iraq of its day. Apart from a few idealists I doubt many would’ve risked a visit. Later Stalin’s paranoia of all things Western would’ve limited it even more. Of course it is possible that foreign engineers could have had a role in educating their Russian counterparts, every industrialisation program since Britain’s has had some outside influence.

I remember reading an article somewhere about young American engineers going to work in Russia after the revolution. If I remember correctly this ended around 1935.


And few Westerners who did visit were disappointed (remember Lincoln Steffens infamous quote – “I have seen the future and it works”?). As much as they may try to hide the fact today, most Western Communist Parties were Stalinist to the core.

I think most Western Communist parties are still Stalinist, bar the Trotskyist ones of course. If a party describes itself as Marxist-Leninists they tend to mean that they are "closet" Stalinists.

As for Westerners being impressed, I suspect there was a certain amount of idealism and romanticism involved there and also things like full womens rights at that time would have seemed very impressive. Though it doesn&#39;t hide the fact Russia was still a pretty miserable place. Which given the circumstances is all that it could be at that time.


The NEP was Lenin’s attempt to do exactly what you’ve suggested and allow market forces to create a proletariat and material conditions suitable for the transition to socialism.

This is what happens when you were a disciple of Kautsky&#39;s for most of your life, you start to believe that Socialism can happen "transitionally" as if its an "evolutionary" process.

As much as I don&#39;t think dialectics is of much use, it can be used in these circumstances to show that such a "transition" is impossible.


There’s always been a strong communist movement in India, a legacy of its relatively closed/protected market. How socialist they actually are I don’t know but you might get a laugh out of this.

That article was hilarious. Six Lenins, two Gagarins and two Pushkins but no Marx, wheres the sense in that? :o :lol:


Marx was referring to the more “primitive” proletariat that he observed in his day. The idea that there is a major difference in a proletariat created by physical labour and one created by mental labour is new to me. Especially if the latter is a requirement for the higher forms of capitalism. Meh. I wouldn’t give it too much weight though; ultimately it will eventually come down to proles and capis.

Yes it is a new "take" on the class struggle. However I think its a decent one, after all a proletariat that is going to be able to rule itself has to be relatively advanced and mental labour is certainly an advancement. It certainly gives the proletariat more of the "tools" needed to rule itself, IT skills etc.

Maybe a proletariat mainly based around mental labour will be the defining characteristic of the proletariat that seizes power.


And say what you like about Uncle Joe but he’s certainly one for incisive quotes.

Good quotes and great purges. Thats Uncle Joe for you. :lol:


Most commodities have decreased in price but does that mean that the capitalists are making less money? Of course not. The price of computers has come down by a huge degree in the past few decades but that is balanced by the fact that far more people own them today. The exchange value per unit has decreased drastically but the volume of units sold has increased to an even greater degree.

To carry this true to the consumer, the average worker is paying less per item (for luxuries I imagine that the price of milk and bread have remained unchanged) but using the savings to buy far more unnecessary items.

Yeah but all this means the proletariat owning more material goods doesn&#39;t mean that they are being paid more.


Not necessarily so. Imperialism is just another factor that impacts the economic relations between the classes. It just happens to be a very influential one, far more so than the likes of nationalism.

Yes but Lenin seems to think that imperialism is the only significant factor, I think there are a lot more significant factors that we need to look at, before just labelling everything as imperialism.


That’s probably my mistake for taking too broad a scope there. The fundamental relations of production remain the same under imperialistic capitalism as they do under Marx’s capitalism – the capitalist is still stealing from the worker to generate profit. That is the basis of capitalism and will never change until socialism has reached.

Thats a fair statement, its just I don&#39;t think Capitalism has become "imperialistic" as it has always been this way.


Just looking at history I believe that while those “swing” situations don’t create the material conditions for socialism, they weaken the bourgeois state enough for the possibility of revolution. As we’ve discussed at length the two are not the one and the same, though I still hold that the latter can lead to the former.

Though really we will be unable to tell what the answer is to this question until we see actual workers&#39; revolutions.

Will it be a sudden change in conditions that creates the material conditions or a gradual decline. Who knows? .....I certainly don&#39;t.


Like I said, local circumstances played a huge role. In the US the civil rights movement was led by religious preachers and you’d be hard pressed to find a revolutionary among them. On the other hand the civil right movement in N Ireland was tied into both the radical nationalist and, to a growing degree, socialist currents prevalent at the time.

The civil rights movement may have had religious figureheads, but it was driven by the masses. Their actions were making them into revolutionaries.


The labour aristocracy are not a couple of individuals, they are a subset of the proletariat, a distinct class of their own; one that has resulted from the changing material conditions. I would go so far as to say that today the labour aristocracy make up the bulk of the proletariat. Individually they cannot make an impact on the material reality, as a class they dictate it.

The bulk of the proletariat? .....well by this sort of definition the third world proletariat is part of the "labour aristocracy" as well, because they too aren&#39;t spontaneously rising up.

I certainly think theres still an element of the old social democratic left within the proletariat, but I still don&#39;t think these parts specifically constitute a "labour aristocracy."

Again this is Lenin contradicting Marx. Marx thought Capitalism would eventually create only two classes, Lenin thought that Capitalism was capable of creating a whole new class, the "labour aristocracy."

The more I read and hear about Lenin the more I think Leninism and Marxism are two completely different strands of thought, that have more differences than similarities.

By the way, you may want to read the Marx was an Anarchist thread in Theory, its really good.


That’s hardly a scientific reason. You can say that all previous stages of history have been overthrown by revolution but that can hardly be expected to occur in the transition of socialism to communism. We take lessons from history but qualify them with reason.

I&#39;ve kind of discarded the Socialism as a "transition" theory. For me the transition to Communism should start straight after the revolution, otherwise it seems another revolution will be needed to destroy the class structure that Socialism creates.


Sometimes I think that too many people have been reading the Redstar papers

Bah. :lol:

[ComradeOm]

That being said I don&#39;t think that many people are still bothering with this thread. If anyone other then Comrade Om, enigma2517 and I, is still reading this thread please speak up.
Most people probably have better things to do with their lives then us :P


I agree with that analysis on every part bar the last sentence. In my (humble) opinion the industrial revolution was the culmination of many different civilisations advances. They all contribute a bit and the British were the first to put together the complete package and kaboom&#33;

I believe the last part is how Marx described it as well.
Marx said a lot of things :D Joking, joking...

Seriously though, I’m probably just looking at this from a more technological viewpoint and, in my view, it was the development of the new technology and manufacturing techniques that kicked off the whole affair.

I’m curious as to what other influences Marx felt impacted Britain during that period of change. Like I said, it really was a new society unlike anything that had gone before.


From what I have read it was the feudal lords who held back the emerging Chinese Capitalists. Though I must admit I haven&#39;t read that much about the subject and nothing regarding the other theories.
My knowledge on the issue is mostly second hand but no doubt there were a variety of factors that held China back as Europe moved forward. Much like all history.


South America, the Middle East and parts of Asia have a kind of hyper developed specific industry Capitalism. By that I mean foreign capital has hyper developed one or two industries and left the rest to rot. This then creates a very unbalanced Capitalism and means there is still plenty of development left to go.

Russia was similar in a way, because pre 1917 it was Europe&#39;s "third world" and certain sections of the Russian economy were hyper developed for European profit.
I was looking more at the class situation in those countries. As far as I’m aware, and again its all second hand knowledge, few nations today are as dominated by the peasant classes as 1917 Russia was. And even fewer are stuck in socialism.

I do hold out hope that the proletariat in those hyper developed sectors will emulate their Russian comrades from all those years ago. I know you disagree but it’s the only chance that we have of seeing socialism in our lifetimes. And of course a revolution in those nations will have a much greater impact on the West than Russia’s did.


I remember reading an article somewhere about young American engineers going to work in Russia after the revolution. If I remember correctly this ended around 1935.
That timeframe would fit in with Stalin’s Purges and general paranoia of all things Western.


I think most Western Communist parties are still Stalinist, bar the Trotskyist ones of course. If a party describes itself as Marxist-Leninists they tend to mean that they are "closet" Stalinists.

As for Westerners being impressed, I suspect there was a certain amount of idealism and romanticism involved there and also things like full womens rights at that time would have seemed very impressive. Though it doesn&#39;t hide the fact Russia was still a pretty miserable place. Which given the circumstances is all that it could be at that time.
Few Communist Parties in the West, certainly not the larger ones, even hold to Marxism-Leninism anymore. They’ve toned down the rhetoric and joined the ranks of the Democratic Socialists reformists while pretending to be totally innocent of idolising Uncle Joe. This just goes to show the bureaucratic and power obsessed nature of Stalin’s “ideology”.

Let’s make no mistake here, whether the leadership was rotten or not Russia made great strides following the Revolution and would continue to until the Brezhnev stagnation. I can well imagine a foreigner being impressed at the rapid rate of change, even I’m impressed today.


This is what happens when you were a disciple of Kautsky&#39;s for most of your life, you start to believe that Socialism can happen "transitionally" as if its an "evolutionary" process.

As much as I don&#39;t think dialectics is of much use, it can be used in these circumstances to show that such a "transition" is impossible.
As far as Lenin was concerned they’d had their revolution (and the capitalists had certainly been overthrown) and now his focus was on building the material conditions needed for socialism. Hardly what Marx had envisioned but by then the Bolsheviks were well into unexplored ideological territory. Socialism can’t break the stranglehold of capitalism through peaceful means but once the old order has been swept away that’s not a problem anymore. Consider it a prolonged transition stage.

I don’t hold any value in dialectics. I agree with Redstar that it’s a holdover from Marx’s education and of little value to us today.


Yes it is a new "take" on the class struggle. However I think its a decent one, after all a proletariat that is going to be able to rule itself has to be relatively advanced and mental labour is certainly an advancement. It certainly gives the proletariat more of the "tools" needed to rule itself, IT skills etc.

Maybe a proletariat mainly based around mental labour will be the defining characteristic of the proletariat that seizes power.
The greatest flaw that I can see with that is that you’re automatically dividing the proletariat into those who can rule and those to be ruled. Assuming that manual labour will never be abolished under capitalism (a fairly safe assumption) we have a more advanced segment of the proletariat moving forward at a greater pace than the “traditional” proletariat who are not as tech savvy. I don’t see that working in either practice or theory.


Good quotes and great purges. Thats Uncle Joe for you.
I have to admit that every so often I find myself having some sneaking admiration for the man. I usually slap myself out of it :P


Yeah but all this means the proletariat owning more material goods doesn&#39;t mean that they are being paid more.
Well generally it does. It is difficult to own many goods if you’re not being paid well. As I said while the price of commodities has generally decreased the average person today has a house crammed full of them. If we were to measure pay against constants (say milk and bread) it would be clear just how much he wages have risen.


Yes but Lenin seems to think that imperialism is the only significant factor, I think there are a lot more significant factors that we need to look at, before just labelling everything as imperialism.
Imperialism certainly isn’t the only factor. It just happens to be the most important one, the religion of our time. Its an extremely efficient tool, the most capable yet, for keeping the workers doped.


Thats a fair statement, its just I don&#39;t think Capitalism has become "imperialistic" as it has always been this way.
Imperialism is in capitalisms nature alright, it is such a parasitic system, but imperialism in Leninist parlance is the stage of capitalism where such overseas adventures are essential for the capitalists’ survival. Western society is built on Asian goods and the profit they generate, kick that crutch away and capitalism will crumble.


Will it be a sudden change in conditions that creates the material conditions or a gradual decline. Who knows? .....I certainly don&#39;t.
A combination perhaps? The decline to create the conditions and the sudden change to spark the crisis.

The civil rights movement may have had religious figureheads, but it was driven by the masses. Their actions were making them into revolutionaries.
I doubt there was any real revolutionary spirit in King’s actions. If only because he was leading one aspect of the proletariat and bourgeoisie against the others. Still, he did good and there’s no reason why socialists can’t co-operate with the bourgeois movements if it furthers our aims.


The bulk of the proletariat? .....well by this sort of definition the third world proletariat is part of the "labour aristocracy" as well, because they too aren&#39;t spontaneously rising up.
I meant the bulk of the Western proletariat. Mark my words, the exploited proletariat in the developing nations will be the first to rise up. But, like the progress of the 19th century labour movements, it will take time and effort to overcome some particularly brutal ruling classes.


I certainly think theres still an element of the old social democratic left within the proletariat, but I still don&#39;t think these parts specifically constitute a "labour aristocracy

Again this is Lenin contradicting Marx. Marx thought Capitalism would eventually create only two classes, Lenin thought that Capitalism was capable of creating a whole new class, the "labour aristocracy."

The more I read and hear about Lenin the more I think Leninism and Marxism are two completely different strands of thought, that have more differences than similarities.
Classes rise and classes fall. That’s been happening since history began. Marx claimed that society would converge towards two opposing classes with the minor classes (petty-bourgeoisie and remnants of the nobility) being consumed by both. It never got to that stage when Marx was alive though it was close. The labour aristocracy are a temporary, in the long term, phenomenon fuelled by the superprofit. It will be submerged back into the proletariat proper once that source of capital is exhausted or removed.

To take an analogy I just came up with. The labour aristocracy could be compared to the clergy – a distinct class once used to subdue the masses but now almost disappeared.


By the way, you may want to read the Marx was an Anarchist thread in Theory, its really good.
I had a quick look at it yesterday but the idea was so ridiculous that I stopped after the first chapter/section. Marx was obviously anti-capitalist and all for pulling down the state but he also advocated the dictatorship of the proletariat - a government of the people but a government nonetheless. Marxism is obviously a very useful tool and I’m not surprised that a number of anarchists use its theories but I can’t reconcile Marx with anarchism. That’s leaving aside his arguments with some of the anarchists’ leading theorists.


I&#39;ve kind of discarded the Socialism as a "transition" theory. For me the transition to Communism should start straight after the revolution, otherwise it seems another revolution will be needed to destroy the class structure that Socialism creates.
I’ve been arguing with an anarchist all this time? That explains a lot ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:20 PM
Since when did Leninist state equal Stalinist? And for that matter, why do people insist on shitting on Lenin these days? .
This implies that Lenin would have done anything differently to Stalin had he not died. Why would you think that?


The man only became the first to put Marx’s theories into real practice. Bah, that’s what you get for dying too early

What about the men and women of the Paris Commune?

[ComradeOm]

This implies that Lenin would have done anything differently to Stalin had he not died. Why would you think that?
The obvious answer is in Lenin’s writings where he lays out his plans for liberating the workers. But if you don’t buy into that then consider that everything Lenin did can be interpreted as forwarding the welfare of the proletarian agenda. You can of course dispute his means and theory, and maybe if he hadn’t died we would’ve seen another side to him, but all the evidence we have supports the fact that Lenin was striving for socialism.

Stalin on the other hand didn’t give a flying f*ck about Marx, socialism or the workers. This much is evident from history alone. I wouldn’t call him a communist.


What about the men and women of the Paris Commune?
The Paris Commune was probably as close as we’ve come to socialism but I’d hesitate to describe the Communards as Marxist. Lenin was the first to purposefully set about overthrowing capitalism and building the socialist state. But its a fair point.

[fuck police brutality]

Many people get confused about anarchy and think that anarchists are violent and riot and so on. But a real anarchist should be against this because it is these type of people who would prevent an anarchist society from being successful, pretty much, they would just abuse it. Anarchists should be completely peaceful and believe in complete equality of rights for everyone.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Most people probably have better things to do with their lives then us

Thats a statement of truth. :( :lol:


Seriously though, I’m probably just looking at this from a more technological viewpoint and, in my view, it was the development of the new technology and manufacturing techniques that kicked off the whole affair.

I’m curious as to what other influences Marx felt impacted Britain during that period of change. Like I said, it really was a new society unlike anything that had gone before.

I honestly don&#39;t remember Marx&#39;s exact opinions with regards the Industrial revolution. Though to be honest from a Marxist historical standpoint I think there are far more interesting and relevant events, which are more clearly linked with class struggle.


My knowledge on the issue is mostly second hand but no doubt there were a variety of factors that held China back as Europe moved forward. Much like all history.

Undeniably there were a variety of factors holding China back, the most important and biggest one being class struggle.


I was looking more at the class situation in those countries. As far as I’m aware, and again its all second hand knowledge, few nations today are as dominated by the peasant classes as 1917 Russia was. And even fewer are stuck in socialism.

They may look "cosmetically" different, but I would still say that many countries still have a huge peasant class.


I do hold out hope that the proletariat in those hyper developed sectors will emulate their Russian comrades from all those years ago. I know you disagree but it’s the only chance that we have of seeing socialism in our lifetimes. And of course a revolution in those nations will have a much greater impact on the West than Russia’s did.

However that proletariat is a minority class and revolutions by or in the name of a minority class, will always produce a class society.

This is another huge difference between Leninism and Marxism. Marxism states that a Communist revolution which can produce a classless society, can only happen when the majority proletariat class seizes power and creates the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Leninism says that the minority proletariat can seize power and create "Socialism," the stage of transition.

However Lenin is being very un-Marxist in his thinking, because only when the majority class seizes power can a classless society emerge. A minority class taking power will just produce another class system. In this case Socialism, or the more accurate description of "Capitalism without the Capitalists."


That timeframe would fit in with Stalin’s Purges and general paranoia of all things Western.

Reading that sentence, I suddenly thought of Stalin as a Muslim fundamentalist. :lol:


Few Communist Parties in the West, certainly not the larger ones, even hold to Marxism-Leninism anymore. They’ve toned down the rhetoric and joined the ranks of the Democratic Socialists reformists while pretending to be totally innocent of idolising Uncle Joe. This just goes to show the bureaucratic and power obsessed nature of Stalin’s “ideology”.

This kind of reformism was happening before Stalin got his seat on the throne. Kautsky and the other social democrats (Lenin included) were all advocating reformism at the turn of the 20th century.

Its one of the fundamental flaws in the idea of the party. Eventually the leadership becomes completely detached from the masses and jumps into bed with the Capitalists. Of course the results are far worse when the "party" actually has any power, as it did in Russia and China.


Let’s make no mistake here, whether the leadership was rotten or not Russia made great strides following the Revolution and would continue to until the Brezhnev stagnation. I can well imagine a foreigner being impressed at the rapid rate of change, even I’m impressed today.

Yes it did make great strides, but it never reached "western" standards. There were no "goodies" or "luxuries" in Russia, just the basics.


As far as Lenin was concerned they’d had their revolution (and the capitalists had certainly been overthrown) and now his focus was on building the material conditions needed for socialism. Hardly what Marx had envisioned but by then the Bolsheviks were well into unexplored ideological territory. Socialism can’t break the stranglehold of capitalism through peaceful means but once the old order has been swept away that’s not a problem anymore. Consider it a prolonged transition stage.

However it has never completed the "transition" and I doubt it ever will. Socialism is probably better than Capitalism, however it is still a class system and I don&#39;t want class systems, I want a classless society and the Socialism as a "transitionary" stage is not what Marx proposed and is un-Marxist in its thinking.

You see you can&#39;t destroy one class system, put in place another one and expect that the new one will somehow "magically" disappear. It doesn&#39;t work like that.


I don’t hold any value in dialectics. I agree with Redstar that it’s a holdover from Marx’s education and of little value to us today.

It has its uses I suppose, however I have no particular interest in it. What will be interesting is how dialectics will be viewed in a post revolutionary society. I suspect many scientists will start using it as their "philosophy of science" and therefore it will be interesting to see just what they achieve compared to the non-dialectical scientists.


The greatest flaw that I can see with that is that you’re automatically dividing the proletariat into those who can rule and those to be ruled. Assuming that manual labour will never be abolished under capitalism (a fairly safe assumption) we have a more advanced segment of the proletariat moving forward at a greater pace than the “traditional” proletariat who are not as tech savvy. I don’t see that working in either practice or theory.

There is of course the potential problem of elitism, however whatever the structure of the proletariat there are still going to be "more" intelligent than others and capable of gaining influence. Though the system of demarchy can solve a lot of these potential problems and the fact that no matter how "advanced" someone is they won&#39;t be able to "rule" anyone, because the system of "rulers" will be gotten rid of.

Plus any potential problems encountered with the proletariat ruling itself, surely are not as great as the problems faced when a select group "rules" on the proletariats behalf.


I have to admit that every so often I find myself having some sneaking admiration for the man. I usually slap myself out of it

I like his moustache. :o :lol:


Well generally it does. It is difficult to own many goods if you’re not being paid well. As I said while the price of commodities has generally decreased the average person today has a house crammed full of them. If we were to measure pay against constants (say milk and bread) it would be clear just how much he wages have risen.

From what I know "real" wages when compared to inflation etc. have been declining since the 50&#39;s. However certain commodities have become cheaper so this to some extent accounts for people being able to keep a certain standard of living.

However the question is, when commodities increase in price (which they do from time to time, oil being the best example at the moment) will it be possible to raise wages? .....I personally doubt that it will be possible to raise "real" wages enough to balance out the increase in the price of commodities.


Imperialism certainly isn’t the only factor. It just happens to be the most important one, the religion of our time. Its an extremely efficient tool, the most capable yet, for keeping the workers doped.

However imperialism like religion, can be overcome when the material conditions present themselves. Lenin however suggests that imperialism means that the material conditions are effectively suspended or paused. This is what I don&#39;t "buy."


Imperialism is in capitalisms nature alright, it is such a parasitic system, but imperialism in Leninist parlance is the stage of capitalism where such overseas adventures are essential for the capitalists’ survival. Western society is built on Asian goods and the profit they generate, kick that crutch away and capitalism will crumble.

Yes but Marx recognised this and did a good enough job of explaining it. Lenin however presents it as some great phenomena which destroys revolutionary possibilities in the "imperialist" countries. As I said, this is in my opinion bullshit as generally the times when we have seen the most labour agitation in the "imperialist" countries is precisely when the imperialism is at its most destructive and effective.

It seems that imperialism awakens more people than it "dopes."


A combination perhaps? The decline to create the conditions and the sudden change to spark the crisis.

Perhaps, if I said I knew for sure I would be lying, or using dialectics. :lol:


I doubt there was any real revolutionary spirit in King’s actions. If only because he was leading one aspect of the proletariat and bourgeoisie against the others. Still, he did good and there’s no reason why socialists can’t co-operate with the bourgeois movements if it furthers our aims.

There was certainly no "revolutionary" principles in King&#39;s actions, though the Black Panthers and to some degree the average Black worker certainly had revolutionary ideals and these were the people who drove the movement, not King.


I meant the bulk of the Western proletariat. Mark my words, the exploited proletariat in the developing nations will be the first to rise up. But, like the progress of the 19th century labour movements, it will take time and effort to overcome some particularly brutal ruling classes.

Unless the developing nations get to a more advanced stage than the developed nations, the proletariat are not likely going to become revolutionary. There will be labour movements alright, but these won&#39;t be any more revolutionary than the labour movements of the first world nations during the last century.

The only place you&#39;re likely to see the workers&#39; "rising up" in a revolutionary way is in the developed world.


Classes rise and classes fall. That’s been happening since history began. Marx claimed that society would converge towards two opposing classes with the minor classes (petty-bourgeoisie and remnants of the nobility) being consumed by both. It never got to that stage when Marx was alive though it was close. The labour aristocracy are a temporary, in the long term, phenomenon fuelled by the superprofit. It will be submerged back into the proletariat proper once that source of capital is exhausted or removed.

To take an analogy I just came up with. The labour aristocracy could be compared to the clergy – a distinct class once used to subdue the masses but now almost disappeared.

This is a reasonable suggestion.

Though I would say any possibility of a "labour aristocracy" is more a case of the petite bourgeois who are becoming part of the proletariat trying to resist this. This seems a better reason than suggesting the proletariat is creating a whole new class because of "superprofit."


I had a quick look at it yesterday but the idea was so ridiculous that I stopped after the first chapter/section. Marx was obviously anti-capitalist and all for pulling down the state but he also advocated the dictatorship of the proletariat - a government of the people but a government nonetheless. Marxism is obviously a very useful tool and I’m not surprised that a number of anarchists use its theories but I can’t reconcile Marx with anarchism. That’s leaving aside his arguments with some of the anarchists’ leading theorists.

It was actually a very good piece, you should read it all. It stressed that Marx was an Anarchist thinker precisely because he argued with some of the supposed Anarchists of that time who thought it was possible to keep some of the old structures. It says that whether he realised it or not, Marx was one of the most radical Anarchist thinkers. Certainly today Marxism has more in common with Anarchism than it does with Leninism, Maoism etc.

As for the state question, Marx only ever proposed the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," he never called for the transitionary stage of "Socialism." In fact Marx went to great lengths not to use the term Socialism to distinguish himself from the romantic Socialists of that time.

Therefore while I don&#39;t "buy" the idea that Marxism is Anarchism, I certainly think it has more in common with Anarchism than it does with Leninist Socialism.


I’ve been arguing with an anarchist all this time? That explains a lot

Nope an ordinary Marxist who proposes the "dictatorship of the proletariat" not the never ending phase of "transitionary" Socialism.

[Black Dagger]

Anarchists should be completely peaceful and believe in complete equality of rights for everyone.

I disagree. Anarchists should be prepared to do whatever is necessary to smash capitalism and the state. If &#39;by any means necessary&#39; doesn&#39;t make sense when you analyse society and see the walls and weapons the bourgeoisie have to protect their capital- their power over us- if you don&#39;t see the need for arms then, well just look at history. Look at the lengths to which the capitalist class has gone to secure their wealth throughout history, dispensing with &#39;democracy&#39; in favour of state repression, kidnapping and murder.

Why should the working class suffer peacefully?

[viva le revolution]

"Why should the working class suffer peacefully? "


Because the anarchist scholl of thought, despite being around just as long as marxism, has a proud historical tradition of political irrelevance.

[ComradeOm]

I honestly don&#39;t remember Marx&#39;s exact opinions with regards the Industrial revolution. Though to be honest from a Marxist historical standpoint I think there are far more interesting and relevant events, which are more clearly linked with class struggle.
The revolution in France springs mind.


They may look "cosmetically" different, but I would still say that many countries still have a huge peasant class.
I’m not sure how cosmetically different a peasant can be. But regardless there are few places in the world today where anyone is as bad off as the Russian serfs.


However that proletariat is a minority class and revolutions by or in the name of a minority class, will always produce a class society.

This is another huge difference between Leninism and Marxism. Marxism states that a Communist revolution which can produce a classless society, can only happen when the majority proletariat class seizes power and creates the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Leninism says that the minority proletariat can seize power and create "Socialism," the stage of transition.

However Lenin is being very un-Marxist in his thinking, because only when the majority class seizes power can a classless society emerge. A minority class taking power will just produce another class system. In this case Socialism, or the more accurate description of "Capitalism without the Capitalists."
I’ll tackle the socialism issue below. But both Marx and Lenin envisaged a dictatorship of the proletariat. They had differing views on just what that would take, both formed by the very different circumstances. Lenin, operating in the hostile and barren atmosphere of Russia, saw a much more forceful and disciplined rule was necessary to contain the greater counterrevolutionary forces that his revolution unleashed. To Marx, operating in the advanced Western societies, the capitalist classes would not have been nearly as strong.

As I’ve been saying all along, Leninism is an adaptation of Marxism to produce a socialist revolution in underdeveloped nations. In those situations you cannot expect a traditional Marxist revolution (not that there’s ever been such a thing) without waiting a couple of centuries. And not everyone is willing to wait.


This kind of reformism was happening before Stalin got his seat on the throne. Kautsky and the other social democrats (Lenin included) were all advocating reformism at the turn of the 20th century.
It was only after WWI that there was any real difference between the terms Social Democracy and Communist. Almost every major socialist of the time was influenced by Kautsky who, after the death of Engels, was the leading socialist of his time. Lenin was no exception and you can see Kautsky’s influence running through his earlier works. As with the rest of Europe it was the war that finally separated the bourgeois minded reformists from the true revolutionaries and we know which side Lenin fell on.


Its one of the fundamental flaws in the idea of the party. Eventually the leadership becomes completely detached from the masses and jumps into bed with the Capitalists. Of course the results are far worse when the "party" actually has any power, as it did in Russia and China.
A problem certainly but not a fatal one with the theory. Because the Party will be drawn from the proletariat they will act to further the aims of their class… well you know how it turned out in Russia. To be honest I don’t have the definite answer to this crucial question but I do believe its out there. Its just less a matter of theory than it is practice.


Yes it did make great strides, but it never reached "western" standards. There were no "goodies" or "luxuries" in Russia, just the basics.
A result of the necessity (or paranoia) behind a massive military budget. In any case why should the Soviet Union have tried to replicate Western consumerism?


However it has never completed the "transition" and I doubt it ever will. Socialism is probably better than Capitalism, however it is still a class system and I don&#39;t want class systems, I want a classless society and the Socialism as a "transitionary" stage is not what Marx proposed and is un-Marxist in its thinking.

You see you can&#39;t destroy one class system, put in place another one and expect that the new one will somehow "magically" disappear. It doesn&#39;t work like that.
And that’s anarchism. You can’t simply do it all at once. Instead you require the dictatorship of the proletariat to first suppress the capitalists and then build the foundations for communism. As for disbanding to communism it was Engels who stated that the state would “wither away”. Why? Because it’s the dictatorship of the proletariat. As Lenin put it: “Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing”

Marx never went into any real depth on the nature of socialist or communist society simply because he imagined that the proletariat would know what to do. And I for one am capable of thinking and acting without written instructions from Karl Marx. Considering that its Leninists that usually get the most stick for being dogmatic and hero obsessed I find that highly ironic.


There is of course the potential problem of elitism, however whatever the structure of the proletariat there are still going to be "more" intelligent than others and capable of gaining influence. Though the system of demarchy can solve a lot of these potential problems and the fact that no matter how "advanced" someone is they won&#39;t be able to "rule" anyone, because the system of "rulers" will be gotten rid of.

Plus any potential problems encountered with the proletariat ruling itself, surely are not as great as the problems faced when a select group "rules" on the proletariats behalf.
I see little difference between a more “advanced” segment of the proletariat ruling and what we’ve seen of vanguardism. You’ll get the exact same result. In fact many proponents of vanguardism will claim that the vanguard (ie them) are the most advanced segments of the proletariat.

I’ve just read a bit of demarchy and it does look interesting. But Soviet democracy works just as well in theory.


I like his moustache
You don’t have any pics on the site? I hope not… :o ;)


However the question is, when commodities increase in price (which they do from time to time, oil being the best example at the moment) will it be possible to raise wages? .....I personally doubt that it will be possible to raise "real" wages enough to balance out the increase in the price of commodities.
The capitalists simply pass the price on to the consumer. There’s still a lot of slack in the system… for now.


However imperialism like religion, can be overcome when the material conditions present themselves. Lenin however suggests that imperialism means that the material conditions are effectively suspended or paused. This is what I don&#39;t "buy."
Imperialism doesn’t suspend the material conditions, it changes them. It affects the economic base (protectionism, good/bad fiscal policy) as the political superstructure. The religion analogy just serves to underline its importance. Eventually the economic base will win out but it will take some time.


Yes but Marx recognised this and did a good enough job of explaining it. Lenin however presents it as some great phenomena which destroys revolutionary possibilities in the "imperialist" countries. As I said, this is in my opinion bullshit as generally the times when we have seen the most labour agitation in the "imperialist" countries is precisely when the imperialism is at its most destructive and effective.

It seems that imperialism awakens more people than it "dopes."
Are you claiming that today, in what is possibly the peak of the dominance of finance capital and economic imperialism (aka globalisation), the proletariat are at their height of revolutionary activity? It doesn’t take a genius to work out that the opposite is the case. It was Engels who first noted that the British proletariat were more than happy to cooperate with their masters, hardly surprising from a nation which had been exploiting the entire world for decades. As a matter of point that was the earliest reference I found to the labour aristocracy.

Of course physical imperialism can turn sour at times. Then its natural to expect a public backlash, nobody likes a loser. The fact that there’s such a backlash merely reinforces how much the proletariat have bought into imperialism.


There was certainly no "revolutionary" principles in King&#39;s actions, though the Black Panthers and to some degree the average Black worker certainly had revolutionary ideals and these were the people who drove the movement, not King.
I don’t know much about the Panthers. Nationalism is a useful tool but care must be taken not to allow it overshadow Marxist principles of internationalism. Meh, either way socialists can benefit from some bourgeois victories.


Unless the developing nations get to a more advanced stage than the developed nations, the proletariat are not likely going to become revolutionary. There will be labour movements alright, but these won&#39;t be any more revolutionary than the labour movements of the first world nations during the last century.

The only place you&#39;re likely to see the workers&#39; "rising up" in a revolutionary way is in the developed world
There’s no one left to exploit. There will be no labour aristocracy in these nations, no large segment of the proletariat to side with the bourgeoisie. Once the proletariat have developed the required degree of class consciousness they’ll set about tearing down the, admittedly strong, states under which they suffer.

Again, why should the proletariat in the West rise up? Life is good and the material conditions are nowhere near advanced enough for revolution. What is more likely, a revolution by Asian sweatshop workers who slave away for 12-14 hours a day or some American computer technician with two cars?


Though I would say any possibility of a "labour aristocracy" is more a case of the petite bourgeois who are becoming part of the proletariat trying to resist this. This seems a better reason than suggesting the proletariat is creating a whole new class because of "superprofit."
The labour aristocracy are still selling their labour though. They are still wage slaves, still part of the proletariat, just a portion that believes that it has more in common with the bourgeoisie than their comrades.


It was actually a very good piece, you should read it all. It stressed that Marx was an Anarchist thinker precisely because he argued with some of the supposed Anarchists of that time who thought it was possible to keep some of the old structures. It says that whether he realised it or not, Marx was one of the most radical Anarchist thinkers. Certainly today Marxism has more in common with Anarchism than it does with Leninism, Maoism etc.

As for the state question, Marx only ever proposed the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," he never called for the transitionary stage of "Socialism." In fact Marx went to great lengths not to use the term Socialism to distinguish himself from the romantic Socialists of that time.

Therefore while I don&#39;t "buy" the idea that Marxism is Anarchism, I certainly think it has more in common with Anarchism than it does with Leninist Socialism.
Marx could be considered a radical anarchist in the same way that Stalin could be considered a radical Marxist ;)

Marx certainly foresaw a state after capitalism. He may not have gone into the same detail as Lenin, hardly surprising since Lenin was actively involved in attempting to construct that state, but to claim that he felt that a state would not be needed following the revolution is simply false.

There’s a whole spectrum of ideologies on the Left. Some run into each other at the edges. Most Marxists still find value in Lenin but those that don’t often gravitate to the opposite end Marxism, a far more anti-authoritarian anarchist stance.


Nope an ordinary Marxist who proposes the "dictatorship of the proletariat" not the never ending phase of "transitionary" Socialism.
Sounds more like anarcho-communist to me. Socialism is an integral part of Marxism far more so than any of Lenin’s theories, useful as they are.

[Black Dagger]

Because the anarchist scholl of thought, despite being around just as long as marxism, has a proud historical tradition of political irrelevance.

Thanks for that worthless contribution comrade&#33; :)
Seeing how i, an anarchist communist was responding against this position of pacifism (and pacifists come in all shades, liberals, socialists, marxists and so forth)- your jibe is out place, save the sectarian shite/spam please.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The revolution in France springs mind.

Absolutely. The American Revolution is another event which is particularly interesting from a class war viewpoint.


I’m not sure how cosmetically different a peasant can be. But regardless there are few places in the world today where anyone is as bad off as the Russian serfs.

Africa, South America and parts of Asia all have a sizable peasant class. Why else do you think Maoism is so relevant in these places?


I’ll tackle the socialism issue below. But both Marx and Lenin envisaged a dictatorship of the proletariat. They had differing views on just what that would take, both formed by the very different circumstances. Lenin, operating in the hostile and barren atmosphere of Russia, saw a much more forceful and disciplined rule was necessary to contain the greater counterrevolutionary forces that his revolution unleashed. To Marx, operating in the advanced Western societies, the capitalist classes would not have been nearly as strong.

The Capitalist class in Western societies would have been far stronger, mainly because Russia in 1917 didn&#39;t have a substantial Capitalist class. There was no bourgeois in Russia

As for the counter revolutionary forces, well, the feudal lords and the landed aristocracy definitely tried to sabotage the revolution. The same way they tried to destroy bourgeois revolutions in the European countries.

Revolutions are always related to class war and therefore there will always be counter revolutionaries. The mistake Lenin made was to view the Russian revolution as anything other than a bourgeois revolution. The Russian proletariat were neither big enough nor advanced enough to rule themselves.

Lenin did recognise this, however his conclusion was faulty. Lenin thought that that a select group (the vanguard) could take the place of the proletariat and somehow conduct the revolution on their behalf. This is a flawed analysis. To think that you can change a revolutions class interest and adapt it from a bourgeois revolution to a proletarian revolution is mistaken. Especially when the proletariat in question is neither big enough nor advanced enough to conduct a proletarian revolution.

The Russian revolution in spite of all the rhetoric, was always what it was supposed to be. A bourgeois revolution that would produce modern Capitalism.


As I’ve been saying all along, Leninism is an adaptation of Marxism to produce a socialist revolution in underdeveloped nations. In those situations you cannot expect a traditional Marxist revolution (not that there’s ever been such a thing) without waiting a couple of centuries. And not everyone is willing to wait.

Waiting is a pain in the arse. However material conditions just cannot be skipped, the "Marxist" revolutions of the last century have clearly shown this.

Therefore it stands to reason any "Socialist," "Marxist" or "Religious" revolution in the under developed world. Is always going to produce modern Capitalism, despite the rhetoric.


It was only after WWI that there was any real difference between the terms Social Democracy and Communist. Almost every major socialist of the time was influenced by Kautsky who, after the death of Engels, was the leading socialist of his time. Lenin was no exception and you can see Kautsky’s influence running through his earlier works. As with the rest of Europe it was the war that finally separated the bourgeois minded reformists from the true revolutionaries and we know which side Lenin fell on.

The war may have led to the final seperation. However just about all of the "leading" Socialists of that time had been acting like social democrat reformists for a long time.

To be honest the split had little to do with some people being Marxist revolutionaries and some being reformers. It was more a split between the people who thought it was easier to become a ruling class through revolution and those who thought it was easier to become a ruling class through bourgeois democracy.

I think Rosa Luxemburg put it best -


The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky separation, oppose dictatorship to democracy. "Dictatorship or democracy" is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of "democracy," that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model.... [The Proletarian Revolution] should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique — dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.

Rosa was a bright gal, though I suspect you&#39;ll disagree with her analysis. :o :lol:


A problem certainly but not a fatal one with the theory. Because the Party will be drawn from the proletariat they will act to further the aims of their class… well you know how it turned out in Russia. To be honest I don’t have the definite answer to this crucial question but I do believe its out there. Its just less a matter of theory than it is practice.

The problem tends to be that even the advanced parts of the proletariat who get to be a member of the party, the lower part but still a part. Don&#39;t have a say in anything.

The traditional Leninist party has worked on the principle that the leadership says and the membership does. The line of communication was always going one way.

This study - Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left (http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html) - is very interesting. I haven&#39;t read all of it myself yet, but it does touch on some of the fundamental problems of the "Leninist" party and the relationship between the party hierarchy and the rank and file membership.

I think its fair to say the party as Lenin envisaged it, was pretty rotten from the point when it was created and has got steadily worse ever since. Indeed now we have the RCP which seems to resemble the Catholic Church (with Pope Bob at its head) more than a Communist organisation.

Even if you think Lenin&#39;s work is of some use, I would strongly advise you to put the idea of the "party" in the bin. Where it belongs.


A result of the necessity (or paranoia) behind a massive military budget. In any case why should the Soviet Union have tried to replicate Western consumerism?

Do you have a problem with consumerism? ....becuase in my opinion the whole point of the working class liberating itself is so it can get more "goodies" not less.


And that’s anarchism. You can’t simply do it all at once. Instead you require the dictatorship of the proletariat to first suppress the capitalists and then build the foundations for communism. As for disbanding to communism it was Engels who stated that the state would “wither away”. Why? Because it’s the dictatorship of the proletariat. As Lenin put it: “Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing”

Yes but I wish to see the "dictatorship of the proletariat" not the "dictatorship of the party." When Engels said it would "wither away," he meant with the ultra democracy being practised by the individual communes, within a few years there would be absolutely no need of a central body. The Paris Commune was described by Engel&#39;s as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which was nothing like anything that happened in Russia.

In fact I suspect Marx and Engels would have wet themselves with laughter if you told them the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would last over 70 years.

Theres also a point to be made about the working class of Engel&#39;s time and the working class of today. In Engel&#39;s lifetime the proletariat as a group were pretty "backward" and may have not been able to effectively govern themselves (in a Communist society sense) straight away, they hadn&#39;t even experienced bourgeois democracy. However the modern proletariat is incredibly advanced and there is no reasonable answer as to why it is not capable of effectively governing itself straight after the revolution.

As for Lenin&#39;s quote "Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing." Well I think the fact that very few actually governed and they never took turns. It is not that unreasonable to suggest that Russia operated in a completely un-Socialist manner.


Marx never went into any real depth on the nature of socialist or communist society simply because he imagined that the proletariat would know what to do. And I for one am capable of thinking and acting without written instructions from Karl Marx. Considering that its Leninists that usually get the most stick for being dogmatic and hero obsessed I find that highly ironic.

Indeed Marx didn&#39;t present any written instructions which can be viewed as a conclusive "blueprint" of a Communist society. All he really said was that the proletariat should rule, not the party.

This is all us "traditional" Marxists ever propose.

Lenin on the other hand left a pretty extensive "blueprint" as to what to do and just about every Leninist since has followed it. And been as a lot of Leninism is deeply flawed, a lot of Leninists and Leninist countries since have done some hugely flawed things.

Just look at how many people still promote the "party" despite the fact that there is a huge amount of evidence that it doesn&#39;t work, notably the whole of the last century.


I see little difference between a more “advanced” segment of the proletariat ruling and what we’ve seen of vanguardism. You’ll get the exact same result. In fact many proponents of vanguardism will claim that the vanguard (ie them) are the most advanced segments of the proletariat.

Well, they are the proletariat and they will be elected. Therefore they will constitute a "dictatorship of the proletariat" not an elite vanguard.

Also the majority of vanguards since and including the Russian vanguard, have been headed by bourgeois "intellectuals" who have dictated to the proletariat, instead of being dictated to by the proletariat.

There is a huge difference between the proletariat dictating what happens and the "party" dictating what happens.


I’ve just read a bit of demarchy and it does look interesting. But Soviet democracy works just as well in theory.

Its something that could be tried and I suspect different communes will use different methods. Thats democracy.


You don’t have any pics on the site? I hope not…

Don&#39;t worry, I&#39;m clean shaven. :)


The capitalists simply pass the price on to the consumer. There’s still a lot of slack in the system… for now

Though if wages don&#39;t rise the consumer can&#39;t afford the extra price.


Imperialism doesn’t suspend the material conditions, it changes them. It affects the economic base (protectionism, good/bad fiscal policy) as the political superstructure. The religion analogy just serves to underline its importance. Eventually the economic base will win out but it will take some time.

Yes but Lenin seems to think that if there was no worker agitation that there would be no imperialism. As if the imperialism is only there because of the worker agitation.

Imperialism has always been part of the "economic base" and its not something that has been added. Its part of the economic base because imperialism is profitable.


Are you claiming that today, in what is possibly the peak of the dominance of finance capital and economic imperialism (aka globalisation), the proletariat are at their height of revolutionary activity? It doesn’t take a genius to work out that the opposite is the case. It was Engels who first noted that the British proletariat were more than happy to cooperate with their masters, hardly surprising from a nation which had been exploiting the entire world for decades. As a matter of point that was the earliest reference I found to the labour aristocracy.

I said that worker agitation seems to arise when imperialism "is at its most destructive and effective."

Now I&#39;d dispute that imperialism today is at its most "destructive" or "effective" point. Its certainly not as profitable as it used to be and it&#39;s certainly not as visible. Though even in this age when the imperialism is quiet subdued (with the exception of Iraq and Afghanistan) there have still been glimpses of anti-imperialist agitation within the imperialist countries.

The G8 drivel, was still in essence an anti-imperialism march, whether the marchers knew it or not. Because people were unhappy about what they were seeing in Africa.

As for the Engel&#39;s reference, it&#39;s is worth mentioning that in those days the results of imperialism were not that visible. There was no 24 hour news etc. and therefore it&#39;s not that surprising that the crimes of the British Empire went unnoticed because no one really knew about them.


Of course physical imperialism can turn sour at times. Then its natural to expect a public backlash, nobody likes a loser. The fact that there’s such a backlash merely reinforces how much the proletariat have bought into imperialism.

Well like everything imperialism is an idea. Marx himself thought the British could develop India and therefore it&#39;s no surprise that today that people may think imperialism can help a country. In some cases it does.

Therefore when it goes wrong, it is not that surprising that people are unhappy. This is not because they have "sold out" but rather that it appears that it is working. The same way people aren&#39;t revolting against Capitalism at the moment because it is still working relatively well.

To suggest that people on a large scale should oppose what is working relatively well, is idealism.


I don’t know much about the Panthers. Nationalism is a useful tool but care must be taken not to allow it overshadow Marxist principles of internationalism. Meh, either way socialists can benefit from some bourgeois victories.

The Panthers were advocates of Maoism. To a degree they were Black Nationalists, but they also had a lot of Socialist rhetoric.


There’s no one left to exploit. There will be no labour aristocracy in these nations, no large segment of the proletariat to side with the bourgeoisie. Once the proletariat have developed the required degree of class consciousness they’ll set about tearing down the, admittedly strong, states under which they suffer.

Again, why should the proletariat in the West rise up? Life is good and the material conditions are nowhere near advanced enough for revolution. What is more likely, a revolution by Asian sweatshop workers who slave away for 12-14 hours a day or some American computer technician with two cars?

The Asian sweatshop worker at this point in time is more likely to "rise up" but this is not a revolution, they will "rise up" so that they can work an 8 hour day.

The proletariat of the advanced nations will become revolutionary, because they have had all that Capitalism can allow them and therefore it will be necessary to change the system if they want more. The third world worker however, has not experienced even half the advantages of modern Capitalism so they will not want to change a system that still has a tremendous amount to offer.


The labour aristocracy are still selling their labour though. They are still wage slaves, still part of the proletariat, just a portion that believes that it has more in common with the bourgeoisie than their comrades.

I still don&#39;t get who this "labour aristocracy" is and how they are "selling out."

There seems to be a kind of puritanical notion that should a member of the proletariat own a nice car or a nice house. They have "sold out" and become part of the "labour aristocracy." They are no part of the class enemy. Indeed the MIMers take it to the logical conclusion by saying that there is no American proletariat.

I don&#39;t buy it, because as long as the fundamental relationship exists between exploiter and exploited. There will still be two distinct classes and there will still be the class contradictions that create class war.

If Marx was right, absolutely nothing, religion, nationalism, imperialism etc. can stop these contradictions and therefore the exploiter exploited relationship will always be the most important thing. And when the material conditions arise, this becomes apparent.


Marx could be considered a radical anarchist in the same way that Stalin could be considered a radical Marxist

Marx certainly foresaw a state after capitalism. He may not have gone into the same detail as Lenin, hardly surprising since Lenin was actively involved in attempting to construct that state, but to claim that he felt that a state would not be needed following the revolution is simply false.

There’s a whole spectrum of ideologies on the Left. Some run into each other at the edges. Most Marxists still find value in Lenin but those that don’t often gravitate to the opposite end Marxism, a far more anti-authoritarian anarchist stance.

The article that I was talking about talks about Marx&#39;s views on the state in some depth and while I don&#39;t particularly think Marxism could be described as an Anarchist strain of thought. It certainly has more similarities with Anarchism than differences.

Whats more interesting is that not a single Leninist has commented on the article. ;)


Sounds more like anarcho-communist to me. Socialism is an integral part of Marxism far more so than any of Lenin’s theories, useful as they are.

Though I can&#39;t think of a time when Marx used the word "Socialism." He always described the post revolutionary state as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which he said would look like the Paris Commune.

The Socialist state "in all its glory" was a Leninist conception and when compared with what Marx envisaged, a completely different thing.

[ComradeOm]

Africa, South America and parts of Asia all have a sizable peasant class. Why else do you think Maoism is so relevant in these places?
I’m not denying that there are peasants but can you name any country in the world today where serfs make up the vast majority of the population? With the possible exception of Africa, much of which has yet to emerge from feudalism.

Although to be honest this point seems very minor.


The Capitalist class in Western societies would have been far stronger, mainly because Russia in 1917 didn&#39;t have a substantial Capitalist class. There was no bourgeois in Russia

As for the counter revolutionary forces, well, the feudal lords and the landed aristocracy definitely tried to sabotage the revolution. The same way they tried to destroy bourgeois revolutions in the European countries.

Revolutions are always related to class war and therefore there will always be counter revolutionaries. The mistake Lenin made was to view the Russian revolution as anything other than a bourgeois revolution. The Russian proletariat were neither big enough nor advanced enough to rule themselves.
No bourgeoisie in Russia? Then just who was it who led the February Revolution? The proletariat were at the forefront but they marched for the liberal cause.

Revolutions are not just related to class struggle, they are the result of it. Every revolution will have counterrevolutionary forces, as you point out, but in the West this class will consist of the capitalist class which will be vastly outnumbered by a powerful proletariat. In Russia the Bolsheviks faced not just the bourgeois state (for the liberals had control of the apparatus of government) but the highly reactionary feudal elements that were determined to maintain control. Coupled with this stiff resistance was the weakness of the proletariat themselves. It was only the iron discipline of the Party that allowed them to survive.

Was the proletariat strong enough to take power from the capitalists? No. It was a state dominated by peasants and would remain so for a number of years. The aim of the revolution was to change that. Note that Lenin never imagined that he had created a socialist state, that was next on the list.

And when the revolution in the West does come it will be when some event has weakened the capitalist state to the degree where a revolution is possible.


Lenin did recognise this, however his conclusion was faulty. Lenin thought that that a select group (the vanguard) could take the place of the proletariat and somehow conduct the revolution on their behalf. This is a flawed analysis. To think that you can change a revolutions class interest and adapt it from a bourgeois revolution to a proletarian revolution is mistaken. Especially when the proletariat in question is neither big enough nor advanced enough to conduct a proletarian revolution.

The Russian revolution in spite of all the rhetoric, was always what it was supposed to be. A bourgeois revolution that would produce modern Capitalism.
The October Revolution was bourgeois? Considering that it took eighty years for the bourgeoisie to reassert themselves I doubt that. Stalin may have been a bastard but he did not own the means of production, he was not bourgeois. after all a socialist state was not established. If I was being particularly critical of the Bolsheviks I’d call it a bureaucratic revolution, the triumph of bureaucracy. But as I’ve made clear before I do not doubt Lenin’s intentions and so I define it as a socialist revolution (not in the vein that Marx predicted, no socialist state was established) as it was lead by the exploited masses against their oppressors.


Waiting is a pain in the arse. However material conditions just cannot be skipped, the "Marxist" revolutions of the last century have clearly shown this.

Therefore it stands to reason any "Socialist," "Marxist" or "Religious" revolution in the under developed world. Is always going to produce modern Capitalism, despite the rhetoric.
Tell that so someone who doesn’t have the luxury of spending his time typing out replies like this. People ask what Marx would think of Lenin, I ask what Marx would think of those who would abandon all thoughts of revolution because they feel the “time isn’t right”.


The war may have led to the final seperation. However just about all of the "leading" Socialists of that time had been acting like social democrat reformists for a long time.

To be honest the split had little to do with some people being Marxist revolutionaries and some being reformers. It was more a split between the people who thought it was easier to become a ruling class through revolution and those who thought it was easier to become a ruling class through bourgeois democracy.

I think Rosa Luxemburg put it best –

Snip
Marxism evolves over time. Many Marxist theorists at the end of the 19th century were at a loss to explain the lack of revolution. And if revolution was going to happen anyway then why not simply tend to the more immediate aims of helping the worker? Considering the conditions of the time its hardly surprising that such thinking would come about. The war finally shattered those illusions and allowed the real revolutionaries to emerge.

I respect Rosa Luxemburg although my knowledge of her works is too limited to comment on her specific beliefs. I’ve always understood though that while she criticised the revolution she was smart enough to be aware of the knock on effects it would have and the need of the German worker to capitalise on the situation.

And on that quote, its hardly surprising that any German would take that view. Growing up in such radically different materials conditions she could hardly be expected not to&#33; The development of Bolshevikism came about in the very specific, and undeveloped, conditions of Russia at that time.

And to prove that I can throw out a quote just as easily, here’s Lenin (A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1916) on the different tactics that the proletariat will adapt in different nations. He at least was clear on the difference that the material conditions unique to each country will make.
All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life. There is nothing more primitive from the viewpoint of theory, or more ridiculous from that of practice, than to paint, “in the name of historical materialism”, this aspect of the future in a monotonous grey


The problem tends to be that even the advanced parts of the proletariat who get to be a member of the party, the lower part but still a part. Don&#39;t have a say in anything.

The traditional Leninist party has worked on the principle that the leadership says and the membership does. The line of communication was always going one way.

This study - Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left - is very interesting. I haven&#39;t read all of it myself yet, but it does touch on some of the fundamental problems of the "Leninist" party and the relationship between the party hierarchy and the rank and file membership.

I think its fair to say the party as Lenin envisaged it, was pretty rotten from the point when it was created and has got steadily worse ever since. Indeed now we have the RCP which seems to resemble the Catholic Church (with Pope Bob at its head) more than a Communist organisation.

Even if you think Lenin&#39;s work is of some use, I would strongly advise you to put the idea of the "party" in the bin. Where it belongs.
Again you have to put this in the perspective of the material conditions from which the Party emerged. Bolshevikism came about due to the inability of implementing traditional Marxist (read Democratic Socialist) methods in Russia. And so Lenin organised the party on a semi-military basis with the aim of creating a party capable of mobilising and educating the masses. And it worked. The Bolshevik party was extremely effective in connecting with the people, opening their eyes to class struggle and preparing them for the upcoming conflict. It was the obedience and discipline of the membership that made this possible and within the hostile Russian environment no less. It was not “orthodox” Marxism because that was not an option in that place and at that time.

Such a body could not possibly be as democratic as we would like. It required that each member act with one purpose and one aim. Within the Party structure these could be debated, and always were, but once the Party had reached a decision it was expected that its members carry it through. It was this discipline that allowed the Party to survive everything that was thrown at it.

The problem is that every Party since then has taken these lessons to heart without really learning them and the conditions in which they arose. Lenin was no all knowing master of the dialectic who’s every word must be followed and nor did he ever pretend to be. And I believe I’ve already pointed out the folly of implementing these structures in the developed West. I won’t even go into the perversions of Marxism-Leninism


Do you have a problem with consumerism? ....becuase in my opinion the whole point of the working class liberating itself is so it can get more "goodies" not less.
No doubt the productive forces of socialism will dwarf those of capitalism but I see no benefits in the consumerism of today. It both appeases the proletariat and I don’t care to partake in the exploitation of the third world proletariat. Plus I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with a society that encourages people to value dishwashers above humans.


Yes but I wish to see the "dictatorship of the proletariat" not the "dictatorship of the party." When Engels said it would "wither away," he meant with the ultra democracy being practised by the individual communes, within a few years there would be absolutely no need of a central body. The Paris Commune was described by Engel&#39;s as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which was nothing like anything that happened in Russia.

In fact I suspect Marx and Engels would have wet themselves with laughter if you told them the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would last over 70 years.

Theres also a point to be made about the working class of Engel&#39;s time and the working class of today. In Engel&#39;s lifetime the proletariat as a group were pretty "backward" and may have not been able to effectively govern themselves (in a Communist society sense) straight away, they hadn&#39;t even experienced bourgeois democracy. However the modern proletariat is incredibly advanced and there is no reasonable answer as to why it is not capable of effectively governing itself straight after the revolution.

As for Lenin&#39;s quote "Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing." Well I think the fact that very few actually governed and they never took turns. It is not that unreasonable to suggest that Russia operated in a completely un-Socialist manner.
Have I ever claimed that Soviet Russia was socialist? The Party creates the conditions for socialism and then the Russian proletariat (when there was one) can start about with the democracy and all that. The revolutionary phase that Russia got tangled in will be far, far shorter in the West where the material conditions exist.

And while we’re on the Commune, did you ever consider that if the Communards had actually overturned the state before arranging street cleaning duties that it might have survived? Lenin and the Bolsheviks learned a lot from the Commune, and the Blanquists in particular, including the need to defend the revolution first and foremost.


Indeed Marx didn&#39;t present any written instructions which can be viewed as a conclusive "blueprint" of a Communist society. All he really said was that the proletariat should rule, not the party.

This is all us "traditional" Marxists ever propose.

Lenin on the other hand left a pretty extensive "blueprint" as to what to do and just about every Leninist since has followed it. And been as a lot of Leninism is deeply flawed, a lot of Leninists and Leninist countries since have done some hugely flawed things.

Just look at how many people still promote the "party" despite the fact that there is a huge amount of evidence that it doesn&#39;t work, notably the whole of the last century.
And let there be no mistake that it will be the people who will rule in socialism. That’s what socialism is&#33; Lenin just looked beyond Europe, beyond the masses that Marx knew and studied. And in a world where its those sweatshops that sustain the West that analysis is useful indeed. There’s little more to say on that that hasn’t been mentioned above – Leninism will bring about socialism in nations where the conditions are not present for revolutions on the scale that Marx predicted. After that we’re into unknown territory.


Well, they are the proletariat and they will be elected. Therefore they will constitute a "dictatorship of the proletariat" not an elite vanguard.

Also the majority of vanguards since and including the Russian vanguard, have been headed by bourgeois "intellectuals" who have dictated to the proletariat, instead of being dictated to by the proletariat.

There is a huge difference between the proletariat dictating what happens and the "party" dictating what happens.
So the proletariat can do no harm? One little problem with that theory – Stalin was a prole, he came from shit and look how he turned out. By the same token it was Marx’s philosophical background and education that gave him such insights in to the proletarian movement.

Any divisions within the proletariat at the time of revolution will lead to the exact same behaviour we saw in Russia. Assuming the more “advanced” segments are elected then they’re looking out for their chums. Human nature. The second one element of the proletariat is elevated above the others you have division and domination. The Party structure at least helps retain the focus of the revolution.


Though if wages don&#39;t rise the consumer can&#39;t afford the extra price.
And that’s when the sparks start flying…


Yes but Lenin seems to think that if there was no worker agitation that there would be no imperialism. As if the imperialism is only there because of the worker agitation.

Imperialism has always been part of the "economic base" and its not something that has been added. Its part of the economic base because imperialism is profitable.
Imperialism is the cause for the lack of worker agitation. I’ve gone through the labour aristocracy already.

Capitalism hasn’t changed, its still the same parasitic con as ever, but the evolution of capital into finance capital was not something that Marx witnessed. It’s a characteristic of a decaying system and the best available explanation of capitalism’s behaviour over the past century.


I said that worker agitation seems to arise when imperialism "is at its most destructive and effective."

Now I&#39;d dispute that imperialism today is at its most "destructive" or "effective" point. Its certainly not as profitable as it used to be and it&#39;s certainly not as visible. Though even in this age when the imperialism is quiet subdued (with the exception of Iraq and Afghanistan) there have still been glimpses of anti-imperialist agitation within the imperialist countries.

The G8 drivel, was still in essence an anti-imperialism march, whether the marchers knew it or not. Because people were unhappy about what they were seeing in Africa.
People protest at wars, at invasions and sweatshops. How many general strikes have been held when industry after industry moves to China? Economic imperialism has never been as common or as lucrative. The vast majority of the proletariat are happy with capitalism. They toss a few quid to charity because they know they have it good. Few give a fuck about the fact that their labour is being stolen. In other words, the majority of the Western proletariat are asleep and its no coincidence that this occurs at the time when the capitalists are making the most money from their overseas ventures.


As for the Engel&#39;s reference, it&#39;s is worth mentioning that in those days the results of imperialism were not that visible. There was no 24 hour news etc. and therefore it&#39;s not that surprising that the crimes of the British Empire went unnoticed because no one really knew about them.
The economic exploitation that the British Empire inflicted on a quarter of the globe showed quite clearly in the attitudes of its proletariat. That was the result of imperialism. The quote I was referring to is "The English proletariat is becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy, and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world, this is, of course, to a certain extent justifiable." (1858, Selected Correspondence)

Besides do you really think that the British public of that day would’ve cared what horrors were being visited upon “uncivilised” tribes?


Well like everything imperialism is an idea. Marx himself thought the British could develop India and therefore it&#39;s no surprise that today that people may think imperialism can help a country. In some cases it does.

Therefore when it goes wrong, it is not that surprising that people are unhappy. This is not because they have "sold out" but rather that it appears that it is working. The same way people aren&#39;t revolting against Capitalism at the moment because it is still working relatively well.

To suggest that people on a large scale should oppose what is working relatively well, is idealism.
The mess that accompanied the European withdrawal from Africa shows that the idea that imperialism benefits anyone but the capitalist is completely false.

Capitalism has always “worked well”. The capitalists have always being making a profit and that is the only mark by which you can measure capitalism. The difference being that today it is “working well” without working its workers to the bone. And we’ve covered the reason for that.


The Panthers were advocates of Maoism. To a degree they were Black Nationalists, but they also had a lot of Socialist rhetoric.
See that’s enough to make me doubt them. Anyone who advocates Maoism in the US is frankly an idiot.


The Asian sweatshop worker at this point in time is more likely to "rise up" but this is not a revolution, they will "rise up" so that they can work an 8 hour day.

The proletariat of the advanced nations will become revolutionary, because they have had all that Capitalism can allow them and therefore it will be necessary to change the system if they want more. The third world worker however, has not experienced even half the advantages of modern Capitalism so they will not want to change a system that still has a tremendous amount to offer.
By that theory Marxism should not have come about when it did. Marxism shouldn’t have been developed until we each have three BMWs. It was the material conditions that dictated when Marx developed his theories. That was a revolutionary period when workers actually looked beyond their immediate needs and tried to overthrow the entire system. If, as you appear to argue, the workers were only ever holding out for a better deal (which the capitalists at the time could not give) then Marx’s conclusions are wrong.

Of course there’s always the fact that the capitalists will be unable to give Western lifestyles to the proletariat of underdeveloped nations. Not without finding a new resource to exploit.


I still don&#39;t get who this "labour aristocracy" is and how they are "selling out."

There seems to be a kind of puritanical notion that should a member of the proletariat own a nice car or a nice house. They have "sold out" and become part of the "labour aristocracy." They are no part of the class enemy. Indeed the MIMers take it to the logical conclusion by saying that there is no American proletariat.

I don&#39;t buy it, because as long as the fundamental relationship exists between exploiter and exploited. There will still be two distinct classes and there will still be the class contradictions that create class war.

If Marx was right, absolutely nothing, religion, nationalism, imperialism etc. can stop these contradictions and therefore the exploiter exploited relationship will always be the most important thing. And when the material conditions arise, this becomes apparent.
Don’t get me started on the MIM or Maoists in general ;)

That said, they’re not far wrong on the US situation. It doesn’t take much to realise that 1) the Western proletariat is very advanced and 2) they have all the revolutionary backbone of a sponge. That much is obvious at least.

The question is why is this the case? The workers are still being stolen from, they are generating higher than ever profits and those office workers have less job protection and benefits that even the most menial of workers had fifty years ago. But there is no sign of revolution. This should not be happening, peaceful coexistence between the classes does not fit into Marxist analysis.

Its the widescreen TV, the two cars and the bungalow in the suburbs. It’s the eight hour day, dental plan and water coolers. These are how the capitalist “pays off” (there must be a better phrase) the proletariat and convinces them that life with him is better than life without. Marx did not foresee this because there is no way for the capitalist to achieve this from simple surplus labour. Otherwise the costs of manufacturing the product exceed the exchange value.

Imperialism give the capitalist a way to make massive cost savings which can then be channelled into those extras that make the worker so content.

And if that doesn’t explain it then there’s no point flogging a dead horse.


The article that I was talking about talks about Marx&#39;s views on the state in some depth and while I don&#39;t particularly think Marxism could be described as an Anarchist strain of thought. It certainly has more similarities with Anarchism than differences.

Whats more interesting is that not a single Leninist has commented on the article.
I imagine that most Leninists simply did the exact same as myself – read the premise of the article and simply discount it as absurd. Everyone has a different opinion on Marx and its hardly worth commenting on one of the more outlandish ones.


Though I can&#39;t think of a time when Marx used the word "Socialism." He always described the post revolutionary state as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which he said would look like the Paris Commune.

The Socialist state "in all its glory" was a Leninist conception and when compared with what Marx envisaged, a completely different thing.
This is a new trend I’m noticing – “Marxists” who take Das Kapital as bible. Its not new to see such orthodoxy in Marxist thinking but I don’t see how you can consider yourself above Marxist-Leninists when you take the exact same approach. Its idiocy and decidedly un-Marxist to disregard a concept because Marx didn’t use a phrase or elaborate on one.

So Marx didn’t use the term socialist, is that to say that Lenin is wrong to do so? Perhaps we should all start growing bushy beards.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I’m not denying that there are peasants but can you name any country in the world today where serfs make up the vast majority of the population? With the possible exception of Africa, much of which has yet to emerge from feudalism.

Well the dictionary definition of a "serf" is "A member of the lowest feudal class, attached to the land owned by a lord and required to perform labor in return for certain legal or customary rights."

Now I don&#39;t have the means or ability to conduct a survey of the world, but I would "hypothesise" that in certain parts of the world there are still people who fit this description. Though I suppose they could be called a proto-proletariat.


Although to be honest this point seems very minor.

What? ....this is my favourite topic of debate. :lol:


No bourgeoisie in Russia? Then just who was it who led the February Revolution? The proletariat were at the forefront but they marched for the liberal cause.

My mistake, I should have said that there was no established bourgeois. The Russian bourgeois in 1917 was very much an emerging bourgeois.


Revolutions are not just related to class struggle, they are the result of it. Every revolution will have counterrevolutionary forces, as you point out, but in the West this class will consist of the capitalist class which will be vastly outnumbered by a powerful proletariat. In Russia the Bolsheviks faced not just the bourgeois state (for the liberals had control of the apparatus of government) but the highly reactionary feudal elements that were determined to maintain control. Coupled with this stiff resistance was the weakness of the proletariat themselves. It was only the iron discipline of the Party that allowed them to survive.

Well Lenin was an intelligent man and you certainly seem intelligent, so what really is your point here? ....do both you and Lenin think that the counter revolutionary forces would not be strong when they consist of the majority of the population?

What happened in Russia would be the same type of thing as the BNP trying to take power in Britain today. Only a small part of the population would support the action and the counter revolutionary forces would be pretty big.

This is what happens when a minority tries to impose its will on the majority without first winning "support" from the "masses."

All this being said, the Western Capitalists will proper offer a stiffer resistance when the revolution comes because they have more "tools" at their disposal than the Russian "counter revolutionaries." Though unlike in Russia, I think that once the "tools" are seized by the Western revolutionaries, the ability of the Western Capitalist class to launch a counter revolution will be severely damaged.


Was the proletariat strong enough to take power from the capitalists? No. It was a state dominated by peasants and would remain so for a number of years. The aim of the revolution was to change that. Note that Lenin never imagined that he had created a socialist state, that was next on the list.

So why all the Marxist rhetoric? ....if Lenin "knew" that the Russian revolution was a bourgeois revolution, then why did he think he could create a Socialist state?


And when the revolution in the West does come it will be when some event has weakened the capitalist state to the degree where a revolution is possible.

I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever suggested that a financial "collapse" would not be an extremely important factor in creating a revolutionary situation.


The October Revolution was bourgeois? Considering that it took eighty years for the bourgeoisie to reassert themselves I doubt that. Stalin may have been a bastard but he did not own the means of production, he was not bourgeois. after all a socialist state was not established. If I was being particularly critical of the Bolsheviks I’d call it a bureaucratic revolution, the triumph of bureaucracy. But as I’ve made clear before I do not doubt Lenin’s intentions and so I define it as a socialist revolution (not in the vein that Marx predicted, no socialist state was established) as it was lead by the exploited masses against their oppressors.

Whether the Russian leaders had "noble" intentions or not, what they produced was a bourgeois revolution.

From about 1918 onwards Russia was like a giant corporation, with Lenin, Stalin etc. all acting as the CEO&#39;s. Even the whole Stalin Trotsky affair had all the hallmarks of a "hostile takeover" all be it a much grubbier one.

Lenin made have hoped and wished and maybe even believed that it was a Socialist revolution, but the evidence suggests otherwise.


Tell that so someone who doesn’t have the luxury of spending his time typing out replies like this. People ask what Marx would think of Lenin, I ask what Marx would think of those who would abandon all thoughts of revolution because they feel the “time isn’t right”.

I&#39;d tell someone who didn&#39;t have the "luxury of spending his time typing out replies like this" to go out and fight for a bourgeois revolution if he wanted these "luxuries."

What I would not do to someone living in the under developed world, is lie to them by suggesting that they could possibly achieve Communism in their lifetime.

The truth would likely hurt and I doubt they would be that gracious towards me, but I would still be telling the truth.


Marxism evolves over time. Many Marxist theorists at the end of the 19th century were at a loss to explain the lack of revolution. And if revolution was going to happen anyway then why not simply tend to the more immediate aims of helping the worker? Considering the conditions of the time its hardly surprising that such thinking would come about. The war finally shattered those illusions and allowed the real revolutionaries to emerge.

I have no problem with those people who chose to "tend to the more immediate aims of helping the worker." I have a problem when somebody suggests they did something other than this or holds up their miserably flawed theories of "evolutionary" Communism as anything other than reformism.


I respect Rosa Luxemburg although my knowledge of her works is too limited to comment on her specific beliefs. I’ve always understood though that while she criticised the revolution she was smart enough to be aware of the knock on effects it would have and the need of the German worker to capitalise on the situation.

And on that quote, its hardly surprising that any German would take that view. Growing up in such radically different materials conditions she could hardly be expected not to&#33; The development of Bolshevikism came about in the very specific, and undeveloped, conditions of Russia at that time.

You&#39;re right it&#39;s not surprising that a German would take that view, like it&#39;s not that surprising that a Western Marxist would take a completely different view from a Marxist in the third world.

Though the question is who&#39;s view is more accurate? ....in my opinion the view of a person who was living a country thats material conditions were closer to those required for a Communist revolution.


And to prove that I can throw out a quote just as easily, here’s Lenin (A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1916) on the different tactics that the proletariat will adapt in different nations. He at least was clear on the difference that the material conditions unique to each country will make.
All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life. There is nothing more primitive from the viewpoint of theory, or more ridiculous from that of practice, than to paint, “in the name of historical materialism”, this aspect of the future in a monotonous grey

I actually used that quote because I had read it in another thread earlier in the day and I felt it was quite fitting.

Anyway on to the issue at hand, what Lenin suggests there is reasonable, at face value. History and especially class history has a very repetitive pattern. The locations and names may differ, but most of the substance remains incredibly similar and I suspect the next epoch of human history to be no different.

Sure the cosmetic differences will be huge, but the "important stuff" will remain between very narrow boundaries.


Again you have to put this in the perspective of the material conditions from which the Party emerged. Bolshevikism came about due to the inability of implementing traditional Marxist (read Democratic Socialist) methods in Russia. And so Lenin organised the party on a semi-military basis with the aim of creating a party capable of mobilising and educating the masses. And it worked. The Bolshevik party was extremely effective in connecting with the people, opening their eyes to class struggle and preparing them for the upcoming conflict. It was the obedience and discipline of the membership that made this possible and within the hostile Russian environment no less. It was not “orthodox” Marxism because that was not an option in that place and at that time.

This is my point all along, the material conditions would not permit a Communist revolution in Russia. Therefore while Lenin&#39;s ideas of "evolving" to Socialism were worth a try, history has now produced pretty conclusive evidence that such an aspiration is impossible.

Therefore the traditional Leninist doctrine of constructing Socialism has been a massive failure.

As for the Bolshevik Party "connecting with the people, opening their eyes to class struggle and preparing them for the upcoming conflict." Well that may well be true, political parties have traditionally "opened the eyes" of the membership to one or another atrocity, but the Bolsheviks (like every other major political party in history) ended up completely abandoning the idea that the membership could contribute anything and ended up just dictating constantly to the rank and file.

This kind of thing completely retards future class struggle rather than help it. For instance, if the Bolsheviks had been successful to any great degree in emancipating the proletariat, then at some point the proletariat would have risen up against the party leadership. Guess what? ....the Russian proletariat did no such thing.


Such a body could not possibly be as democratic as we would like. It required that each member act with one purpose and one aim. Within the Party structure these could be debated, and always were, but once the Party had reached a decision it was expected that its members carry it through. It was this discipline that allowed the Party to survive everything that was thrown at it.

Political parties whether they start out democratic or not, always end up as a form of dictatorship. Lenin could not have known this while he was alive, but we&#39;ve had access to 100 years of evidence of Socialist, Communist etc. parties become dictatorships.

Which would lead anyone wishing to create a classless society to conclude that the fundamental idea of creating a party, is useless.


The problem is that every Party since then has taken these lessons to heart without really learning them and the conditions in which they arose. Lenin was no all knowing master of the dialectic who’s every word must be followed and nor did he ever pretend to be. And I believe I’ve already pointed out the folly of implementing these structures in the developed West. I won’t even go into the perversions of Marxism-Leninism

As I&#39;ve suggested above, the material conditions which the party operates in doesn&#39;t appear to be as great a problem as the idea of a party itself.

That being said Lenin didn&#39;t help matters much by suggesting "iron discipline" and therefore it&#39;s not that surprising that Leninist parties have often become "dictatorships" more quickly than most bourgeois political parties.

So while I don&#39;t blame for the failings of the Leninist parties, I do feel that after seeing a whole century of their failings, it&#39;s about time that particular theory is abandoned.


No doubt the productive forces of socialism will dwarf those of capitalism but I see no benefits in the consumerism of today. It both appeases the proletariat and I don’t care to partake in the exploitation of the third world proletariat. Plus I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with a society that encourages people to value dishwashers above humans.

Consumerism is a tricky subject, which has both negatives and positives. Though I don&#39;t necessarily see it as "appeasing" the proletariat, as the proletariat in most countries can&#39;t afford to "consume" that much.

I certainly don&#39;t see any working class people having "luxurious" lifestyles and something that did surprise me a lot was seeing how many self declared Communists on this site could afford digital cameras.

So maybe "consumerism" is "big" in different parts of the world, but here in "sunny" Wales, the working class certainly doesn&#39;t live a life of "consumer luxury."


Have I ever claimed that Soviet Russia was socialist? The Party creates the conditions for socialism and then the Russian proletariat (when there was one) can start about with the democracy and all that. The revolutionary phase that Russia got tangled in will be far, far shorter in the West where the material conditions exist.

Yet the evidence of the last century suggests that this method will not work. If the democracy does not come with the revolution it seems the party will never grant it to the "lowly" proles.

Indeed the only "Socialist" country that has achieved some democracy is Cuba and even Cuban democracy has its limits.


And while we’re on the Commune, did you ever consider that if the Communards had actually overturned the state before arranging street cleaning duties that it might have survived? Lenin and the Bolsheviks learned a lot from the Commune, and the Blanquists in particular, including the need to defend the revolution first and foremost.

They "destroyed" the state yes, but they implemented the democracy straight away. They didn&#39;t wait years "securing" the revolution, they went straight ahead and installed democracy.

And while they were crushed, I personally don&#39;t think it was because they had "too much" democracy, but rather because they didn&#39;t carry on aggressively destroying the state.


And let there be no mistake that it will be the people who will rule in socialism. That’s what socialism is&#33; Lenin just looked beyond Europe, beyond the masses that Marx knew and studied. And in a world where its those sweatshops that sustain the West that analysis is useful indeed. There’s little more to say on that that hasn’t been mentioned above – Leninism will bring about socialism in nations where the conditions are not present for revolutions on the scale that Marx predicted. After that we’re into unknown territory.

You can keep your emotional idealism if you wish, it&#39;s not for me.


So the proletariat can do no harm? One little problem with that theory – Stalin was a prole, he came from shit and look how he turned out. By the same token it was Marx’s philosophical background and education that gave him such insights in to the proletarian movement.

Who said the proletariat can do no harm? ....they will just do far less harm if they actually have power.

As for Stalin, I hope you realise that a persons "background" doesn&#39;t mean much if their material conditions change, they will act like the material conditions dictate.


Any divisions within the proletariat at the time of revolution will lead to the exact same behaviour we saw in Russia. Assuming the more “advanced” segments are elected then they’re looking out for their chums. Human nature. The second one element of the proletariat is elevated above the others you have division and domination. The Party structure at least helps retain the focus of the revolution.

You and I seem to have radically different views of what proletarian democracy will look like.

You seem to think it will resemble bourgeois democracy, with "leaders" being elected by the "backward" masses to take care of the important stuff.

I think that proletarian democracy will have no leaders, elected or otherwise. Everyone will vote on almost everything and no one will have "power" over anyone precisely because everyone will have "power."

Proletarian democracy will look nothing like bourgeois democracy.


And that’s when the sparks start flying…

:ph34r:


Imperialism is the cause for the lack of worker agitation. I’ve gone through the labour aristocracy already.

Capitalism hasn’t changed, its still the same parasitic con as ever, but the evolution of capital into finance capital was not something that Marx witnessed. It’s a characteristic of a decaying system and the best available explanation of capitalism’s behaviour over the past century.

We&#39;ve already been over all of this and to do it again would be needlessly repetitive. Agreed?


People protest at wars, at invasions and sweatshops. How many general strikes have been held when industry after industry moves to China? Economic imperialism has never been as common or as lucrative. The vast majority of the proletariat are happy with capitalism. They toss a few quid to charity because they know they have it good. Few give a fuck about the fact that their labour is being stolen. In other words, the majority of the Western proletariat are asleep and its no coincidence that this occurs at the time when the capitalists are making the most money from their overseas ventures.

This is bordering on the same level as the rants of the western Maoists against the western proletariat and it is really depressing to see Communists utter such vitriolic attacks on the working class they claim to want to see liberated.

It&#39;s something that seems to be common with all followers of the Leninist doctrine and I suppose it is not that surprising given the inherent elitism of the "Leninist way."


The economic exploitation that the British Empire inflicted on a quarter of the globe showed quite clearly in the attitudes of its proletariat. That was the result of imperialism. The quote I was referring to is "The English proletariat is becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy, and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world, this is, of course, to a certain extent justifiable." (1858, Selected Correspondence)

Besides do you really think that the British public of that day would’ve cared what horrors were being visited upon “uncivilised” tribes?

Do I think the British proletariat of that day would have been particularly bothered about the "horrors" being inflicted upon the "uncivilised" tribes? ....well, I wouldn&#39;t know not being part of the proletariat of that particular period in history. Though you are assuming that the proletariat knew about the atrocities and given the lack of technology in 1858, I would dispute your assumption that the British proletariat even knew about these "horrors."

Besides, Engels lived until 1895. Don&#39;t you think if he thought it was that important he might have written more on it in the subsequent 37 years? ....he certainly might have mentioned it in the two volumes of Capital he compiled after Marx&#39;s death.


The mess that accompanied the European withdrawal from Africa shows that the idea that imperialism benefits anyone but the capitalist is completely false.

Capitalism has always “worked well”. The capitalists have always being making a profit and that is the only mark by which you can measure capitalism. The difference being that today it is “working well” without working its workers to the bone. And we’ve covered the reason for that.

What exactly does "working its workers to the bone" entail? ....it certainly seems to me that you begrudge the western working class only having to work eight hours a day and being able to have a reasonable diet.

You do realise why the working class got these things? ....it&#39;s because they fought for them.


See that’s enough to make me doubt them. Anyone who advocates Maoism in the US is frankly an idiot.

Everything is popular at some point in time and at that particular point in history the "Socialist" states seemed to be working well. The evidence suggested Maoism was working.


By that theory Marxism should not have come about when it did. Marxism shouldn’t have been developed until we each have three BMWs. It was the material conditions that dictated when Marx developed his theories. That was a revolutionary period when workers actually looked beyond their immediate needs and tried to overthrow the entire system. If, as you appear to argue, the workers were only ever holding out for a better deal (which the capitalists at the time could not give) then Marx’s conclusions are wrong.

Of course there’s always the fact that the capitalists will be unable to give Western lifestyles to the proletariat of underdeveloped nations. Not without finding a new resource to exploit.

Marx thought it was a revolutionary period, which it was, just not a proletarian revolutionary period. However Marx being an incredibly intelligent man developed a theory which helped explain this worker agitation.

The problem with Marx&#39;s assumptions about the future was that it is impossible to get evidence about the future. However we have access to this evidence and therefore we can conclude that the period in which Marx lived was not a proletarian revolutionary period.

So while Marx was a genius, even geniuses are not able to tell the future and even geniuses can make mistakes.


Don’t get me started on the MIM or Maoists in general

That said, they’re not far wrong on the US situation. It doesn’t take much to realise that 1) the Western proletariat is very advanced and 2) they have all the revolutionary backbone of a sponge. That much is obvious at least.

Where is the "revolutionary backbone" of the "eastern" proletariat? ....I don&#39;t see them rising up and overthrowing the state.


The question is why is this the case? The workers are still being stolen from, they are generating higher than ever profits and those office workers have less job protection and benefits that even the most menial of workers had fifty years ago. But there is no sign of revolution. This should not be happening, peaceful coexistence between the classes does not fit into Marxist analysis.

What are the "signs" of revolution? ....you have already rejected the 60&#39;s as being a proto-revolutionary situation. So I would really like to know what in your view are the "signs" of an upcoming revolutionary period.


Its the widescreen TV, the two cars and the bungalow in the suburbs. It’s the eight hour day, dental plan and water coolers. These are how the capitalist “pays off” (there must be a better phrase) the proletariat and convinces them that life with him is better than life without. Marx did not foresee this because there is no way for the capitalist to achieve this from simple surplus labour. Otherwise the costs of manufacturing the product exceed the exchange value.

Where do you live? ....because I have never met a "prole" with such a "luxurious" lifestyle. Just about every working class person, including myself, is on the "bones of their arse" and the idea that "we" live in the "suburbs" is ridiculous.


Imperialism give the capitalist a way to make massive cost savings which can then be channelled into those extras that make the worker so content.

I really don&#39;t know why you so dislike the idea that the western worker is not starving to death.


And if that doesn’t explain it then there’s no point flogging a dead horse.

And that is exactly what you are "flogging." Lenin&#39;s theory which is a dead horse.


I imagine that most Leninists simply did the exact same as myself – read the premise of the article and simply discount it as absurd. Everyone has a different opinion on Marx and its hardly worth commenting on one of the more outlandish ones.

It wasn&#39;t that "outlandish." It was well sourced and well written.

I suggest you read it all and then offer a "counter argument." After all, if it is that "outlandish" it should be relatively easy to "destroy."


This is a new trend I’m noticing – “Marxists” who take Das Kapital as bible. Its not new to see such orthodoxy in Marxist thinking but I don’t see how you can consider yourself above Marxist-Leninists when you take the exact same approach. Its idiocy and decidedly un-Marxist to disregard a concept because Marx didn’t use a phrase or elaborate on one.

I&#39;ve disregarded the concept because it didn&#39;t work, not because Marx "said so."

Though it is not that surprising that people are starting to take Marx seriously again, given the massive failings of the Leninist and Maoist doctrines. Could it possibly be that the "tools" that Marx used, actually work in helping us revolutionaries understand what is happening?

Perhaps that guy Marx was actually "on to something" all those years ago?


So Marx didn’t use the term socialist, is that to say that Lenin is wrong to do so? Perhaps we should all start growing bushy beards.

:marx:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ComradeOm]

Well the dictionary definition of a "serf" is "A member of the lowest feudal class, attached to the land owned by a lord and required to perform labor in return for certain legal or customary rights."

Now I don&#39;t have the means or ability to conduct a survey of the world, but I would "hypothesise" that in certain parts of the world there are still people who fit this description. Though I suppose they could be called a proto-proletariat.
Pffft bourgeois dictionary :D

Personally, likewise going without facts or figures, I suspect that there are few areas of world where that is so formalised. Remember that a serf is not just a peasant who works the land but one who is tied to that same land and lord. Even the lowest of the peasants in the world today (barring one or two backward spots and all of Africa) are not held in the same quasi-slave status as the majority of Russians were in 1917. People may be forced to work the land through economic hardship but in that case they are peasants – the agricultural equivalent of the proletariat.


What? ....this is my favourite topic of debate
That in itself speaks volumes about the quality of the debate ;)


Well Lenin was an intelligent man and you certainly seem intelligent, so what really is your point here? ....do both you and Lenin think that the counter revolutionary forces would not be strong when they consist of the majority of the population?

What happened in Russia would be the same type of thing as the BNP trying to take power in Britain today. Only a small part of the population would support the action and the counter revolutionary forces would be pretty big.

This is what happens when a minority tries to impose its will on the majority without first winning "support" from the "masses."

All this being said, the Western Capitalists will proper offer a stiffer resistance when the revolution comes because they have more "tools" at their disposal than the Russian "counter revolutionaries." Though unlike in Russia, I think that once the "tools" are seized by the Western revolutionaries, the ability of the Western Capitalist class to launch a counter revolution will be severely damaged.
The Bolsheviks had the support of the proletariat and most of the serfs you love discussing. They comprised the vast majority of the Russian population. Unless you believe that the serfs did not yearn for freedom from such a brutal regime? Now that we’ve dispelled that myth, let’s look at the reasons why these Russian counterrevolutionaries posed such a challenge.

1) Russia has had its bourgeois revolution but, as you pointed out, the bourgeoisie were not established yet. There had been no bloodletting of the likes of the French Reign of Terror and so much of the country continued to be governed much like it had for the past several centuries. So when the Bolsheviks took power they faced not just the bourgeois capitalists but an active feudal remnant. Probably the only thing that could convince the nobles to ally themselves with the very government they’d tried to destroy was the fear of extinction.

2) Remember that we’re talking about Russia in 1917 here. The country was vast and sparsely populated in many areas. It may not sound like a killer but it was this one factor that did more than any other to defeat the revolution of 1905. Even though the White Armies never came close to matching the numbers of the Red Army, they were dispersed across the length of the country. Throw in bandits and ethnic tensions and you have a nightmare of a country to pacify.

3) Any successful revolution relies on seizing the means of production. In Russia this was exceedingly difficult to do. While the major centres of industry were occupied by their workers, the backward nature of the country again complicated matters. In many areas power remained, as it always had, with the nobles while throughout the country Imperial state structures were so rotten as to be useless.

4) There were how many foreign armies at work in Russia during the civil war? I don’t stress this too much because apart from occupy a few ports I’m not aware of any serious campaign by the foreign powers. And apart from Britain there was no serious desire to fight a prolonged campaign. But they were there and they had an impact.

Each of those problems (and I’m sure there’s many more) were due to the nature of Russia at that time. They resulted from the economic and cultural circumstances that are unique to every nation. With the possible exception of foreign interference (which I believe we’ve already covered) none of these factors are present in Western nations at this time. However each contributed to a prolonged destruction of the old state. The only advantage in that was that by 1922-5 the slate had been wiped clean and real progress could be made.


So why all the Marxist rhetoric? ....if Lenin "knew" that the Russian revolution was a bourgeois revolution, then why did he think he could create a Socialist state?
I thought we’d covered this. Lenin believed that a powerful government could reshape the material conditions in Russia to the point where the transition to socialism would be possible. That is perfectly possible and in conformity with Marxism. Indeed it had occurred by the thirties. I also suspect that Lenin would’ve been unable to resist the chance to avoid the worst of capitalism. As for it being a bourgeois revolution…


Whether the Russian leaders had "noble" intentions or not, what they produced was a bourgeois revolution.

From about 1918 onwards Russia was like a giant corporation, with Lenin, Stalin etc. all acting as the CEO&#39;s. Even the whole Stalin Trotsky affair had all the hallmarks of a "hostile takeover" all be it a much grubbier one.

Lenin made have hoped and wished and maybe even believed that it was a Socialist revolution, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
If a socialist revolution produces a socialist state and a bourgeois revolution produces a bourgeois state then the October revolution would fall somewhere in between. The Soviet Union may have been state capitalist but it was not ruled by the bourgeoisie – a class which barely existed in Russia until the mid-eighties. It was ruled by the bureaucrats, a separate class entirely.


I&#39;d tell someone who didn&#39;t have the "luxury of spending his time typing out replies like this" to go out and fight for a bourgeois revolution if he wanted these "luxuries."

What I would not do to someone living in the under developed world, is lie to them by suggesting that they could possibly achieve Communism in their lifetime.

The truth would likely hurt and I doubt they would be that gracious towards me, but I would still be telling the truth.
To be honest I can’t understand how any communist could cheer on the bourgeoisie. Co-operating with them if we share the same immediate goals is perfectly normal but to actively support the establishment of a capitalist class is beyond me. The point, as Marx put it, is to change the world. I don’t think it takes a genius to work out that he meant for the better.

Marxism is a revolutionary theory. When you remove the revolutionary aspect all you have remaining is an historical aid.


I have no problem with those people who chose to "tend to the more immediate aims of helping the worker." I have a problem when somebody suggests they did something other than this or holds up their miserably flawed theories of "evolutionary" Communism as anything other than reformism.
Because Marx was right and anyone after him was wrong. As much as I despair of those who believe that socialism can be brought about from within the capitalist system (no doubt as you despair of us who believe that more than waiting is necessary) I believe that Bernstein had one thing right – Marxism will always evolve and it can be no other way. Of course each generation believes that “its” version is the correct one but then the next will add to it and so on. Marx wanted his teachings to form the basis of a “living doctrine”.


You&#39;re right it&#39;s not surprising that a German would take that view, like it&#39;s not that surprising that a Western Marxist would take a completely different view from a Marxist in the third world.

Though the question is who&#39;s view is more accurate? ....in my opinion the view of a person who was living a country thats material conditions were closer to those required for a Communist revolution.
You’re again assuming that the material conditions in the West are more advanced. This being despite the Western worker’s complete lack of revolutionary activity. At this moment in time the material conditions for revolution in the West are between crests.


Anyway on to the issue at hand, what Lenin suggests there is reasonable, at face value. History and especially class history has a very repetitive pattern. The locations and names may differ, but most of the substance remains incredibly similar and I suspect the next epoch of human history to be no different.

Sure the cosmetic differences will be huge, but the "important stuff" will remain between very narrow boundaries
I disagree to an extent. The one constant in history has been class struggle but that has manifested itself in different ways. Even a brief look over Europe shows that no two nations have progressed through history in the same manner. England had no major revolution to usher in capitalism, France had a spectacularly violent one while it was Napoleon’s armies that exported it to Germany. The basic epochs have remained the same but there have been some very different ways of progressing.


This is my point all along, the material conditions would not permit a Communist revolution in Russia. Therefore while Lenin&#39;s ideas of "evolving" to Socialism were worth a try, history has now produced pretty conclusive evidence that such an aspiration is impossible.

Therefore the traditional Leninist doctrine of constructing Socialism has been a massive failure.
Didn’t we start on this topic? :?

Anyways I maintain, as I always have, that while a failure the Bolshevik revolution was both worth a chance and worth repeating in the correct conditions. The underlying principle, that the material conditions can be changed, remains sound.


As for the Bolshevik Party "connecting with the people, opening their eyes to class struggle and preparing them for the upcoming conflict." Well that may well be true, political parties have traditionally "opened the eyes" of the membership to one or another atrocity, but the Bolsheviks (like every other major political party in history) ended up completely abandoning the idea that the membership could contribute anything and ended up just dictating constantly to the rank and file.

This kind of thing completely retards future class struggle rather than help it. For instance, if the Bolsheviks had been successful to any great degree in emancipating the proletariat, then at some point the proletariat would have risen up against the party leadership. Guess what? ....the Russian proletariat did no such thing.
As I said the conditions of Russia at the time necessitated the Party structure.

And why would the proletariat have turned on the Bolsheviks, the tool of their emancipation? By the time any such proletariat was present Stalin and the bureaucracy were firmly entrenched and intent on maintaining their Orwellian grip on the country.


Political parties whether they start out democratic or not, always end up as a form of dictatorship. Lenin could not have known this while he was alive, but we&#39;ve had access to 100 years of evidence of Socialist, Communist etc. parties become dictatorships.

Which would lead anyone wishing to create a classless society to conclude that the fundamental idea of creating a party, is useless.
Political parties are a symbol of the organisation and development of the proletariat.


That being said Lenin didn&#39;t help matters much by suggesting "iron discipline" and therefore it&#39;s not that surprising that Leninist parties have often become "dictatorships" more quickly than most bourgeois political parties.

So while I don&#39;t blame for the failings of the Leninist parties, I do feel that after seeing a whole century of their failings, it&#39;s about time that particular theory is abandoned.
The iron discipline that was necessary in Russia 1917 is in no way necessary in USA 2005. But considering that most Leninist parties have been either Marxist-Leninist or Maoist its not surprising that they’re made up of unthinking dolts. Note that it was these parties that have given Leninism such a bad name today.


Consumerism is a tricky subject, which has both negatives and positives. Though I don&#39;t necessarily see it as "appeasing" the proletariat, as the proletariat in most countries can&#39;t afford to "consume" that much.

I certainly don&#39;t see any working class people having "luxurious" lifestyles and something that did surprise me a lot was seeing how many self declared Communists on this site could afford digital cameras.

So maybe "consumerism" is "big" in different parts of the world, but here in "sunny" Wales, the working class certainly doesn&#39;t live a life of "consumer luxury."
I see only negatives. Of course if you can point out some benefits that don’t include “appeasement” or enriching the capitalists then please point them out.

Maybe its simply been my experience. Ireland is a nation that has gotten very rich, very quickly and despite the yawning inequalities in this society the vast majority have a standard of living far above that of previous generations. The amount of wealth that the upper reaches of the proletariat (read office workers) are throwing around is simply obscene. Even the poorer sections of society can afford a decent car and a lifestyle that their parents would’ve regarded as well off.


Yet the evidence of the last century suggests that this method will not work. If the democracy does not come with the revolution it seems the party will never grant it to the "lowly" proles.

Indeed the only "Socialist" country that has achieved some democracy is Cuba and even Cuban democracy has its limits.
This point continually reappears so I’ll try to nail it this time.

I say: The Bolsheviks were unable to introduce democracy because of pressure from both the reactionaries and the peasants.

You say: That’s because the material conditions were not present

I say: Once the material conditions have been built by the Bolsheviks there would’ve been democracy.

You say: But that didn’t happen&#33;

I then go on to blame Stalin and the bureaucrats while insisting that the principles are solid. Sound familiar?


They "destroyed" the state yes, but they implemented the democracy straight away. They didn&#39;t wait years "securing" the revolution, they went straight ahead and installed democracy.

And while they were crushed, I personally don&#39;t think it was because they had "too much" democracy, but rather because they didn&#39;t carry on aggressively destroying the state.
The Communards didn’t fail to aggressively destroy the state, they failed to even attempt to destroy it. The Commune lacked direction and, highly ironically, it became the best advertisement there is for implementing Leninist principles in the West.

However I still hold faith that the Western proletariat will be able to do the job on their own.


You can keep your emotional idealism if you wish, it&#39;s not for me.
Yes, I’ve noticed that you’ve not quite got the zeal of Guevara.


Who said the proletariat can do no harm? ....they will just do far less harm if they actually have power.

As for Stalin, I hope you realise that a persons "background" doesn&#39;t mean much if their material conditions change, they will act like the material conditions dictate.
The bulk of the Bolshevik leadership was proletariat. Molotov, Shliapnikov and Zalutsky to name a few.

It’s a person’s background and upbringing that shapes a person and their actions. They are unable to act outside the confines of the present material conditions but its those that they grew up with that decides their course in history.


You and I seem to have radically different views of what proletarian democracy will look like.

You seem to think it will resemble bourgeois democracy, with "leaders" being elected by the "backward" masses to take care of the important stuff.

I think that proletarian democracy will have no leaders, elected or otherwise. Everyone will vote on almost everything and no one will have "power" over anyone precisely because everyone will have "power."

Proletarian democracy will look nothing like bourgeois democracy.
That’s communism. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat and its form will depend heavily on the size of the remaining bourgeoisie. Towards the end of socialism society will increasingly resemble the one you’ve described until we wake up with no government at all.


We&#39;ve already been over all of this and to do it again would be needlessly repetitive. Agreed?
There’s few arguments we haven’t rehashed several times at his point but I’ll do my best ;)


This is bordering on the same level as the rants of the western Maoists against the western proletariat and it is really depressing to see Communists utter such vitriolic attacks on the working class they claim to want to see liberated.

It&#39;s something that seems to be common with all followers of the Leninist doctrine and I suppose it is not that surprising given the inherent elitism of the "Leninist way."
Me, attacking the working class? Hardly. I’m simply recognising the material reality of the West today. Do you deny that the considerable bulk of the proletariat are quite happy to co-exist with the capitalists today? That there are no signs of worker discontent with the system of wage slavery? Now you can close your eyes to this in the hope that the workers will rise up someday but I want to know why they aren’t doing so now.

Its not, as you suggest, that I “dislike the idea that the western worker is not starving to death”, I dislike the idea that they have either have no knowledge of their exploitation or simply don’t care about it. Obviously this has nothing to do with the proletariat itself but rather the material conditions that creates this situation. Its those conditions that I hate that those that Lenin explains the formation of.

And you’re right – I am a hero-worshipping fool who hates the workers and considers himself fit to lead a revolution. Maybe I’ll simply construct a rigid party hierarchy with myself at the head crushing the workers RAWGH&#33; Please, if I want those sorts of broad generalisations and insults I’ll browse through the Redstar papers.


Do I think the British proletariat of that day would have been particularly bothered about the "horrors" being inflicted upon the "uncivilised" tribes? ....well, I wouldn&#39;t know not being part of the proletariat of that particular period in history. Though you are assuming that the proletariat knew about the atrocities and given the lack of technology in 1858, I would dispute your assumption that the British proletariat even knew about these "horrors."

Besides, Engels lived until 1895. Don&#39;t you think if he thought it was that important he might have written more on it in the subsequent 37 years? ....he certainly might have mentioned it in the two volumes of Capital he compiled after Marx&#39;s death.
Did they know about them? Probably not. Would they have cared enough to demand an end to the empire? I doubt it. Such were the conditions of their times.

As for Engels, I can’t answer why he didn’t look into it more. All I do know is that his work on Capital was limited to brining together Marx’s notes.


What exactly does "working its workers to the bone" entail? ....it certainly seems to me that you begrudge the western working class only having to work eight hours a day and being able to have a reasonable diet.

You do realise why the working class got these things? ....it&#39;s because they fought for them.
The workers got these luxuries because the capitalists were able to throw a bit of loose change their way. Otherwise these “victories” of the proletariat would’ve bankrupted the factory owners long ago. And for all we have “won” we are further from freedom than ever.


Everything is popular at some point in time and at that particular point in history the "Socialist" states seemed to be working well. The evidence suggested Maoism was working.
You’re hard to pin any label on. First I think you’re Marxist, then you refute socialism and now you’re defending Mao :o ;)

A closer look at China reveals that not only was China not a socialist state, they were nowhere near creating a proletarian state. But the point still stands that anyone advocating a peasant ideology in the US is a fool.


Marx thought it was a revolutionary period, which it was, just not a proletarian revolutionary period. However Marx being an incredibly intelligent man developed a theory which helped explain this worker agitation.

The problem with Marx&#39;s assumptions about the future was that it is impossible to get evidence about the future. However we have access to this evidence and therefore we can conclude that the period in which Marx lived was not a proletarian revolutionary period.

So while Marx was a genius, even geniuses are not able to tell the future and even geniuses can make mistakes.
I don’t know how anyone can look at the history of Europe from 1850 onwards and not come to the conclusion that the region tottered on the edge of socialist revolution. Even before Marxism was adopted by the entire socialist movement there were near constant uprisings, strikes and mass demonstrations by the workers. Europe was like a pot coming to boil before things calmed down.


Where is the "revolutionary backbone" of the "eastern" proletariat? ....I don&#39;t see them rising up and overthrowing the state.
Two reasons – 1) the vast pool of labour available to the capitalist weakens the bargaining power of the proletariat and hence cripples the emergence of unions. While I’m still not convinced that unions are at the forefront of the class struggle, they do play a key role in organising the workers.

The second reason is the power of the political superstructure in most of these countries is extremely strong and is only reinforced by Western capital.

The revolution will start there but it will take time. Make no mistake though, the material conditions are forming.


What are the "signs" of revolution? ....you have already rejected the 60&#39;s as being a proto-revolutionary situation. So I would really like to know what in your view are the "signs" of an upcoming revolutionary period.
The obvious answer is emerging class consciousness. Until the workers start struggling for freedom from wage slavery, as opposed to scraps from the bourgeois table, we will get no where.

As for physical signs, we’re talking general strikes, marches, militant unions… everything that sends a clear statement of intentions to the capitalists.


Where do you live? ....because I have never met a "prole" with such a "luxurious" lifestyle. Just about every working class person, including myself, is on the "bones of their arse" and the idea that "we" live in the "suburbs" is ridiculous.
So I exaggerate slightly, call it poetic licence. As I mentioned above perhaps it’s the sheer change of pace in Ireland and the fact that we had it so bad before. But I’m not that far off. I know from the estates of Dublin that most houses usually have two cars and I suspect that, at less than a hundred quid, most have DVD players. I have no figures but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the amount of disposable income the average family has, has shot up in recent years. It’s the only way those kids are able to afford mobiles.

And of course it all depends on your definition of proletariat. If you include, as I tend to do, the office workers then most “prole” households aren’t doing too badly.


It wasn&#39;t that "outlandish." It was well sourced and well written.

I suggest you read it all and then offer a "counter argument." After all, if it is that "outlandish" it should be relatively easy to "destroy."
This argument… debate is taking up enough of my time as it is ;)

But let’s put it this way – Marx did not describe himself as an anarchist, he did not agree with anarchists, in fact he spent most of his life arguing with them. What more do you want? I thought you were keen on taking the man on his word.


I&#39;ve disregarded the concept because it didn&#39;t work, not because Marx "said so."

Though it is not that surprising that people are starting to take Marx seriously again, given the massive failings of the Leninist and Maoist doctrines. Could it possibly be that the "tools" that Marx used, actually work in helping us revolutionaries understand what is happening?

Perhaps that guy Marx was actually "on to something" all those years ago?
You know with each post you sound more and more like Redstar. I’m not sure whether that’s a good or a bad thing…

Anyways I’ve been saying this since the start of this thread, in fact it was probably the first point we touched on, Leninism does not contradict Marx. Now I’ve laid out just why that is, I’ve given explanations as to why Marx’s predictions have yet to come through, why Leninism is a viable strategy in underdeveloped nations and why sticking to “orthodox” Marxism is tantamount to sitting around waiting for the material conditions to suddenly click. There’s not much more I can do than that.


:marx:
Once again I’m foiled by a smilie. Damn&#33;

[Amusing Scrotum]

Pffft bourgeois dictionary :D

Personally, likewise going without facts or figures, I suspect that there are few areas of world where that is so formalised. Remember that a serf is not just a peasant who works the land but one who is tied to that same land and lord. Even the lowest of the peasants in the world today (barring one or two backward spots and all of Africa) are not held in the same quasi-slave status as the majority of Russians were in 1917. People may be forced to work the land through economic hardship but in that case they are peasants – the agricultural equivalent of the proletariat.

There was a list I saw knocking around on this site that said which countries still practised slavery. There were quite a few from various continents, though as you say, I doubt the relationship is so "formalised" in this day and age.


That in itself speaks volumes about the quality of the debate

:blush:

:lol:


The Bolsheviks had the support of the proletariat and most of the serfs you love discussing. They comprised the vast majority of the Russian population. Unless you believe that the serfs did not yearn for freedom from such a brutal regime? Now that we’ve dispelled that myth, let’s look at the reasons why these Russian counterrevolutionaries posed such a challenge.

If Lenin&#39;s support was so "great," he would not have had to conduct the coup before the Soviets voted in the Bolsheviks. That he took power before the Soviets had given the Bolsheviks their approval, makes me doubt the actual amount of support Lenin and the Bolsheviks had from the Russian population.


1) Russia has had its bourgeois revolution but, as you pointed out, the bourgeoisie were not established yet. There had been no bloodletting of the likes of the French Reign of Terror and so much of the country continued to be governed much like it had for the past several centuries. So when the Bolsheviks took power they faced not just the bourgeois capitalists but an active feudal remnant. Probably the only thing that could convince the nobles to ally themselves with the very government they’d tried to destroy was the fear of extinction.


I don&#39;t think I disputed that the previous feudal lords sided with the "ousted" Russian bourgeois.


2) Remember that we’re talking about Russia in 1917 here. The country was vast and sparsely populated in many areas. It may not sound like a killer but it was this one factor that did more than any other to defeat the revolution of 1905. Even though the White Armies never came close to matching the numbers of the Red Army, they were dispersed across the length of the country. Throw in bandits and ethnic tensions and you have a nightmare of a country to pacify.

Then I would suggest Lenin and the Bolsheviks made a great error by trying to pacify these "useless" parts of Russia.


3) Any successful revolution relies on seizing the means of production. In Russia this was exceedingly difficult to do. While the major centres of industry were occupied by their workers, the backward nature of the country again complicated matters. In many areas power remained, as it always had, with the nobles while throughout the country Imperial state structures were so rotten as to be useless.

The "backward" nature being the peasants who refused to feed the Russian army? ...a lot of the problems caused during the counter revolutionary period, were not caused by the whites or the foreign forces. They were caused by the peasants who were pretty "pissed off" about having the "state" take their produce.

To most of the peasantry it must have seemed like a return to feudal rule and therefore their resistance to the "revolution" is not that surprising.


4) There were how many foreign armies at work in Russia during the civil war? I don’t stress this too much because apart from occupy a few ports I’m not aware of any serious campaign by the foreign powers. And apart from Britain there was no serious desire to fight a prolonged campaign. But they were there and they had an impact.

A whole lot is made of this point, but like you said I&#39;ve never heard of any significant action taken by any of the foreign armies. Plus they would have likely been pretty depleted and unskilled armies due to the First World War.

So their impact, is like some of the "coalition" forces in Iraq, laughable.


Each of those problems (and I’m sure there’s many more) were due to the nature of Russia at that time. They resulted from the economic and cultural circumstances that are unique to every nation. With the possible exception of foreign interference (which I believe we’ve already covered) none of these factors are present in Western nations at this time. However each contributed to a prolonged destruction of the old state. The only advantage in that was that by 1922-5 the slate had been wiped clean and real progress could be made.

The factors may well be worse during the revolutionary period in the first world.

There will be a well trained and extremely well equipped army, a brutal police force and likely a prolonged period of bombing by the air force. Therefore if you take Britain as an example where very few people own arms, the revolution itself will possibly cost upwards of a million lives.

Though as I said earlier in this thread, I don&#39;t expect there to be much of a "counter revolution."


I thought we’d covered this. Lenin believed that a powerful government could reshape the material conditions in Russia to the point where the transition to socialism would be possible. That is perfectly possible and in conformity with Marxism. Indeed it had occurred by the thirties. I also suspect that Lenin would’ve been unable to resist the chance to avoid the worst of capitalism. As for it being a bourgeois revolution…

You seem to think Lenin&#39;s "evolutionary" outlook is compatible with Marx&#39;s "revolutionary" outlook. It&#39;s not.

If Marx was right, you can&#39;t just build the material conditions of Capitalism and then "evolve" to Socialism. There must be a "revolution" for this process to occur.

Though Lenin&#39;s view is not surprising, a whole load of "Marxists" were influenced by Kautsky&#39;s "evolutionary" Marxism. The Fabian society which was the ideological backbone of the Labour Party believed you could "reform" your way to Marxism without the need of a revolution and likewise Lenin thought pretty much the same. He thought you could overthrow feudalism and then build Capitalism which could then "reform" itself into Socialism.

Worth a try? ....most definitely, but it failed and therefore "evolutionary" Socialism really has no place in the modern Communist movement.


If a socialist revolution produces a socialist state and a bourgeois revolution produces a bourgeois state then the October revolution would fall somewhere in between. The Soviet Union may have been state capitalist but it was not ruled by the bourgeoisie – a class which barely existed in Russia until the mid-eighties. It was ruled by the bureaucrats, a separate class entirely.

The term State Capitalist in itself tells us there was Capitalism and for there to be Capitalism you need a bourgeois. In Russia&#39;s case the state was the Capitalist and the "heads of state" the bourgeois or the proto bourgeois.

To be honest I&#39;ve never heard of "bureaucrats" being a separate class, you&#39;ll have to explain that a little further.


To be honest I can’t understand how any communist could cheer on the bourgeoisie. Co-operating with them if we share the same immediate goals is perfectly normal but to actively support the establishment of a capitalist class is beyond me. The point, as Marx put it, is to change the world. I don’t think it takes a genius to work out that he meant for the better.

If the "native" bourgeois of country a is going to kick the foreign capital of country b out of country a. I see no reason not to support this "national liberation" movement.

After all if the "native" bourgeois get rid of the imperialism they will likely be able to bring about modern Capitalism and therefore the material conditions in which a proletarian revolution can take place.

Supporting the emerging bourgeois of a feudal country, is supporting progression.


Marxism is a revolutionary theory. When you remove the revolutionary aspect all you have remaining is an historical aid.

I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve removed the "revolutionary" aspect from Marxist theory, however it seems you have removed the whole "epochs of history" aspect.


Because Marx was right and anyone after him was wrong. As much as I despair of those who believe that socialism can be brought about from within the capitalist system (no doubt as you despair of us who believe that more than waiting is necessary) I believe that Bernstein had one thing right – Marxism will always evolve and it can be no other way. Of course each generation believes that “its” version is the correct one but then the next will add to it and so on. Marx wanted his teachings to form the basis of a “living doctrine”.

Yes Marxism will always "evolve" and the way Marxists look at the world will constantly "evolve." As we speak the issue of dialectics is likely being hotly disputed and it seems dialectics may well be purged from Marxism. The "labour theory of value" is also being hotly disputed by Marxist economists and an alternative may well arise.

However the basic tenets of Marxism seem to be right, the early evidence certainly shows Lenin&#39;s "evolutionary" Socialism doesn&#39;t work, the same way the Marxists reformists "evolutionary" Socialism doesn&#39;t work. It certainly seems a revolution is required to change class society.

Now I am no Marxist "intellectual" so I will leave the formal discussions on how best to "evolve" and "improve" Marxism to them. However if they do come up with an alternative, I will certainly glance my crass proletarian eye across it and if it appears decent, I will accept it and promote it.

Lenin&#39;s alternatives however, do not seem decent, nor do they seem proven and therefore I will quite rightly say that if this is what Marxism has "evolved" into, I&#39;d rather revert back to Marx himself and try and "evolve" his theories in a more accurate and successful way.


You’re again assuming that the material conditions in the West are more advanced. This being despite the Western worker’s complete lack of revolutionary activity. At this moment in time the material conditions for revolution in the West are between crests.

The material conditions, by any Marxist standard, are far more advanced in the western world. The question is, are they advanced enough? ...I think the answer is obviously no.


I disagree to an extent. The one constant in history has been class struggle but that has manifested itself in different ways. Even a brief look over Europe shows that no two nations have progressed through history in the same manner. England had no major revolution to usher in capitalism, France had a spectacularly violent one while it was Napoleon’s armies that exported it to Germany. The basic epochs have remained the same but there have been some very different ways of progressing.

Again these could be described as "cosmetic" changes in the main.

However England is an interesting one. There was no revolution, just half a century or more of class struggle and this leads me to wonder whether Parliamentary Marxism could ever work. There certainly seems a slim chance it may happen somewhere, but I would be very surprised.

Perhaps they&#39;ll keep the Queen. :lol:


Didn’t we start on this topic? :?

Anyways I maintain, as I always have, that while a failure the Bolshevik revolution was both worth a chance and worth repeating in the correct conditions. The underlying principle, that the material conditions can be changed, remains sound.

I&#39;ve more or less answered this in my whole attack on "evolutionary" Socialism above. Also this thread takes ages to reply to and I&#39;ve got to get ready for College in half an hour. :(


As I said the conditions of Russia at the time necessitated the Party structure.

And why would the proletariat have turned on the Bolsheviks, the tool of their emancipation? By the time any such proletariat was present Stalin and the bureaucracy were firmly entrenched and intent on maintaining their Orwellian grip on the country.

If the proletariat had been emancipated, they would have been more progressive than the party and would have likely overthrown the party and started "decentralising" leadership.

As it stands, the Russian proletariat seemed to grow more detached by the day and by the time Capitalism was publicly installed, they really didn&#39;t give "two shits." After all, they&#39;d had a pretty miserable existence in "Communist" Russia and they certainly had no power whatsoever.


Political parties are a symbol of the organisation and development of the proletariat.

The evidence suggests political parties "retard" the proletariat and make it into mere "flag wavers" for the "real" revolutionaries.


The iron discipline that was necessary in Russia 1917 is in no way necessary in USA 2005. But considering that most Leninist parties have been either Marxist-Leninist or Maoist its not surprising that they’re made up of unthinking dolts. Note that it was these parties that have given Leninism such a bad name today.

Whats your problem with the Marxist-Leninist train of thought? ....I though thats what you were?


I see only negatives. Of course if you can point out some benefits that don’t include “appeasement” or enriching the capitalists then please point them out.

For a start it gets rid of "superstition" and "religion." Consumerism also goes a long way towards "destroying" "culture." Which isn&#39;t such a bad thing.

If you were to ask me, I would say "Consumerism is the highest stage of Capitalism." ;)


Maybe its simply been my experience. Ireland is a nation that has gotten very rich, very quickly and despite the yawning inequalities in this society the vast majority have a standard of living far above that of previous generations. The amount of wealth that the upper reaches of the proletariat (read office workers) are throwing around is simply obscene. Even the poorer sections of society can afford a decent car and a lifestyle that their parents would’ve regarded as well off.


Firstly, you shouldn&#39;t equate the possession of material goods with increased wealth.

Secondly, just about everyone I know over 40 considers themselves less well off than they previously were. The figures back up this observation.


This point continually reappears so I’ll try to nail it this time.

I say: The Bolsheviks were unable to introduce democracy because of pressure from both the reactionaries and the peasants.

You say: That’s because the material conditions were not present

I say: Once the material conditions have been built by the Bolsheviks there would’ve been democracy.

You say: But that didn’t happen&#33;

I then go on to blame Stalin and the bureaucrats while insisting that the principles are solid. Sound familiar?

It sounds familiar, yes. What also sounds familiar is your apparent willingness to revert to the "great man in history" theory and blame Stalin for all the mistakes.

That will never "go down" well with us materialists.


The Communards didn’t fail to aggressively destroy the state, they failed to even attempt to destroy it. The Commune lacked direction and, highly ironically, it became the best advertisement there is for implementing Leninist principles in the West.

However I still hold faith that the Western proletariat will be able to do the job on their own.

I&#39;m glad you still hold "faith" in the ability of western proletariat to do the "job." Though this "faith" is incredibly ironic when your "belief" that there is no western proletariat is also taken into account.


Yes, I’ve noticed that you’ve not quite got the zeal of Guevara.

My user-name isn&#39;t ironic. :o :lol:


The bulk of the Bolshevik leadership was proletariat. Molotov, Shliapnikov and Zalutsky to name a few.

It’s a person’s background and upbringing that shapes a person and their actions. They are unable to act outside the confines of the present material conditions but its those that they grew up with that decides their course in history.

Not necessarily. The Labour Party and its miraculous "transformation" into "New Labour." Proves that ones background is largely irrelevant if they gain power. Precisely because their material conditions change so radically.


That’s communism. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat and its form will depend heavily on the size of the remaining bourgeoisie. Towards the end of socialism society will increasingly resemble the one you’ve described until we wake up with no government at all.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Communism are not that different. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" will exist for a very short period of time, as if people are allowed they will decentralise as much as is possible.

Also there will be no leaders in the "dictatorship of the proletariat."


There’s few arguments we haven’t rehashed several times at his point but I’ll do my best

This thread takes an eternity to reply too. :( :lol:

Fuck, I&#39;ve just realised the time. I&#39;ll reply to the rest of your post when I get back from College.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Back to work. :)


Me, attacking the working class? Hardly. I’m simply recognising the material reality of the West today. Do you deny that the considerable bulk of the proletariat are quite happy to co-exist with the capitalists today? That there are no signs of worker discontent with the system of wage slavery? Now you can close your eyes to this in the hope that the workers will rise up someday but I want to know why they aren’t doing so now.

There are plenty of signs that people aren&#39;t happy with wage slavery or the Capitalist system. Strikes are still a regular occurrence, though unfortunately not as "militant" as they once were.

So contrary to your suggestions, there are parts of the proletariat that are unhappy with wage slavery. There are many working class people, myself included, on this board who are not choosing to "co-exist" with the Capitalists.

How is this possible? ....surely we should all be "bought off" by now if Lenin&#39;s theory was right?


Its not, as you suggest, that I “dislike the idea that the western worker is not starving to death”, I dislike the idea that they have either have no knowledge of their exploitation or simply don’t care about it. Obviously this has nothing to do with the proletariat itself but rather the material conditions that creates this situation. Its those conditions that I hate that those that Lenin explains the formation of.

Looking back at your posts, it certainly seems that you resent any section of the proletariat owning material goods. Which can only lead me to conclude that you "dislike the idea that the western worker is not starving to death."

Now it is obvious that the material conditions have not yet presented themselves for the overthrow of the Capitalist system. That&#39;s a "no brainer." What is not obvious and certainly has no great evidential support, is the idea that the western proletariat is "bought off."

There seems to be a at least a limited body of evidence to suggest that Lenin&#39;s "theory of imperialism" is at best flawed.

Even the Leninist parties accept this, otherwise they would be none in the western world.


And you’re right – I am a hero-worshipping fool who hates the workers and considers himself fit to lead a revolution. Maybe I’ll simply construct a rigid party hierarchy with myself at the head crushing the workers RAWGH&#33; Please, if I want those sorts of broad generalisations and insults I’ll browse through the Redstar papers.

Despite the evident sarcasm in your statement, you have pretty accurately described what nearly every Leninist party has done over the last century.


Did they know about them? Probably not. Would they have cared enough to demand an end to the empire? I doubt it. Such were the conditions of their times.

Yes the British proletariat were pretty "backward" at that point in time and they may well have not been that "bothered" if they had of known.

However at that point in time, the British proletariat had a really horrible standard of living and therefore the idea that "imperialism" was to blame for them not rebelling, is at best flawed.


As for Engels, I can’t answer why he didn’t look into it more. All I do know is that his work on Capital was limited to brining together Marx’s notes.

Indeed not only did Engels not look into it more, he had 25 years until Marx&#39;s death in 1883, in which to discuss it with Marx. Yet neither Engels or Marx deemed it important enough to write anything substantial on.

Surely one of them would have looked into something as important as this? ...unless of course, it wasn&#39;t that important.


The workers got these luxuries because the capitalists were able to throw a bit of loose change their way. Otherwise these “victories” of the proletariat would’ve bankrupted the factory owners long ago. And for all we have “won” we are further from freedom than ever.

How are "we" "further from freedom than ever"? ....."we" can now read, write, operate complex machinery, organise etc. The gains the proletariat "won" all brought with them the opportunity of learning more essential skills which will be required for self rule.


You’re hard to pin any label on. First I think you’re Marxist, then you refute socialism and now you’re defending Mao

I&#39;m a mysterious type of guy. :lol:


A closer look at China reveals that not only was China not a socialist state, they were nowhere near creating a proletarian state. But the point still stands that anyone advocating a peasant ideology in the US is a fool.

There were doubtless times when China appeared to be creating "Socialism." Indeed the evidence around in the 60&#39;s was likely pretty favourable to this conclusion.

However I do now agree with you, the evidence suggests that this conclusion is garbage and anyone who still advocates the "Chinese way" needs their head checked.


I don’t know how anyone can look at the history of Europe from 1850 onwards and not come to the conclusion that the region tottered on the edge of socialist revolution. Even before Marxism was adopted by the entire socialist movement there were near constant uprisings, strikes and mass demonstrations by the workers. Europe was like a pot coming to boil before things calmed down.

Events like the Chartist movement, with the benefit of hindsight, can be said to be certain groups demanding a more "humane" form of Capitalism.

Capitalism in 1850 was able to modify itself and become more "humane." It was still very young and had plenty of space in which to develop. However the evidence now suggests that Capitalism is no longer able to "reform" itself and become more "humane." Indeed it looks like Capitalism is now regressing and is therefore "starting down the road" to its eventual end.


Two reasons – 1) the vast pool of labour available to the capitalist weakens the bargaining power of the proletariat and hence cripples the emergence of unions. While I’m still not convinced that unions are at the forefront of the class struggle, they do play a key role in organising the workers.

The second reason is the power of the political superstructure in most of these countries is extremely strong and is only reinforced by Western capital.

The revolution will start there but it will take time. Make no mistake though, the material conditions are forming.

The material conditions are forming in these countries, but the material conditions that are forming are for a "national liberation struggle" not a proletarian revolution.

Now that doesn&#39;t mean a "national liberation struggle" is not a "good thing." It just means that we shouldn&#39;t expect it to become anything other that a "national liberation struggle."


The obvious answer is emerging class consciousness. Until the workers start struggling for freedom from wage slavery, as opposed to scraps from the bourgeois table, we will get no where.

As I have said the bourgeois are still able to provide "scraps." Though I think that we are starting to see the time when these "scraps" are actually "drying up."


As for physical signs, we’re talking general strikes, marches, militant unions… everything that sends a clear statement of intentions to the capitalists.

These send the statement that we want more and indeed while "we" can get more from the Capitalists, there will be no revolution.

However as I have said, the Capitalists seem to no longer be able to give "us" "more" and this means when the next "surge" of "worker agitation" happens, it may well take a whole new direction. A revolutionary direction.


So I exaggerate slightly, call it poetic licence. As I mentioned above perhaps it’s the sheer change of pace in Ireland and the fact that we had it so bad before. But I’m not that far off. I know from the estates of Dublin that most houses usually have two cars and I suspect that, at less than a hundred quid, most have DVD players. I have no figures but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the amount of disposable income the average family has, has shot up in recent years. It’s the only way those kids are able to afford mobiles.

Perhaps they can afford these things because these material goods have become cheaper. Certainly every report I have seen has said real wages have been getting smaller and smaller.

Capitalism, in my opinion, is past its prime.


And of course it all depends on your definition of proletariat. If you include, as I tend to do, the office workers then most “prole” households aren’t doing too badly.

I didn&#39;t think "office work" paid that well? ....even if it does, "office work" doesn&#39;t make up the "bulk" of the workforce.


This argument… debate is taking up enough of my time as it is

But let’s put it this way – Marx did not describe himself as an anarchist, he did not agree with anarchists, in fact he spent most of his life arguing with them. What more do you want? I thought you were keen on taking the man on his word.

That is true, Marx didn&#39;t agree with "Anarchists." The article suggests that the reason Marx didn&#39;t agree with the Anarchists around during his lifetime, was because those Anarchists were not radical enough for Marx&#39;s liking.

The Anarchist thinkers of Marx&#39;s time, were conservative when compared to Marx.


You know with each post you sound more and more like Redstar. I’m not sure whether that’s a good or a bad thing…

In this context I&#39;ll take that as a compliment. :redstar2000: :lol:


Anyways I’ve been saying this since the start of this thread, in fact it was probably the first point we touched on, Leninism does not contradict Marx. Now I’ve laid out just why that is, I’ve given explanations as to why Marx’s predictions have yet to come through, why Leninism is a viable strategy in underdeveloped nations and why sticking to “orthodox” Marxism is tantamount to sitting around waiting for the material conditions to suddenly click. There’s not much more I can do than that.

I think it is fair to say that Leninism does contradict Marxism. That you feel the need to say orthodox Marxism, at least suggests that you accept there is a difference between the two theories.

Now the debate about whether Leninism is a good "national liberation" theory, is a whole other debate. Personally I think it is a decent theory, but there are better theories "knocking around."


Once again I’m foiled by a smilie. Damn&#33;

My fingers were "bare to the bone" by the time I typed that reply, a smilie was all I could manage. :( :lol:

[ComradeOm]

This thread takes an eternity to reply too.

Fuck, I&#39;ve just realised the time. I&#39;ll reply to the rest of your post when I get back from College.
Tell me about it. I’m blaming you if I fail my final year :D


There was a list I saw knocking around on this site that said which countries still practised slavery. There were quite a few from various continents, though as you say, I doubt the relationship is so "formalised" in this day and age.
I’ll keep an eye out for that. I’d be interested in seeing just how many countries rely on that source of labour.


If Lenin&#39;s support was so "great," he would not have had to conduct the coup before the Soviets voted in the Bolsheviks. That he took power before the Soviets had given the Bolsheviks their approval, makes me doubt the actual amount of support Lenin and the Bolsheviks had from the Russian population.
The problem is peasants are hardly revolutionary. The proletariat can lead but the peasants must be driven. They’re a notoriously reactionary class who only turn revolutionary in very specific conditions and even then only briefly. But by 1917 their hatred of their feudal masters had reached the point where they would’ve supported anyone who promised to free them.

And I’m fairly sure that the Bolsheviks had a majority (just) in the Soviets at the time of the Revolution.


Then I would suggest Lenin and the Bolsheviks made a great error by trying to pacify these "useless" parts of Russia.
That was hardly an option. The Revolution required that the White Armies be wiped out and counterrevolutionaries completely removed from the picture. Simply allowing them to regroup in certain parts of the country would’ve been suicide.


The "backward" nature being the peasants who refused to feed the Russian army? ...a lot of the problems caused during the counter revolutionary period, were not caused by the whites or the foreign forces. They were caused by the peasants who were pretty "pissed off" about having the "state" take their produce.

To most of the peasantry it must have seemed like a return to feudal rule and therefore their resistance to the "revolution" is not that surprising.
That’s peasants for you. As I said, a highly reactionary class.


A whole lot is made of this point, but like you said I&#39;ve never heard of any significant action taken by any of the foreign armies. Plus they would have likely been pretty depleted and unskilled armies due to the First World War.

So their impact, is like some of the "coalition" forces in Iraq, laughable.
Limited but hardly laughable. They might not have posed a serious challenge but they were there and active. I suspect that had the Red Army been weaker we might have seen a repeat of the Western dominance of China.


The factors may well be worse during the revolutionary period in the first world.

There will be a well trained and extremely well equipped army, a brutal police force and likely a prolonged period of bombing by the air force. Therefore if you take Britain as an example where very few people own arms, the revolution itself will possibly cost upwards of a million lives.

Though as I said earlier in this thread, I don&#39;t expect there to be much of a "counter revolution."
The police and soldiers are drawn from the proletariat so I doubt that will be a major issue. But (with the exception of foreign armies) none of the factors I outlined will impact a Western revolution. There are no peasants, vastly improved infrastructure and the proletariat will be just fighting the bourgeoisie. That’s not to say that it will be easy, just easier than Russia.


You seem to think Lenin&#39;s "evolutionary" outlook is compatible with Marx&#39;s "revolutionary" outlook. It&#39;s not.

If Marx was right, you can&#39;t just build the material conditions of Capitalism and then "evolve" to Socialism. There must be a "revolution" for this process to occur.

Though Lenin&#39;s view is not surprising, a whole load of "Marxists" were influenced by Kautsky&#39;s "evolutionary" Marxism. The Fabian society which was the ideological backbone of the Labour Party believed you could "reform" your way to Marxism without the need of a revolution and likewise Lenin thought pretty much the same. He thought you could overthrow feudalism and then build Capitalism which could then "reform" itself into Socialism.

Worth a try? ....most definitely, but it failed and therefore "evolutionary" Socialism really has no place in the modern Communist movement.
I don’t see where you’re getting this “evolutionary” business from. Lenin recognised that the material conditions for socialism cannot be directed from within the capitalist structure. So he tore that state down and proceeded to build the material conditions in a transitional/revolutionary phase. The capitalist state and the bourgeoisie were no more so what was impeding the rapid construction of a modern proletariat (modern at the time)?


The term State Capitalist in itself tells us there was Capitalism and for there to be Capitalism you need a bourgeois. In Russia&#39;s case the state was the Capitalist and the "heads of state" the bourgeois or the proto bourgeois.

To be honest I&#39;ve never heard of "bureaucrats" being a separate class, you&#39;ll have to explain that a little further.
The Soviet Union was not ruled by the bourgeoisie. It was State Capitalist, as you point out, and so the state “owned” the means of production. These were controlled by the Party itself but through its highly centralised apparatus (Gosplan). So the economic decisions were not made by the capitalists (because no one, or group, owned the means of production) and not by the proletariat. They were made by a series of committees, the bureaucrats, who, despite directing them, did not have a stake in these means of production.


If the "native" bourgeois of country a is going to kick the foreign capital of country b out of country a. I see no reason not to support this "national liberation" movement.

After all if the "native" bourgeois get rid of the imperialism they will likely be able to bring about modern Capitalism and therefore the material conditions in which a proletarian revolution can take place.

Supporting the emerging bourgeois of a feudal country, is supporting progression.
And I have no problem with that if we share the same immediate goals. That rarely includes national liberation, as any bourgeois regime will simply sell itself to the West, but it is possible. But I would do everything possible to support socialist groups in those countries before having to embrace a bourgeois alternative.


I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve removed the "revolutionary" aspect from Marxist theory, however it seems you have removed the whole "epochs of history" aspect.
Orthodox Marxism advocates little except waiting for the material conditions to develop. Marx rejected economic determinism and argued that our actions can impact then economic base. Lenin took that to its logical conclusion by stating that once capitalism has produced a proletariat, that body can smash the state and then construct the material conditions for socialism. Russia still went through bourgeois capitalism, however briefly.


Yes Marxism will always "evolve" and the way Marxists look at the world will constantly "evolve." As we speak the issue of dialectics is likely being hotly disputed and it seems dialectics may well be purged from Marxism. The "labour theory of value" is also being hotly disputed by Marxist economists and an alternative may well arise.

However the basic tenets of Marxism seem to be right, the early evidence certainly shows Lenin&#39;s "evolutionary" Socialism doesn&#39;t work, the same way the Marxists reformists "evolutionary" Socialism doesn&#39;t work. It certainly seems a revolution is required to change class society.
I fully agree. Russia had its revolution.

I wouldn’t go so far as to throw out the labour theory of value just yet. While economists have proven that it is not proof of exploitation, my understanding is that they have yet to disprove the theory itself. Its not as watertight as Marx thought but its still very useful.


Now I am no Marxist "intellectual" so I will leave the formal discussions on how best to "evolve" and "improve" Marxism to them. However if they do come up with an alternative, I will certainly glance my crass proletarian eye across it and if it appears decent, I will accept it and promote it.

Lenin&#39;s alternatives however, do not seem decent, nor do they seem proven and therefore I will quite rightly say that if this is what Marxism has "evolved" into, I&#39;d rather revert back to Marx himself and try and "evolve" his theories in a more accurate and successful way.
I disagree with all regressive views on where Marxism should go. We can certainly discard aspects and theories, as the communists did with Kautsky’s theories a century ago, but it is foolish to simply write off an entire ideology without learning from it. And, as I’ve made clear, I still believe that the bulk of Lenin’s work is highly useful.


The material conditions, by any Marxist standard, are far more advanced in the western world. The question is, are they advanced enough? ...I think the answer is obviously no.
And how are you measuring these standards? I cannot see how they are more advanced than they were when Marx lived.


Again these could be described as "cosmetic" changes in the main.

However England is an interesting one. There was no revolution, just half a century or more of class struggle and this leads me to wonder whether Parliamentary Marxism could ever work. There certainly seems a slim chance it may happen somewhere, but I would be very surprised.

Perhaps they&#39;ll keep the Queen.
I’d use Cromwell’s war (1640-8?) as the overthrowing of feudalism in England. While there were, and still are, feudal institutions and characteristics to the country, there was never any doubt as to who ran the country after that. It just goes to show that while it obeys general laws, history is far from uniform.


If the proletariat had been emancipated, they would have been more progressive than the party and would have likely overthrown the party and started "decentralising" leadership.

As it stands, the Russian proletariat seemed to grow more detached by the day and by the time Capitalism was publicly installed, they really didn&#39;t give "two shits." After all, they&#39;d had a pretty miserable existence in "Communist" Russia and they certainly had no power whatsoever.
By the time there was a proletariat capable enough of overthrowing the Party, the bureaucrats were far too well ensconced to be easily dislodged. And life was not all that bad in Soviet Russia. They may not have had the luxuries that Westerners took for granted by the command economy was far softer on them than the capitalists or nobles had been.


The evidence suggests political parties "retard" the proletariat and make it into mere "flag wavers" for the "real" revolutionaries.
And your evidence is…? The anarchists?


Whats your problem with the Marxist-Leninist train of thought? ....I though thats what you were?
I’m fairly sure that I mentioned the fact that I’m not a Marxist-Leninist in one of my first posts in this thread. I despise Marxist-Leninism because its neither Marxist or Leninist. Its just something Stalin cooked up to justify his actions. It stands for everything that’s wrong with Marxist thought – its un-Marxist in both its conclusions and the way its been stood up on a pedestal and taken as the unchallengeable truth.

It’s a pity because the phrase Marxist-Leninist sums up what I am – a Marxist who agrees with Lenin’s additions.


For a start it gets rid of "superstition" and "religion." Consumerism also goes a long way towards "destroying" "culture." Which isn&#39;t such a bad thing.

If you were to ask me, I would say "Consumerism is the highest stage of Capitalism
Capitalism by its nature destroys the breeding ground for religion.

I’d tend to agree with you on consumerism being the highest stage of capitalism… but that’s because its only been possible due to the economic imperialism of the Western capitalist.


Firstly, you shouldn&#39;t equate the possession of material goods with increased wealth.

Secondly, just about everyone I know over 40 considers themselves less well off than they previously were. The figures back up this observation.
People have more disposable income and thus are able to afford more goods. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

This is a perfect illustration of different conditions in different countries. 30-40 years ago Ireland was a shithole that people couldn’t get out of fast enough. I think its safe to say that I’m the first generation of my family not to know serious economic hardships or poverty.


It sounds familiar, yes. What also sounds familiar is your apparent willingness to revert to the "great man in history" theory and blame Stalin for all the mistakes.

That will never "go down" well with us materialists.
Meh. I’m well aware of the conditions that allowed Stalin to rise to the top, and correcting those conditions is the greatest challenge facing Leninists, but I tend to use his name as a reflex. Old habits die hard.

On the Great Man theory, I don’t agree with it but neither do accept that history is immovable. There is scope for individual actions to have a tremendous impact, given the right conditions of course.


I&#39;m glad you still hold "faith" in the ability of western proletariat to do the "job." Though this "faith" is incredibly ironic when your "belief" that there is no western proletariat is also taken into account.
It will happen and it will happen due to the underlying nature of class struggle etc etc. Faith is the wrong word, no doubt a legacy from my childhood.

And please don’t put words into my mouth. There is a vast Western proletariat but most of them have bought into the labour aristocracy, a subset of the proletariat whole. You could call them separate classes but that’s really splitting hairs. I tend to include any wage slave in the proletariat.


My user-name isn&#39;t ironic.
:D


Not necessarily. The Labour Party and its miraculous "transformation" into "New Labour." Proves that ones background is largely irrelevant if they gain power. Precisely because their material conditions change so radically.
And how many Labour MPs had a proletarian background?

That just demonstrates the banality of democratic parties and their desperation for votes.


The "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Communism are not that different. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" will exist for a very short period of time, as if people are allowed they will decentralise as much as is possible.

Well there we disagree. The dictatorship of the proletariat will have much work to do and I expect that an organised state will rise to achieve this. Obviously it will be very different from bourgeois government. I do like the idea of a government devolved into several layers like Soviet Democracy but I wouldn’t suggest that that’s what we’ll actually see.

I do think it will take at least a generation to move to communism though, a transition that may well take another generation. I’ve always thought that the main task will be to reshape human nature, or rather instil a new set of values in the population. This can only really be accomplished by growing up in a socialist society.


There are plenty of signs that people aren&#39;t happy with wage slavery or the Capitalist system. Strikes are still a regular occurrence, though unfortunately not as "militant" as they once were.

So contrary to your suggestions, there are parts of the proletariat that are unhappy with wage slavery. There are many working class people, myself included, on this board who are not choosing to "co-exist" with the Capitalists.

How is this possible? ....surely we should all be "bought off" by now if Lenin&#39;s theory was right?
Obviously not all of the proletariat are happy to live under capitalism, there will always be those who have achieved some level of class consciousness. No social theory deals in absolute. However classes do tend to act en masse and its by the movement of this bulk that we judge the class. And I again put it to you that the considerable majority of workers are happy with capitalism.

Unless you seriously believe that the majority, or anywhere near that, of the Western proletariat would even react favourably to the very word communism?


Looking back at your posts, it certainly seems that you resent any section of the proletariat owning material goods. Which can only lead me to conclude that you "dislike the idea that the western worker is not starving to death."
I might as well resent fish for having the gall to live in water.


Now it is obvious that the material conditions have not yet presented themselves for the overthrow of the Capitalist system. That&#39;s a "no brainer." What is not obvious and certainly has no great evidential support, is the idea that the western proletariat is "bought off."

There seems to be a at least a limited body of evidence to suggest that Lenin&#39;s "theory of imperialism" is at best flawed.
You’re still not putting two and two together. The reason the material conditions in the West do not exist for revolution is due to imperialism. It is the only theory that explains the actions and evolution of post-Marx capital into the global force it is today. It is the only theory that explains how the capitalists can extract a profit from the workers while allowing those same workers a decent standard of living. In short it is required to explain not just the material reality of today but to draw conclusions on future trends in class struggle.


Even the Leninist parties accept this, otherwise they would be none in the western world.
Define Leninist. Traditionally these mean Marxist-Leninist (aka Stalinist), Trotskyite, or Maoism. Of those three the only one I haven’t condemned in this thread is the Trots and that’s because they’ve yet to come up.

You mention the appeal of Maoism below, it appeared to work. The exact same applied to the USSR and its puppet parties in the West.


Despite the evident sarcasm in your statement, you have pretty accurately described what nearly every Leninist party has done over the last century.
Sarcasm? Me? Sarcasm is a product of Western decadence.


Yes the British proletariat were pretty "backward" at that point in time and they may well have not been that "bothered" if they had of known.

However at that point in time, the British proletariat had a really horrible standard of living and therefore the idea that "imperialism" was to blame for them not rebelling, is at best flawed.
I doubt they were quite as bad as the rest of Europe. Then again that was only the beginning of imperialism. Finance capital was beginning to evolve in Britain but was not yet at the stage that Lenin observed.

I also wouldn’t discount local factors. Off the top of my head I remember that Marx wrote on the divisions between Irish immigrants and the native workers which prevented them from presenting a united front.


Indeed not only did Engels not look into it more, he had 25 years until Marx&#39;s death in 1883, in which to discuss it with Marx. Yet neither Engels or Marx deemed it important enough to write anything substantial on.

Surely one of them would have looked into something as important as this? ...unless of course, it wasn&#39;t that important.
Much of Engel’s time after Marx’s death was spent translating the final volumes of Capital (a task which he was unable to complete by the time of his death). But while undoubtedly present to some degree in Britain at the time, the evolution to finance capital did not reach its higher stages until some years after Marx’s death.

And we can’t discount the possibility that both simply missed it


How are "we" "further from freedom than ever"? ....."we" can now read, write, operate complex machinery, organise etc. The gains the proletariat "won" all brought with them the opportunity of learning more essential skills which will be required for self rule.
Wow it’s a good thing that the workers didn’t win their freedom from wage slavery all those years ago because they clearly needed the bourgeoisie to rule.

That is bullshit. The proletariat were every bit as capable of ruling then as they are now. The state is merely an extension of class interests and so there is no required level of competence required. As the classes evolve and acquire new skills then so these skills can be applied to the makeup of the state and government. And you accuse me of disliking the proletariat&#33;


There were doubtless times when China appeared to be creating "Socialism." Indeed the evidence around in the 60&#39;s was likely pretty favourable to this conclusion.

However I do now agree with you, the evidence suggests that this conclusion is garbage and anyone who still advocates the "Chinese way" needs their head checked.
Now apply that to Marxist-Leninism and you’ll why there were so many Stalinist parties active twenty years ago.

Simply on the basis of theory though I tend to disregard Maoism as being un-Marxist. Lenin advocated revolution in imperfect conditions but he was very clear on the need for a proletariat.


Events like the Chartist movement, with the benefit of hindsight, can be said to be certain groups demanding a more "humane" form of Capitalism.

Capitalism in 1850 was able to modify itself and become more "humane." It was still very young and had plenty of space in which to develop. However the evidence now suggests that Capitalism is no longer able to "reform" itself and become more "humane." Indeed it looks like Capitalism is now regressing and is therefore "starting down the road" to its eventual end.
There is nothing humane about capitalism. It may take on that characteristic at times but the core of capitalism remains the same as ever – profit. Without profit there is no capitalism. And so you need to explain how capitalism was able to become more “humane” without jeopardising its profit.

As for the chartists, they were just another idealist bourgeois movement.


The material conditions are forming in these countries, but the material conditions that are forming are for a "national liberation struggle" not a proletarian revolution.

Now that doesn&#39;t mean a "national liberation struggle" is not a "good thing." It just means that we shouldn&#39;t expect it to become anything other that a "national liberation struggle."
Time will tell on this one. I’ll tell you what, we’ll meet back here in a decade (though this thread will probably still be going strong) and see how its shaping up :D


As I have said the bourgeois are still able to provide "scraps." Though I think that we are starting to see the time when these "scraps" are actually "drying up."
I don’t dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that the workers should or will organise in order to gain more “scraps” instead of banding together to overthrow capitalism. The former will not lead to socialism. Indeed there must be a driving ideology (I’ll even accept anarchism) behind any worker’s revolution. Otherwise we’ll merely end up with a new bourgeoisie


These send the statement that we want more and indeed while "we" can get more from the Capitalists, there will be no revolution.

However as I have said, the Capitalists seem to no longer be able to give "us" "more" and this means when the next "surge" of "worker agitation" happens, it may well take a whole new direction. A revolutionary direction.
I think I’ve gone into that directly above. If not just give the word


Perhaps they can afford these things because these material goods have become cheaper. Certainly every report I have seen has said real wages have been getting smaller and smaller.

Capitalism, in my opinion, is past its prime.
Does that matter when your cash buys you more? Leaving aside the likes of pensions and the like its material goods that really drives consumerism.

But is capitalism on the way down yet? The evidence suggests not. There is still plenty of labour to exploit in China after all. Again, only time will tell.


I didn&#39;t think "office work" paid that well? ....even if it does, "office work" doesn&#39;t make up the "bulk" of the workforce.
Office work is a pretty broad term that encompasses a large variety of jobs. Like manual labour though there’s a gulf between skilled and unskilled.

Again going by Ireland, the service sector is the largest area of employment in the country today. By some fair margin I think. And that’s not even including those who work in manufacturing but are based in offices. I’d be very surprised if the trend wasn’t the same across Europe.


That is true, Marx didn&#39;t agree with "Anarchists." The article suggests that the reason Marx didn&#39;t agree with the Anarchists around during his lifetime, was because those Anarchists were not radical enough for Marx&#39;s liking.

The Anarchist thinkers of Marx&#39;s time, were conservative when compared to Marx.
These the same anarchists that many of our comrades on the forums admire? I’m tempted to have another look just to see what their reactions were to that news :P


I think it is fair to say that Leninism does contradict Marxism. That you feel the need to say orthodox Marxism, at least suggests that you accept there is a difference between the two theories.
I use the term “orthodox” because some forums members, including yourself, insist that Lenin contradicts Marx. Let’s just say that I’m using it in a negative context and that “orthodox” is politer than regressive.


Now the debate about whether Leninism is a good "national liberation" theory, is a whole other debate. Personally I think it is a decent theory, but there are better theories "knocking around."
Well even Maoism has been proven to work quite well as a national liberation strategy. Although, as I’ve mentioned numerous times, I don’t see why we should stop there. As for a better theory - name one aside from cheering on the bourgeoisie?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Tell me about it. I’m blaming you if I fail my final year :D

What&#39;s worse is that I just typed a whole reply and when I went to preview it, I lost my server connection. I could have cried. :(

Therefore this post will likely come in parts, because I can&#39;t really be bothered to type the whole fucking thing again.


I’ll keep an eye out for that. I’d be interested in seeing just how many countries rely on that source of labour.

If memory serves me correctly, there were 11 countries in all and most of those were in Asia and the Middle East.


The problem is peasants are hardly revolutionary. The proletariat can lead but the peasants must be driven. They’re a notoriously reactionary class who only turn revolutionary in very specific conditions and even then only briefly. But by 1917 their hatred of their feudal masters had reached the point where they would’ve supported anyone who promised to free them.

The Russian peasant class like every other class in history, was driven by its class interest and in 1917 Russia, this interest undoubtedly lay in Capitalism.

Even the idea of Communism was likely enough to "scare the hell out of them," because Communism is not really in the class interest of the peasant class.


And I’m fairly sure that the Bolsheviks had a majority (just) in the Soviets at the time of the Revolution.

That is a debatable point.

It appears the Bolsheviks at least thought they didn&#39;t have a majority, otherwise they wouldn&#39;t have staged the "coup" before the Soviets voted. If the Bolsheviks thought they had a majority which would vote them "in," then they would not have seized power in the "fashion" they did.

However, unfortunately polling systems weren&#39;t around then and therefore we can only speculate on what the answer is. Though the actions of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, certainly don&#39;t look like those of a party that was about to be voted in.


That was hardly an option. The Revolution required that the White Armies be wiped out and counterrevolutionaries completely removed from the picture. Simply allowing them to regroup in certain parts of the country would’ve been suicide.

Why? ....if the parts of Russia where they re-grouped were "useless." How could the "Whites" possibly pose a substantial future problem?

There are certain elements of the Bolshevik parties early actions in gaining power, that are very similar to the actions of the Nazi party. The way they seized power, eliminated all opposition etc.

It is one of those historic similarities that seem to make history so repetitive.


That’s peasants for you. As I said, a highly reactionary class.

You think it&#39;s reactionary to oppose having your produce taken off you by the state, which means you&#39;re likely to starve to death?

If you want to see reactionary actions, look no further than the Bolsheviks treatment of the peasants and for that matter most of the Russian proletariat.

If the names and places were edited out, you could easily mistake some of the early Bolshevik actions with those being carried out against worker movements in America and Europe.


Limited but hardly laughable. They might not have posed a serious challenge but they were there and active. I suspect that had the Red Army been weaker we might have seen a repeat of the Western dominance of China.

What they might of done, is of course speculation. What we know is what they did and that was nothing to "write home about."
__________________________________________________ _________________________

Right, I&#39;m off to bed. I&#39;ll continue this tomorrow.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Back to work. :)


The police and soldiers are drawn from the proletariat so I doubt that will be a major issue. But (with the exception of foreign armies) none of the factors I outlined will impact a Western revolution. There are no peasants, vastly improved infrastructure and the proletariat will be just fighting the bourgeoisie. That’s not to say that it will be easy, just easier than Russia.

Will parts of the police and army "come over" to "our" side? ....probably.

Will they do this straight away? ....definitely not.

Will parts of the police and the army joining the revolution make a revolution against a modern Capitalist state with advanced military technology any "easier" than the Russian revolution? ....I doubt it.

Though again, this is speculation and the answer will only be found when the revolution "comes."


I don’t see where you’re getting this “evolutionary” business from. Lenin recognised that the material conditions for socialism cannot be directed from within the capitalist structure. So he tore that state down and proceeded to build the material conditions in a transitional/revolutionary phase. The capitalist state and the bourgeoisie were no more so what was impeding the rapid construction of a modern proletariat (modern at the time)?

The "evolutionary" Socialism that Lenin practised is quite simple.

Lenin thought that you could seize state power in a feudal society, then build the material conditions of Socialism and the evolve or reform your way to Socialism.

Like all of us, Lenin was a product of his time and in that period of time, the "evolutionary" Marxist theories of Kautsky and co. were widely accepted. It&#39;s no surprise then that these theories "rubbed off" on Lenin, whether he realised it or not.

Though Lenin was very ambiguous about what he thought he was "creating" in Russia. In certain writings he seems very conservative on the issue of Socialism being possible in Russia, in others he practically promises Communism. What we don&#39;t know is what he was telling the "masses."

Though little of what he said seemed to be based in material reality.


The Soviet Union was not ruled by the bourgeoisie. It was State Capitalist, as you point out, and so the state “owned” the means of production. These were controlled by the Party itself but through its highly centralised apparatus (Gosplan). So the economic decisions were not made by the capitalists (because no one, or group, owned the means of production) and not by the proletariat. They were made by a series of committees, the bureaucrats, who, despite directing them, did not have a stake in these means of production.

The state owned the means of production and the party leaders ran the state. The higher ranks of the "party" took the de facto role of the Russian bourgeois.

That the party elites had a pretty "sweet" lifestyle, only further reinforces the conclusion that the Russian CP was playing the role of the Capitalist in the absence of a strong and capable bourgeois.

Indeed it would not be that unreasonable to suggest that Stalin played the Bonaparte role for the emerging Russian bourgeois.


And I have no problem with that if we share the same immediate goals. That rarely includes national liberation, as any bourgeois regime will simply sell itself to the West, but it is possible. But I would do everything possible to support socialist groups in those countries before having to embrace a bourgeois alternative.

A "national liberation struggle" with a backbone will not "sell itself" to the west.

Indeed it seems that a "national liberation struggle" that believes it will create Socialism is likely to have even more of a backbone.

Now if these people embarrass the bourgeois of our countries, then proletarian "support" for their leaders will greatly diminish and the chances of proletarian revolution will improve greatly.

This is a good "thing."

What we mustn&#39;t do is start believing the Socialist rhetoric of the liberators. Socialism in these countries is impossible and modern Capitalism in itself is a great advance.

Historical materialism dictates this will be the "case." Unless of course you&#39;ve joined the Maoists and thrown historical materialism "out the window."


Orthodox Marxism advocates little except waiting for the material conditions to develop. Marx rejected economic determinism and argued that our actions can impact then economic base. Lenin took that to its logical conclusion by stating that once capitalism has produced a proletariat, that body can smash the state and then construct the material conditions for socialism. Russia still went through bourgeois capitalism, however briefly.

Marxism does advocate agitation because no one knows when or how the material conditions for proletarian revolution will arise in the advanced Capitalist countries.

However what Marxism does realise is that those material conditions will never arise in a feudal society. This would completely contradict historical materialism which Marxism is based on.

So Lenin did not take Marxism to its "logical conclusion." Lenin took Marxism to an irrational conclusion, which completely contradicts basic Marxism.


I fully agree. Russia had its revolution.

Yes Russia did have "its" revolution, a bourgeois revolution.


I wouldn’t go so far as to throw out the labour theory of value just yet. While economists have proven that it is not proof of exploitation, my understanding is that they have yet to disprove the theory itself. Its not as watertight as Marx thought but its still very useful.

I just about understand the basic principles of Marxist economics and the labour theory of value. So this particular debate, I will happily leave to the experts.


I disagree with all regressive views on where Marxism should go. We can certainly discard aspects and theories, as the communists did with Kautsky’s theories a century ago, but it is foolish to simply write off an entire ideology without learning from it. And, as I’ve made clear, I still believe that the bulk of Lenin’s work is highly useful.

Marxism is an attempt at the scientific study of human history and its driving forces. It ends by prediting the next stage of human society.

Now Leninism in the main, concerns itself with the creation of this predicted social order. In this respect, Leninism failed in Russia and every other country that followed the "Leninist way."

So the practical aspect of Lenin&#39;s work has been shown to be a failure.

The theorectical parts, which consist of diatribes against Left Communism, Anarchism and the working class and the theory of imperialism. Are not my "cup of tea." I don&#39;t "buy" into Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism and thereofore what part of Lenin&#39;s theorectical work do you think I will find "useful"?

I don&#39;t "promote" the thoeries of Kautsky, because like Lenin&#39;s theories, history has shown them to be failures.


And how are you measuring these standards? I cannot see how they are more advanced than they were when Marx lived.

The modern proletariat can read, write, operate complicated machinery, solve complex problems etc. These skills are undoubtedly essential if the proletariat is ever to become its own "rulers."

It is my opinion that only within the last decade or so, has the modern proletariat "accessed" the essential skills for self rule.

Of course you may view these skills as superfluous and conclude that the proletariat needs only to exist in order to be able to rule itself. I think time will tell on this one.


I’d use Cromwell’s war (1640-8?) as the overthrowing of feudalism in England. While there were, and still are, feudal institutions and characteristics to the country, there was never any doubt as to who ran the country after that. It just goes to show that while it obeys general laws, history is far from uniform.

Didn&#39;t Cromwell install a new King?

Anyway, I tend to view the rise of the British bourgeois as a series of "mini" revolutions, form the Magna Carta onwards. Eventually they were strong enough to strike fear into the hearts of the monarchy and a "benevolent" monarch let them have their "rule." Provided of course the monarchy was allowed into the "club."

It would be interesting however to read a Marxist account of the British bourgeois, though I have yet to see one. :(


By the time there was a proletariat capable enough of overthrowing the Party, the bureaucrats were far too well ensconced to be easily dislodged. And life was not all that bad in Soviet Russia. They may not have had the luxuries that Westerners took for granted by the command economy was far softer on them than the capitalists or nobles had been.

This is my point. If there had been an emancipated proletariat in Russia, they would never have let "bureaucrats" take power. At least not without a fight.

I am always amused when the Leninists, Maoists etc. debate the rise of the "revisionists." They all seem to miss the most basic of points. Had the proletariat been emancipated by the revolution, wouldn&#39;t have been able to "take" power.

As for Bolshevik rule being "softer" on the workers than the nobles had been. Well that is probably true.

But "softer" than the Capitalists? ....that is disputable. Certainly if you changed the names and places of some of the Bolsheviks actions towards the working class. They could be easily mistaken with the types of things the Capitalists were doing in Europe and America at that time.


And your evidence is…? The anarchists?

From the British Labour Party to German Social Democracy and from the Russian CP to the Chinese CP.

The longer these parties were in existence and the more power they got, the more they "retarded" a class conscious, if not proto revolutionary membership and proletariat into "mere "flag wavers" for the "real" revolutionaries."

The evidence certainly suggests that the way parties are structured, means they will eventually detach and "neut" the membership and even when they don&#39;t do this, they purge the more revolutionary members from the party.


I’m fairly sure that I mentioned the fact that I’m not a Marxist-Leninist in one of my first posts in this thread. I despise Marxist-Leninism because its neither Marxist or Leninist. Its just something Stalin cooked up to justify his actions. It stands for everything that’s wrong with Marxist thought – its un-Marxist in both its conclusions and the way its been stood up on a pedestal and taken as the unchallengeable truth.

It’s a pity because the phrase Marxist-Leninist sums up what I am – a Marxist who agrees with Lenin’s additions.

Maybe you should reclaim the term from the "revisionists." :lol:


Capitalism by its nature destroys the breeding ground for religion.

Though bourgeois sciences recent tolerance of the "religious" is worrying. :angry:


I’d tend to agree with you on consumerism being the highest stage of capitalism… but that’s because its only been possible due to the economic imperialism of the Western capitalist.

Though consumer goods could be and are produced and sold in western countries. They don&#39;t rely on "economic imperialism" as much as you think.

It would be perfectly possible for Britain to keep a high standard of living if it had a "closed market." It&#39;s just the Capitalists profit margins would shrink, a lot.


People have more disposable income and thus are able to afford more goods. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

People don&#39;t have more disposable income.

For example, people used to be paid say £20 and product a also cost £20. Therefore they could have one of product a. Nowadays people are paid £10 and product a now costs £5. Therefore they can now afford two of product a.

At face value it may seem like people now have more "disposable income." However what is actually happening is that while real wages are "going down," the cost of material goods is "going down" more.


This is a perfect illustration of different conditions in different countries. 30-40 years ago Ireland was a shithole that people couldn’t get out of fast enough. I think its safe to say that I’m the first generation of my family not to know serious economic hardships or poverty.

Yet look what this "freedom" from "poverty" has allowed you. You have had the time, resources and security to look into politics and you have become a Communist. The phrase about Capitalism "digging its own grave" springs to mind.

....and how cool is that? :cool:


Meh. I’m well aware of the conditions that allowed Stalin to rise to the top, and correcting those conditions is the greatest challenge facing Leninists, but I tend to use his name as a reflex. Old habits die hard.

The "revisionists" seem to have infiltrated every "Leninist" party. :o

It seems to me that the problem is uncorrectable. Though "you" Leninists can spend the rest of eternity, trying to correct it if thats what makes you happy.


On the Great Man theory, I don’t agree with it but neither do accept that history is immovable. There is scope for individual actions to have a tremendous impact, given the right conditions of course.

There is "scope," but this "scope" is very limited.

The conditions more or less dictated that a "brute" like Stalin would come to power in a country like Russia (1917). Indeed Lenin and Trotsky both showed their ability to "play the role" of the "brute" very early on.


It will happen and it will happen due to the underlying nature of class struggle etc etc. Faith is the wrong word, no doubt a legacy from my childhood.

And please don’t put words into my mouth. There is a vast Western proletariat but most of them have bought into the labour aristocracy, a subset of the proletariat whole. You could call them separate classes but that’s really splitting hairs. I tend to include any wage slave in the proletariat.

"Putting words into your mouth?"

Earlier in this debate I said, "Indeed the MIMers take it to the logical conclusion by saying that there is no American proletariat."

You replied by saying, "Don’t get me started on the MIM or Maoists in general.

That said, they’re not far wrong on the US situation. It doesn’t take much to realise that 1) the Western proletariat is very advanced and 2) they have all the revolutionary backbone of a sponge. That much is obvious at least."

(Emphasis added.)

Page 3, Anarchists debate. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42349&st=50)

Now how is my statement "Though this "faith" is incredibly ironic when your "belief" that there is no western proletariat is also taken into account." Putting words into your mouth?

You certainly think the MLMers are "on to something," that the western proletariat may have two classes and that the western proletariat has the "revolutionary backbone of a sponge."

The words had already "come out" of your mouth.


And how many Labour MPs had a proletarian background?

Prescott, Reid, Brown, Abbott etc. had working class backgrounds. Jack Straw was a Stalinist and had a MI5 file which labelled him "a revolutionary Socialist" and David Blunkett once declared his constituency the "Socialist Republic of Sheffield (might be somewhere else)."


That just demonstrates the banality of democratic parties and their desperation for votes.

Yet your material perspective doesn&#39;t only change when you get "voted" into power, it also changes when you seize power.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Again, I&#39;ll come back to this. :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

I am now going to finally finish this post. :lol:


Well there we disagree. The dictatorship of the proletariat will have much work to do and I expect that an organised state will rise to achieve this. Obviously it will be very different from bourgeois government. I do like the idea of a government devolved into several layers like Soviet Democracy but I wouldn’t suggest that that’s what we’ll actually see.

There is actually very little work that would have to be done under the dictatorship of the proletariat in an advanced Capitalist country. The industry would be there, the hospitals, the schools etc.

Therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat, in my opinion, will last for a maximum of two decades, but may well only last for the period of "counter revolution." That&#39;s if there is a "counter revolution."


I do think it will take at least a generation to move to communism though, a transition that may well take another generation. I’ve always thought that the main task will be to reshape human nature, or rather instil a new set of values in the population. This can only really be accomplished by growing up in a socialist society.

Yet if the population has violently overthrown Capitalism and decided to try and implement an egalitarian society. I really don&#39;t think there will be the need for an "enlightened" government to "re-educate" the proletariat. They will be progressive enough.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

Just thinking about what a post revolutionary society may look like. It occurred to me that what happened in the Spanish Civil War is of much use. The Brigades set up communes and workers councils.

Now if this happened during the "revolution." I see no reason why we should re-centralise power. If direct democracy was already working well, what reason is there to stop it?


Obviously not all of the proletariat are happy to live under capitalism, there will always be those who have achieved some level of class consciousness. No social theory deals in absolute. However classes do tend to act en masse and its by the movement of this bulk that we judge the class. And I again put it to you that the considerable majority of workers are happy with capitalism.

Yes we do look at the trends of the whole class. However what is common within the followers of Leninist doctrine is to assume that if something was true in 1917 Russia, it must be true today and if it is true today, it will be true forever.

I suspect you at least deviate enough from "traditional" Leninism to understand the irrational view of such a statement and therefore if we pay any attention to what that old guy Marx said, we&#39;ll see that while a class may think and do one thing now, this won&#39;t always be the case.


Unless you seriously believe that the majority, or anywhere near that, of the Western proletariat would even react favourably to the very word communism?

If you talk to people about the idea of Communism and not Russian or Chinese Socialism. You&#39;ll generally find they think the idea is at least favourable.

I often find people are generally pretty receptive to Communist "ideals" and the most common "sticking point" is when the abolish of money is mentioned. That generally opens up a "whole can of worms" and I have yet to find a quick and accurate answer with which to discount them.


I might as well resent fish for having the gall to live in water.

It would make sense. :lol:


You’re still not putting two and two together. The reason the material conditions in the West do not exist for revolution is due to imperialism. It is the only theory that explains the actions and evolution of post-Marx capital into the global force it is today. It is the only theory that explains how the capitalists can extract a profit from the workers while allowing those same workers a decent standard of living. In short it is required to explain not just the material reality of today but to draw conclusions on future trends in class struggle.

As I have said, the standard of living in the west would remain around the same level even if there was no imperialism. The Capitalist would just make less profit, but "he" would still make a profit.

If Lenin was right, then the Capitalists by keeping their businesses in the west would be defying the labour theory of value. If they were paying the western worker more than their labour was worth. It would simply defy all logic for them to keep their business in the west.

The Capitalists may be many things, but stupid is not one of them.


Define Leninist. Traditionally these mean Marxist-Leninist (aka Stalinist), Trotskyite, or Maoism. Of those three the only one I haven’t condemned in this thread is the Trots and that’s because they’ve yet to come up.

These parties tend to be the "natural heirs" to Lenin. They certainly have all the "hallmarks" of Leninism.


You mention the appeal of Maoism below, it appeared to work. The exact same applied to the USSR and its puppet parties in the West.

There was a very brief period in which "Leninist" parties worked. From about 1930 to 1970 and since then most of them have "curled up in a corner and died."

The "parties" that appear to actually work, are the Anarchist groups and they can&#39;t really be called parties at all. They seem to at least stay true to "their roots."

There is certainly a lot the Communist movement could learn from the Anarchists and maybe we&#39;ll see a "neo-Communism movement" arise in this century which combines the best elements of Anarchism and Marxism.

Both sides would undoubtedly have to purge the "idiots" from their ranks. Maoism and lifestyle Anarchism would certainly need to go. However the result of this combination, could well be fantastic.


Sarcasm? Me? Sarcasm is a product of Western decadence.

Have you considered "political" Islam? :lol:


I doubt they were quite as bad as the rest of Europe. Then again that was only the beginning of imperialism. Finance capital was beginning to evolve in Britain but was not yet at the stage that Lenin observed.

Imperialism was always there and the idea that it "evolved" into "finance" capital, is Leninist jargon.


I also wouldn’t discount local factors. Off the top of my head I remember that Marx wrote on the divisions between Irish immigrants and the native workers which prevented them from presenting a united front.

This is completely irrelevant. Marx said when the material conditions presented themselves, these "national" divides would become meaningless.

The idea that the English working class "hated" the Irish working class because of imperialism, is nonsense. The disliked the Irish working class because of ruling class propaganda. Not the "great" financial benefits they were getting from the English being in Ireland.


Much of Engel’s time after Marx’s death was spent translating the final volumes of Capital (a task which he was unable to complete by the time of his death). But while undoubtedly present to some degree in Britain at the time, the evolution to finance capital did not reach its higher stages until some years after Marx’s death.

Imperialism was as, if not more profitable in Marx&#39;s lifetime than it was in Lenin&#39;s and like I said "finance" capital as the "highest stage of Capitalism" is Lenin&#39;s attempt to sound Marxist and failing miserably.

Plus the whole idea that the "theory of imperialism" was Lenin&#39;s "idea." Is an untruth. Many of the "Socialist" writers were writing of such a thing before Lenin "borrowed" the theory.


And we can’t discount the possibility that both simply missed it

They couldn&#39;t have "missed it." As you pointed out, Engels considered it in 1858 and he then had a further 25 years in which to discuss it with Marx.

Engels would likely have brought it up with Marx, but I think it&#39;s highly likely that after discussion they both deemed it irrelevant.

If the theoretical founder of Communism deemed the this "hugely significant factor" superfluous. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s appropriate to say the theory of imperialism can be considered a "natural evolution" of Marxism.

I don&#39;t mind if you think the theory is good. What I do mind however, is you tarnishing the name of such a great revolutionary figure with such inane babble.

Advocating the theory of imperialism in itself, "voids your membership" for the Marxist historical materialism "club."


Wow it’s a good thing that the workers didn’t win their freedom from wage slavery all those years ago because they clearly needed the bourgeoisie to rule.

That is bullshit. The proletariat were every bit as capable of ruling then as they are now. The state is merely an extension of class interests and so there is no required level of competence required. As the classes evolve and acquire new skills then so these skills can be applied to the makeup of the state and government. And you accuse me of disliking the proletariat&#33;


Here we see the complete abandonment of historical materialism required if one wants to "buy into" the Leninist doctrine.

There has been no class in history that was capable of ruling itself straight after its inception. It took the bourgeois centuries to gain the "skills" required for "self rule."

Yet somehow the Leninists, yourself included, seem to think that just by wanting it enough or trying hard enough anything is possible. It reminds me of the Capitalists who say all that is required is "hard work" to "get to the top."

This kind of view, "flies in the face" of any materialist logic.


Now apply that to Marxist-Leninism and you’ll why there were so many Stalinist parties active twenty years ago.

There wouldn&#39;t have been many Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) parties around after Kruchev&#39;s denunciation of Stalinism. Most Leninist parties at that time were either entering bourgeois politics or asking for handouts from Russia.


Simply on the basis of theory though I tend to disregard Maoism as being un-Marxist. Lenin advocated revolution in imperfect conditions but he was very clear on the need for a proletariat.

From my understanding of Maoism, the proletariat aren&#39;t disregarded. It&#39;s just the peasants are used as the "cannon fodder."

Though it is laughable that you call Maoism "un-Marxist" and Leninism an "evolution" of Marxism. That they were both anti Marxist in their approach to revolution seems to escape you.

After all Marx never said "The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness." Now did he.


There is nothing humane about capitalism. It may take on that characteristic at times but the core of capitalism remains the same as ever – profit. Without profit there is no capitalism. And so you need to explain how capitalism was able to become more “humane” without jeopardising its profit.

A "humane" side of Capitalism is having indoor plumbing, central heating, food etc.

Sure if we talk in abstract "morals" Capitalism can never be "humane," but it can be more or less "humane." It is possible to have a slightly nicer version, like the welfare system Capitalism found in Scandinavia or you can have a "nasty" version like fascism.

Though these versions can exist within the realms of normal Capitalist profit. The evidence says so.


As for the chartists, they were just another idealist bourgeois movement.

:huh:


Chartism followed earlier Radical movements which demanded a widening of the franchise, and came after the passing of the Reform Act 1832, which gave the vote to the majority of the male middle classes, but not to the "working class" which was then emerging from artisan and labouring classes. Many Radicals made speeches on the "betrayal" of the working class and the "sacrificing" of their "interests" by the "misconduct" of the government.

Chartism included a wide range of organizations. Hence it can be seen as not so much a movement as an era in popular politics in Britain. Dorothy Thompson described the theme of her book The Chartists as the time when "thousands of working people considered that their problems could be solved by the political organization of the country."


(Emphasis added.)

Chartism - wikipedia.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartists)

Not the best source I know, but I think it&#39;s still pretty obvious that the Chartist movement which demanded voting rights for the British working class, was not bourgeois.

Unless of course direct action by the working class counts as "bourgeois idealism" in Leninist "circles"?


Time will tell on this one. I’ll tell you what, we’ll meet back here in a decade (though this thread will probably still be going strong) and see how its shaping up

I&#39;d put a substantial amount of money (if I had any) on me being right.


I don’t dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that the workers should or will organise in order to gain more “scraps” instead of banding together to overthrow capitalism. The former will not lead to socialism. Indeed there must be a driving ideology (I’ll even accept anarchism) behind any worker’s revolution. Otherwise we’ll merely end up with a new bourgeoisie

This is how it goes -

In the beginning, the Capitalists were nasty rotten bastards who left the workers to starve to death.

The workers not liking this, banded together and asked for more. The Capitalist was able to give them more.

This process was repeated time and time again during the last century.

However been as it&#39;s in the working classes self interest to want a bit more. They will ask for more. However there will come a time when the Capitalist can no longer give them more. I believe this time is about now.

So now, over the coming decades when the workers ask for more, the Capitalists will not be able to give any more. This is when the working class will conclude it is in their self interest to overthrow the social order that can no longer give them any more.

The workers will come naturally to Communism, they will not need it "driven" in.

The workers will change the world from below. Change will not come from "above."

Indeed it is testament to Leninism un-Marxist approach to proletarian revolution, that Lenin and the Leninists think that change will come from the "top."


I think I’ve gone into that directly above. If not just give the word

Yep and I&#39;ve answered it above. :)


Does that matter when your cash buys you more? Leaving aside the likes of pensions and the like its material goods that really drives consumerism.

Well the question is, can material goods remain cheap forever? ....I think not.


But is capitalism on the way down yet? The evidence suggests not. There is still plenty of labour to exploit in China after all. Again, only time will tell.

The evidence at this point certainly suggests that Capitalism is "past its prime."

For instance the bourgeois can no longer afford national health care, pensions, decent wages etc.

All this points to the hypothesis that Capitalism is "getting old."


Office work is a pretty broad term that encompasses a large variety of jobs. Like manual labour though there’s a gulf between skilled and unskilled.

I don&#39;t think secretaries and clerks earn that much. Do they?


Again going by Ireland, the service sector is the largest area of employment in the country today. By some fair margin I think. And that’s not even including those who work in manufacturing but are based in offices. I’d be very surprised if the trend wasn’t the same across Europe.

Are Department store workers, McDonalds workers etc. included in your definition of the service sector? ....because they don&#39;t earn a lot.


These the same anarchists that many of our comrades on the forums admire? I’m tempted to have another look just to see what their reactions were to that news

Well if memory serves me correctly, Proudhon was an anti-Semite who wanted to keep "some" bourgeois structures in future societies.

Funnily enough,only Marxists replied to that thread. I guess we are the least dogmatic group on the left. :o :lol:


I use the term “orthodox” because some forums members, including yourself, insist that Lenin contradicts Marx. Let’s just say that I’m using it in a negative context and that “orthodox” is politer than regressive.

Right, so going from the suggestion that the proletariat can and will transform society through revolution, to "The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness."

Is progressive? :o :lol:


Well even Maoism has been proven to work quite well as a national liberation strategy. Although, as I’ve mentioned numerous times, I don’t see why we should stop there. As for a better theory - name one aside from cheering on the bourgeoisie?

As I&#39;ve repeatedly said there is nothing wrong with "cheering" on the "native" bourgeois of oppressed nations. They will create modern Capitalism, which in these nations is a massive advancement.

Hoping that they will "do" something else, is pure idealism and has no basis in materialist philosophy.

[ComradeOm]

What&#39;s worse is that I just typed a whole reply and when I went to preview it, I lost my server connection. I could have cried.

Therefore this post will likely come in parts, because I can&#39;t really be bothered to type the whole fucking thing again.
One word… ouch :o

That’s one reason why I always type these out in Word beforehand... where it takes up a full 14 pages


The Russian peasant class like every other class in history, was driven by its class interest and in 1917 Russia, this interest undoubtedly lay in Capitalism.

Even the idea of Communism was likely enough to "scare the hell out of them," because Communism is not really in the class interest of the peasant class.
Not a capitalism that did not promise them their freedom. These were peasants, the lowest of the low, and they leapt at the chance to remove their oppressors. Of course only a proletariat was needed and the peasants could either “get with the Bolshevik program” or be oppressed alongside the feudal elements that they’d helped destroy.


That is a debatable point.

It appears the Bolsheviks at least thought they didn&#39;t have a majority, otherwise they wouldn&#39;t have staged the "coup" before the Soviets voted. If the Bolsheviks thought they had a majority which would vote them "in," then they would not have seized power in the "fashion" they did.

However, unfortunately polling systems weren&#39;t around then and therefore we can only speculate on what the answer is. Though the actions of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, certainly don&#39;t look like those of a party that was about to be voted in.
You seem to have mixed up the Provisional Government and the Soviets here. By the time of the coup there were effectively two governments in Russia – the official bourgeois Kerensky government which had replaced the Tsar and the Soviets which were the de facto government in much of the country and in which the Bolsheviks had just gained a very slim majority.


Why? ....if the parts of Russia where they re-grouped were "useless." How could the "Whites" possibly pose a substantial future problem?
From a simple military point of view it would have been madness to allow the Whites to regroup and launch an offensive. There is no sound reason to lose the momentum the Red Armies had gained the previous years. Besides, the Bolsheviks were looking to liberate all Russia, including those towns and cities in which the Whites had holed up.


There are certain elements of the Bolshevik parties early actions in gaining power, that are very similar to the actions of the Nazi party. The way they seized power, eliminated all opposition etc.

It is one of those historic similarities that seem to make history so repetitive.
And you are opposed to the proletariat removing all foes? That is exactly what the dictatorship of the proletariat is – the subjugation of one class in favour of the proletariat. I would expect nothing less from any future revolution.


You think it&#39;s reactionary to oppose having your produce taken off you by the state, which means you&#39;re likely to starve to death?

If you want to see reactionary actions, look no further than the Bolsheviks treatment of the peasants and for that matter most of the Russian proletariat.

If the names and places were edited out, you could easily mistake some of the early Bolshevik actions with those being carried out against worker movements in America and Europe.
I think its reactionary to refuse to turn your surplus produce over to your comrades in the cities. I think its reactionary to purposely reduce your output because you are not permitted to sell it.


What they might of done, is of course speculation. What we know is what they did and that was nothing to "write home about."
We do know that they did occupy almost all major ports and initiated a blockade. They were there and they did have an effect.


Will parts of the police and army "come over" to "our" side? ....probably.

Will they do this straight away? ....definitely not.

Will parts of the police and the army joining the revolution make a revolution against a modern Capitalist state with advanced military technology any "easier" than the Russian revolution? ....I doubt it.

Though again, this is speculation and the answer will only be found when the revolution "comes
Advanced technology is not much against a mass uprising, which is exactly what I expect the Western revolutions will look like.


The "evolutionary" Socialism that Lenin practised is quite simple.

Lenin thought that you could seize state power in a feudal society, then build the material conditions of Socialism and the evolve or reform your way to Socialism.

Like all of us, Lenin was a product of his time and in that period of time, the "evolutionary" Marxist theories of Kautsky and co. were widely accepted. It&#39;s no surprise then that these theories "rubbed off" on Lenin, whether he realised it or not.
Which is pretty much what happens in a socialist state… The proletariat takes power and then evolves its way to communism. Obviously Russia was slightly different but the theory remains the same.


Though Lenin was very ambiguous about what he thought he was "creating" in Russia. In certain writings he seems very conservative on the issue of Socialism being possible in Russia, in others he practically promises Communism. What we don&#39;t know is what he was telling the "masses."

Though little of what he said seemed to be based in material reality.
Lenin has always seemed very clear to me in both his writings and actions. But assuming that there is a quote lying around somewhere that is not ironclad, I’d say that he was a smart man and an excellent Marxist theorist. He knew exactly what he was up to and the challenges facing the Bolsheviks. I don’t begrudge him any possible doubts he may have had. But neither Lenin nor the Bolsheviks ever wavered from the task at hand. Besides although Lenin was the primary architect of the Revolution he was hardly the only one.


The state owned the means of production and the party leaders ran the state. The higher ranks of the "party" took the de facto role of the Russian bourgeois.

That the party elites had a pretty "sweet" lifestyle, only further reinforces the conclusion that the Russian CP was playing the role of the Capitalist in the absence of a strong and capable bourgeois.

Indeed it would not be that unreasonable to suggest that Stalin played the Bonaparte role for the emerging Russian bourgeois.
Its probably a matter of semantics but I do not classify the CP leaders as bourgeois. They did not directly invest capital or steal from the workers, the State did that. The bourgeoisie are capitalists and whatever lifestyle the Soviet leadership lived, they were not capitalists. At least not in the conventional sense of the word.


A "national liberation struggle" with a backbone will not "sell itself" to the west.

Indeed it seems that a "national liberation struggle" that believes it will create Socialism is likely to have even more of a backbone.

Now if these people embarrass the bourgeois of our countries, then proletarian "support" for their leaders will greatly diminish and the chances of proletarian revolution will improve greatly.

This is a good "thing."
And a bourgeoisie national liberation struggle will inevitably sell itself to the West. Why? Because that generates profits for the new ruling class, all in the name of “economic development” of course.

And you do touch on the crux of the matter – if a socialist revolution actually succeeds, no matter how remote you may find that possibility, then all’s well and good. If not then we end up with Stalin Jr building towards modern capitalism so much quicker.


What we mustn&#39;t do is start believing the Socialist rhetoric of the liberators. Socialism in these countries is impossible and modern Capitalism in itself is a great advance.

Historical materialism dictates this will be the "case." Unless of course you&#39;ve joined the Maoists and thrown historical materialism "out the window."
The Maoists go to an extreme. You must have a proletariat for a successful revolution and that requires capitalism. The question is whether a significantly class conscious proletariat can… well you know what I’ve been saying for weeks now ;)


Marxism does advocate agitation because no one knows when or how the material conditions for proletarian revolution will arise in the advanced Capitalist countries.

However what Marxism does realise is that those material conditions will never arise in a feudal society. This would completely contradict historical materialism which Marxism is based on.

So Lenin did not take Marxism to its "logical conclusion." Lenin took Marxism to an irrational conclusion, which completely contradicts basic Marxism.
We don’t know today when the revolution will occur but we’ll certainly know when the material conditions take a turn for the worse. That’s the real, practical, use of historical materialism – the ability to accurately analyse the times we live in. Its perfectly clear, whether you use Lenin’s theories or not, that the material conditions today are not suitable for revolution. Its also perfectly clear that it will be many years before these conditions occur.

Of course the real point here is that if you deny that men can change the material conditions (a result of a flawed reading of Marx’s works) then there is no point in you or I trying to put Marxist theories into practice. After all, communism is inevitable.

As I’ve said, I do not agree with the above conclusion. We should constantly struggle to influence the material conditions and when seize any opportunity that presents itself.


Yes Russia did have "its" revolution, a bourgeois revolution.
That we’ve been over


about understand the basic principles of Marxist economics and the labour theory of value. So this particular debate, I will happily leave to the experts.
Considering that the experts are taught that Marx, like all classical economists, was wrong you may be waiting some time. But going on what I’ve read, I wouldn’t have a hope of understanding the economics themselves, Marx believed that his labour theory of value, and the conclusions drawn from it, was economic proof that capitalism was decaying. That conclusion has been disproved but the law itself is sound.


Marxism is an attempt at the scientific study of human history and its driving forces. It ends by prediting the next stage of human society.

Now Leninism in the main, concerns itself with the creation of this predicted social order. In this respect, Leninism failed in Russia and every other country that followed the "Leninist way."

So the practical aspect of Lenin&#39;s work has been shown to be a failure.
The practical side of Lenin’s work has only been attempted once. By contrast we have over a century of watching numerous democratic socialist parties fail.


The theorectical parts, which consist of diatribes against Left Communism, Anarchism and the working class and the theory of imperialism. Are not my "cup of tea." I don&#39;t "buy" into Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism and thereofore what part of Lenin&#39;s theorectical work do you think I will find "useful"?
There are two aspects of Lenin’s work that I believe are vital for every Marxist to understand. The first is imperialism as it explains the nature of capitalism today and which we’ve covered several times. The second is the nature of the state, an area in which Lenin went into in considerable detail.


I don&#39;t "promote" the thoeries of Kautsky, because like Lenin&#39;s theories, history has shown them to be failures.
Well so much for looking at history critically. Was Kautsky’s central thesis, that socialism could be brought about peacefully, false? Of course it was. But the man was active for decades and had some considerable influence. His work on imperialism is the most obvious as it influenced one VI Lenin. It could be said that the world today has reached the stage of “ultra-imperialism” he predicted, note that no liberal democracy has ever declared war on each other.


The modern proletariat can read, write, operate complicated machinery, solve complex problems etc. These skills are undoubtedly essential if the proletariat is ever to become its own "rulers."

It is my opinion that only within the last decade or so, has the modern proletariat "accessed" the essential skills for self rule.

Of course you may view these skills as superfluous and conclude that the proletariat needs only to exist in order to be able to rule itself. I think time will tell on this one.
Did I address this below? These posts are getting confusing :P


Didn&#39;t Cromwell install a new King?

Anyway, I tend to view the rise of the British bourgeois as a series of "mini" revolutions, form the Magna Carta onwards. Eventually they were strong enough to strike fear into the hearts of the monarchy and a "benevolent" monarch let them have their "rule." Provided of course the monarchy was allowed into the "club."

It would be interesting however to read a Marxist account of the British bourgeois, though I have yet to see one.
The Magna Carta was the result of feudal bickering. It was devolution of the King’s power but only as far down as the top barons.

It wasn’t til Cromwell that the King’s right to rule was challenged. The Civil War effectively pitted the bourgeoisie against the nobility. A new king was later installed but with a fraction of the monarchy former powers and totally beholden to Parliament.

I’m sure there are plenty of Marxist accounts of British history out there somewhere.



This is my point. If there had been an emancipated proletariat in Russia, they would never have let "bureaucrats" take power. At least not without a fight.

I am always amused when the Leninists, Maoists etc. debate the rise of the "revisionists." They all seem to miss the most basic of points. Had the proletariat been emancipated by the revolution, wouldn&#39;t have been able to "take" power.
If only it was so simple. In the case of Russia there were a myriad of factors that prevented this “emancipation” taking place immediately. Not least the fact that the peasants would’ve demanded the same rights. Need I point out the folly of turning the state over to a populace still dominated by the peasant class?

But no doubt mistakes were made in Russia. I can’t and won’t deny that. But while its easy to point them out with hindsight, they’re much less obvious on the ground at the time.


As for Bolshevik rule being "softer" on the workers than the nobles had been. Well that is probably true.

But "softer" than the Capitalists? ....that is disputable. Certainly if you changed the names and places of some of the Bolsheviks actions towards the working class. They could be easily mistaken with the types of things the Capitalists were doing in Europe and America at that time.
Assuming for a minute that Russia didn’t disintegrate with the Bolsheviks, the most likely scenario, do you think that the Russian people today would have living standards anything like they do now? Of course we’ll never know but I think its safe to assume that Russia would be a third world nation today.


From the British Labour Party to German Social Democracy and from the Russian CP to the Chinese CP.

The longer these parties were in existence and the more power they got, the more they "retarded" a class conscious, if not proto revolutionary membership and proletariat into "mere "flag wavers" for the "real" revolutionaries."

The evidence certainly suggests that the way parties are structured, means they will eventually detach and "neut" the membership and even when they don&#39;t do this, they purge the more revolutionary members from the party.
And the alternative is?

Political parties should be a step up from trade unions in terms of the organisation of the proletariat into a tool capable of taking power. What has tended to happen is that the parties become more important than their members and forget their purpose, the “tail wagging the dog” so to speak. The exact same can be said about unions or any other proletariat body. They are all as revolutionary as their members allow.


Maybe you should reclaim the term from the "revisionists."
Oh I am sorely tempted, but Stalin still haunts the phrase. Bloody revisionist ;)


Though bourgeois sciences recent tolerance of the "religious" is worrying.
I suppose if capitalism is anything, it’s the equivalent of an old lady who never throws out a piece of string because you’ll never know when it’ll come in handy. Religion was useful once and it can be useful again. I doubt it’s a coincidence that, in the US anyway, the upswing in religion came about the same time as half the manufacturing sector packed up and headed to China. And instead of angrily blaming the “free trade” party responsible, the American proletariat voted their candidate in because he had “values”.


Though consumer goods could be and are produced and sold in western countries. They don&#39;t rely on "economic imperialism" as much as you think.

It would be perfectly possible for Britain to keep a high standard of living if it had a "closed market." It&#39;s just the Capitalists profit margins would shrink, a lot.
You see that computer you’re using? Most of it was probably made in the Far East. The same applies to almost all household appliances, cars and clothes. Even the products you think are made in Europe or the US (take German cars as an example) usually have half their components made in China or India. The savings for the capitalist are simply phenomenal and impossible to recreate when half your budget is being eaten up by wages.


People don&#39;t have more disposable income.

For example, people used to be paid say £20 and product a also cost £20. Therefore they could have one of product a. Nowadays people are paid £10 and product a now costs £5. Therefore they can now afford two of product a.

At face value it may seem like people now have more "disposable income." However what is actually happening is that while real wages are "going down," the cost of material goods is "going down" more.
I’m still sure what you’re not getting at here. To use your example there, if I’m paid €10 and I
can afford 2 products, as opposed to one, then I have more money to spend. Maybe not in real terms but currency has always been a relative value anyway.


Yet look what this "freedom" from "poverty" has allowed you. You have had the time, resources and security to look into politics and you have become a Communist. The phrase about Capitalism "digging its own grave" springs to mind.

....and how cool is that?
To be perfectly honest I’m more impressed with the ability to have hot showers every morning :P

Unfortunately I don’t think the whole “time and resources = communist” thing has caught on yet. Those workers who have gained class consciousness are still very much in the minority and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Barring any major economic downturn that forces to examine society in a more critical light.


The "revisionists" seem to have infiltrated every "Leninist" party.

It seems to me that the problem is uncorrectable. Though "you" Leninists can spend the rest of eternity, trying to correct it if thats what makes you happy.
Here’s an assignment for you. Read any of Lenin’s works, study his policies and compare with Stalin, Mao et al Now that both the USSR and PRC are finished as role models, Lenin’s theories can be rescued and put to good use again.


There is "scope," but this "scope" is very limited.
Its not as limited as you may think. To take an example that’s relevant, it never ceases to amaze me how Russia 1917, a country that was backwards in every sense, could produce such a number of revolutionaries and thinkers who, for better or worse, have had a massive impact on both Marxism and the world. Taking a very literal view of historical materialism, that should not have happened.


The conditions more or less dictated that a "brute" like Stalin would come to power in a country like Russia (1917). Indeed Lenin and Trotsky both showed their ability to "play the role" of the "brute" very early on.
I accept your point that it was difficult to avoid a Stalinesque figure ascending to power, though I maintain that this could’ve been avoided. But I just want to mention as an aside here that I see nothing wrong with the means that Lenin or Trotsky used in securing the revolution. I find this concept that non-violence is preferable to the harshness of Lenin and Trotsky to be bourgeois hogwash. One of the reasons that I personally admire Lenin, and to a lesser degree Guevara, is his ruthless streak.


"Putting words into your mouth?"

Earlier in this debate I said, "Indeed the MIMers take it to the logical conclusion by saying that there is no American proletariat."

You replied by saying, "Don’t get me started on the MIM or Maoists in general.

That said, they’re not far wrong on the US situation. It doesn’t take much to realise that 1) the Western proletariat is very advanced and 2) they have all the revolutionary backbone of a sponge. That much is obvious at least."

(Emphasis added.)

Page 3, Anarchists debate.

Now how is my statement "Though this "faith" is incredibly ironic when your "belief" that there is no western proletariat is also taken into account." Putting words into your mouth?

You certainly think the MLMers are "on to something," that the western proletariat may have two classes and that the western proletariat has the "revolutionary backbone of a sponge."

The words had already "come out" of your mouth.
Looking back is cheating ;)

But feel free to look back and find where I stated that there is no Western proletariat. The Maoists contend that there is no revolutionary proletariat in the West. I don’t agree that there is no proletariat but I find it hard to argue with the glaring truth that the Western worker is not class conscious.


Prescott, Reid, Brown, Abbott etc. had working class backgrounds. Jack Straw was a Stalinist and had a MI5 file which labelled him "a revolutionary Socialist" and David Blunkett once declared his constituency the "Socialist Republic of Sheffield (might be somewhere else)."
And they were old labour. How many of “Blair’s Babes” can be called socialist?

Really though, Straw was Stalinist? They do clean up well don’t they? :P


Yet your material perspective doesn&#39;t only change when you get "voted" into power, it also changes when you seize power.
Well then there’s no hope for the proletariat at all ;)


There is actually very little work that would have to be done under the dictatorship of the proletariat in an advanced Capitalist country. The industry would be there, the hospitals, the schools etc.

Therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat, in my opinion, will last for a maximum of two decades, but may well only last for the period of "counter revolution." That&#39;s if there is a "counter revolution."
Leaving aside practical concerns (worldwide progress, counter revolutionaries etc) I think there will be a great deal to do. The first and foremost is socialising the means of production. These have been built and maintained by the capitalist system and it will take time to rebuild these for their new uses. I expect a lot of teething trouble here.

After that there’s also the little matter of the capitalists. They’re not going to vanish and while we may kill off the most reactionary I wouldn’t feel safe until the entire generation of them are dead.


Yet if the population has violently overthrown Capitalism and decided to try and implement an egalitarian society. I really don&#39;t think there will be the need for an "enlightened" government to "re-educate" the proletariat. They will be progressive enough.
I question whether a people born and raised in the capitalist murder machine will be ready for the complete freedom offered by communism. I expect it will take at the very least a generation before humans have adjusted to the necessary degree.


Just thinking about what a post revolutionary society may look like. It occurred to me that what happened in the Spanish Civil War is of much use. The Brigades set up communes and workers councils.

Now if this happened during the "revolution." I see no reason why we should re-centralise power. If direct democracy was already working well, what reason is there to stop it?
Spain really was a fascinating example and the only reason I pay any attention to anarchism. Unfortunately it was too brief to draw any solid conclusions. We don’t know what would’ve happened five years down the line or what the effect of having to oppress a bourgeois minority would’ve been. There have been communes throughout history, the question is how to implement it across an entire society.

You also have to remember that Spain 1936 was neither a revolution nor a success.


Yes we do look at the trends of the whole class. However what is common within the followers of Leninist doctrine is to assume that if something was true in 1917 Russia, it must be true today and if it is true today, it will be true forever.

I suspect you at least deviate enough from "traditional" Leninism to understand the irrational view of such a statement and therefore if we pay any attention to what that old guy Marx said, we&#39;ll see that while a class may think and do one thing now, this won&#39;t always be the case.
Well that above statement is frankly insane. We can draw conclusions from Russia 1917 but I think anyone with an iota of common sense, never mind any knowledge of Marxism, knows that the circumstances in Russia were the combination of many, many cultural, political and economic factors. Broad lessons, such as the role of the proletariat in forcing revolution in underdeveloped nations, can be taken from the events but to suggest that the material conditions and class outlook are fixed is lunacy.

That also applies to Marx’s works as well. The laws of history are more like guidelines as to the likelihood of a class’s intentions. They do not predict exactly what a class/government will do in a given situation.


If you talk to people about the idea of Communism and not Russian or Chinese Socialism. You&#39;ll generally find they think the idea is at least favourable.

I often find people are generally pretty receptive to Communist "ideals" and the most common "sticking point" is when the abolish of money is mentioned. That generally opens up a "whole can of worms" and I have yet to find a quick and accurate answer with which to discount them.
Well everyone wants a free and classless society, but try discussing the specifics of Marxism and see what the reactions are like. The ideals are always popular by few are interested in talk of revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat or the like. That will change in time of course but today the desire for change is low.

As for the money question, I’ve no idea what communism will look like so I see little point in guessing.


As I have said, the standard of living in the west would remain around the same level even if there was no imperialism. The Capitalist would just make less profit, but "he" would still make a profit.

If Lenin was right, then the Capitalists by keeping their businesses in the west would be defying the labour theory of value. If they were paying the western worker more than their labour was worth. It would simply defy all logic for them to keep their business in the west.

The Capitalists may be many things, but stupid is not one of them.
The only jobs remaining in the West are those that rely on a significant degree of technical ability or education base, typically either job shop or batch production. The mass production industries that once dominated the manufacturing sector are almost all making use of the cheaper labour in the Far East.

For example, making screws or light fittings does not require a huge degree of skill once the production lines are in place. On the other hand a biopharma plant that manufactures vaccines requires both a skilled workforce and a level of quality control not available in most underdeveloped nations.


These parties tend to be the "natural heirs" to Lenin. They certainly have all the "hallmarks" of Leninism
Correct. They are all revolutionary ideologies that eschew sitting around waiting for the material conditions to change.


There was a very brief period in which "Leninist" parties worked. From about 1930 to 1970 and since then most of them have "curled up in a corner and died."
You think they worked at all? I tend to place the death of Leninism, as Lenin advocated it, from the early 1930s. At the latest.


The "parties" that appear to actually work, are the Anarchist groups and they can&#39;t really be called parties at all. They seem to at least stay true to "their roots."

There is certainly a lot the Communist movement could learn from the Anarchists and maybe we&#39;ll see a "neo-Communism movement" arise in this century which combines the best elements of Anarchism and Marxism.

Both sides would undoubtedly have to purge the "idiots" from their ranks. Maoism and lifestyle Anarchism would certainly need to go. However the result of this combination, could well be fantastic.
Anarchism stays true to its roots alright. The problem is that those roots haven’t achieved much. It’s the opposite of Marxism where those “communist” parties changed the world but couldn’t be called Marxist or even socialist. Funny, no?

I’d have no problem partaking in an anarchist led revolution. However without the dictatorship of the proletariat I fail to see how it could succeed. That is something that Marxist analysis predicts with some certainty.


Have you considered "political" Islam?
Hmmm they do advocate revolution and overthrowing the Western capitalist state… Where do I sign up? :lol:


Imperialism was always there and the idea that it "evolved" into "finance" capital, is Leninist jargon.
If you don’t use buzzwords then nobody will take you seriously ;)

Seriously though finance capital sums up the evolution of capital and financial institutions into a form that transcends national borders. Its quite different from what Marx witnessed in his day.


This is completely irrelevant. Marx said when the material conditions presented themselves, these "national" divides would become meaningless.

The idea that the English working class "hated" the Irish working class because of imperialism, is nonsense. The disliked the Irish working class because of ruling class propaganda. Not the "great" financial benefits they were getting from the English being in Ireland.
National divides hamper the development of the material conditions required for revolution. It is yet another factor that influences the economic base.

And I did not tie imperialism into this.


Imperialism was as, if not more profitable in Marx&#39;s lifetime than it was in Lenin&#39;s and like I said "finance" capital as the "highest stage of Capitalism" is Lenin&#39;s attempt to sound Marxist and failing miserably.

Plus the whole idea that the "theory of imperialism" was Lenin&#39;s "idea." Is an untruth. Many of the "Socialist" writers were writing of such a thing before Lenin "borrowed" the theory.
Marx died in 1883. The Berlin Conference which kicked off the “scramble for Africa” began in 1984. Lenin actually dates the beginning of imperialism to 1898. Marx did not witness imperialism in all its “glory”.

It was Lenin’s “Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism” that formalised the theory. As I mention above he was influenced by Kautsky and Luxembourg.


They couldn&#39;t have "missed it." As you pointed out, Engels considered it in 1858 and he then had a further 25 years in which to discuss it with Marx.

Engels would likely have brought it up with Marx, but I think it&#39;s highly likely that after discussion they both deemed it irrelevant.

If the theoretical founder of Communism deemed the this "hugely significant factor" superfluous. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s appropriate to say the theory of imperialism can be considered a "natural evolution" of Marxism.

I don&#39;t mind if you think the theory is good. What I do mind however, is you tarnishing the name of such a great revolutionary figure with such inane babble.
Why did Marx and Engels not draw the correct conclusions from what they observed in England? I don’t know. The signs were there and they were noticed alright but neither of them “connected the dots”. Engels, the foremost expert on the English working class, made a number of references, including coming close to the truth in the foreword of The Condition of the Working Class in England (second edition, 1892).

Perhaps it was the lone nature of English capital, it didn’t fit into the European model. Of course we know now that this was due to the fact that England was the sole nation with both a monopoly of industry and vast colonial holdings.

Lenin and the later Marxists were in a far better position to observe affairs but even then they built on Engel’s observations. It was Engels who first mentioned the aristocracy among the working class. He was close but unable to make the final connection. I’d advise Lenin’s Imperialism and the Split in Socialism as an interesting read on the subject.


Advocating the theory of imperialism in itself, "voids your membership" for the Marxist historical materialism "club."
And locking your mind to everything except that which Marx wrote leads to expulsion from the Marxist “club”.


Here we see the complete abandonment of historical materialism required if one wants to "buy into" the Leninist doctrine.

There has been no class in history that was capable of ruling itself straight after its inception. It took the bourgeois centuries to gain the "skills" required for "self rule."

Yet somehow the Leninists, yourself included, seem to think that just by wanting it enough or trying hard enough anything is possible. It reminds me of the Capitalists who say all that is required is "hard work" to "get to the top."

This kind of view, "flies in the face" of any materialist logic.
I try I really do. Try and put aside the Lenin avatar for a second and address the point at hand. I don’t spend this long on a thread just to listen to someone rant and rave about how stupid and un-Marxist Leninists are.

Now I’ll go over this again and hopefully I’ll get an intelligent response this time.

The State is merely an extension of the ruling class. There are no required skills that the ruling class do not already possess. For example, the bourgeois states of a century ago seem very primitive to the spin and controls we have of today. Does that mean that the bourgeoisie were incapable of governing themselves? Of course not, if so they would not be around today. Over the century the bourgeoisie acquired new skills which then could be used to improve the State.

And I can’t help but comment on There has been no class in history that was capable of ruling itself straight after its inception. It took the bourgeois centuries to gain the "skills" required for "self rule.". Surely you were arguing the complete opposite when discussing the need for socialism and its length above?


There wouldn&#39;t have been many Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) parties around after Kruchev&#39;s denunciation of Stalinism. Most Leninist parties at that time were either entering bourgeois politics or asking for handouts from Russia.
Khrushchev was Marxist-Leninist and more than happy to bankroll the Western parties that toed Moscow’s line. It wasn’t until the fall of the Iron Curtain that those parties had to find a new bankroller.


From my understanding of Maoism, the proletariat aren&#39;t disregarded. It&#39;s just the peasants are used as the "cannon fodder."

Though it is laughable that you call Maoism "un-Marxist" and Leninism an "evolution" of Marxism. That they were both anti Marxist in their approach to revolution seems to escape you.

After all Marx never said "The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness." Now did he.
How do you feel when I hold Lenin’s theories up as a continuation of Marx’s? I feel the same way about Stalin and Mao.

As for the quote… would you disagree with it? Its certainly held true in the West to date. I don’t think it always will but so far it has.


A "humane" side of Capitalism is having indoor plumbing, central heating, food etc.

Sure if we talk in abstract "morals" Capitalism can never be "humane," but it can be more or less "humane." It is possible to have a slightly nicer version, like the welfare system Capitalism found in Scandinavia or you can have a "nasty" version like fascism.

Though these versions can exist within the realms of normal Capitalist profit. The evidence says so.
You keep mentioning this evidence. I’d be interested in knowing what it is.

And, for the record, I tend to regard fascism as a separate ideology to capitalism.



Not the best source I know, but I think it&#39;s still pretty obvious that the Chartist movement which demanded voting rights for the British working class, was not bourgeois.

Unless of course direct action by the working class counts as "bourgeois idealism" in Leninist "circles"?
From the same article:

Universal suffrage for all men over the age of 21
Equal-sized electoral districts
Voting by secret ballot
An end to the need for a property qualification for Parliament (so that constituencies could return the man of their choice, rich or poor)
Pay for MPs
Annual Parliaments
Progressive ideals for sure but hardly socialist. Again it was a result of Britain’s progress towards true bourgeois society, as epitomised by France. Look at it as the transition from the privileged, and in some cases authoritarian, capitalism to the liberal model that so dominates today.


This is how it goes -

In the beginning, the Capitalists were nasty rotten bastards who left the workers to starve to death.

The workers not liking this, banded together and asked for more. The Capitalist was able to give them more.

This process was repeated time and time again during the last century.

However been as it&#39;s in the working classes self interest to want a bit more. They will ask for more. However there will come a time when the Capitalist can no longer give them more. I believe this time is about now.

So now, over the coming decades when the workers ask for more, the Capitalists will not be able to give any more. This is when the working class will conclude it is in their self interest to overthrow the social order that can no longer give them any more.

The workers will come naturally to Communism, they will not need it "driven" in.

The workers will change the world from below. Change will not come from "above."

Indeed it is testament to Leninism un-Marxist approach to proletarian revolution, that Lenin and the Leninists think that change will come from the "top."
Quite possibly it will work that way. But I suggest that those individuals motivated by self-interest will find a solution that will serve them best. But I see no flaw in your logic.


Well the question is, can material goods remain cheap forever? ....I think not.
Of course not. Cheap goods require cheap labour. And this is where imperialism comes in… again.


The evidence at this point certainly suggests that Capitalism is "past its prime."

For instance the bourgeois can no longer afford national health care, pensions, decent wages etc.

All this points to the hypothesis that Capitalism is "getting old."
It’s the decline of the welfare state. I expect to see the dominance of neo-liberal policies in the next decade. This will be more interesting but as long as the flow of cheap consumer goods continues then capitalism will survive.

Although if liberals go too far and the cycles of depression that marred pre-Keynesian capitalism return then things might really shake up


I don&#39;t think secretaries and clerks earn that much. Do they?

Are Department store workers, McDonalds workers etc. included in your definition of the service sector? ....because they don&#39;t earn a lot.
As with everything there’s a scale. At the lower ends of the pay scale you have the McDonalds workers while the planners/purchasers/clerks earn a lot more. They certainly earn more than manual labour, although this is probably balanced by the lack of overtime or other union benefits.


Well if memory serves me correctly, Proudhon was an anti-Semite who wanted to keep "some" bourgeois structures in future societies.
Its disturbing when you realise just how many major figures from that era were anti-Semites.


Right, so going from the suggestion that the proletariat can and will transform society through revolution, to "The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness."

Is progressive?
No more so than the lessons that Marx drew from history. Lenin made an observation which has yet to be refuted.

But trying to turn the clock back over century is hardly the way forward.


As I&#39;ve repeatedly said there is nothing wrong with "cheering" on the "native" bourgeois of oppressed nations. They will create modern Capitalism, which in these nations is a massive advancement.

Hoping that they will "do" something else, is pure idealism and has no basis in materialist philosophy
Pure idealism? As opposed to bleak fatalism?

Although idealism would be a new challenge to Leninism, considering that it is built on solid materialist foundations.

[Amusing Scrotum]

One word… ouch

Ouch indeed.

It better not happen this time. :(


That’s one reason why I always type these out in Word beforehand... where it takes up a full 14 pages

14 pages. :o

We should probably try and edit this debate into a pamphlet of some sorts. The stubborn Marxist against the perspicacious Leninist.


Not a capitalism that did not promise them their freedom. These were peasants, the lowest of the low, and they leapt at the chance to remove their oppressors. Of course only a proletariat was needed and the peasants could either “get with the Bolshevik program” or be oppressed alongside the feudal elements that they’d helped destroy.

Whatever they did there would have been massive problems. Peasants just aren&#39;t suited to Socialism and neither was Russia at that time.


You seem to have mixed up the Provisional Government and the Soviets here. By the time of the coup there were effectively two governments in Russia – the official bourgeois Kerensky government which had replaced the Tsar and the Soviets which were the de facto government in much of the country and in which the Bolsheviks had just gained a very slim majority.

I haven&#39;t "mixed them up."

The Bolsheviks did not have a majority in the Soviets before the "coup." If memory serves me correctly, the Soviets voted for a Bolshevik majority a couple of days after the "coup."

Needless to say, a vote in favour under such circumstances is very questionable.


From a simple military point of view it would have been madness to allow the Whites to regroup and launch an offensive. There is no sound reason to lose the momentum the Red Armies had gained the previous years. Besides, the Bolsheviks were looking to liberate all Russia, including those towns and cities in which the Whites had holed up.

My point is that not only were those towns and cities pretty useless. "Taking them" was likely more costly than not "taking them."

The whole saga also served as a useful front to "do away with" some of those "troublesome" Anarchists and Socialists who refused to "toe the Bolshevik line."

It&#39;s quite astonishing just how many Anarchists were executed after "Socialist" revolutions. I can&#39;t think of one where the Anarchists weren&#39;t persecuted during the "counter revolutionary" phase.

No wonder they don&#39;t like "us."


And you are opposed to the proletariat removing all foes? That is exactly what the dictatorship of the proletariat is – the subjugation of one class in favour of the proletariat. I would expect nothing less from any future revolution.


All foes who threaten the proletariat, not the foes who threaten the new "rulers."

Do you really consider other Socialists and Anarchists "foes?" ....heck if I was in Russia at that time, I would have been "gotten rid of."


I think its reactionary to refuse to turn your surplus produce over to your comrades in the cities. I think its reactionary to purposely reduce your output because you are not permitted to sell it.

I&#39;ll admit there are a lot of conflicting sources on this issue.

I think it is fair to say that some of the peasants were just objecting to not having enough food to survive.

I certainly wouldn&#39;t give up my food and starve to death because of "comradely" spirit. Some of us, just ain&#39;t martyrs and don&#39;t really want to be martyrs. At least not in that way.


We do know that they did occupy almost all major ports and initiated a blockade. They were there and they did have an effect.

It was "nothing special" though. It&#39;s not like they were aggressively stampeding across the country.


Advanced technology is not much against a mass uprising, which is exactly what I expect the Western revolutions will look like.

I suppose we will just have to wait and see on this on. What an anti-climax. :(


Which is pretty much what happens in a socialist state… The proletariat takes power and then evolves its way to communism. Obviously Russia was slightly different but the theory remains the same.

It is at least a point of debate as to whether the proletariat actually "took power."

As for the evolution in a proletarian revolution. What you have to admit is that Marx or Engels never proposed (in a serious manner) that a revolution could evolve its way through Capitalism as well.

After all, that&#39;s one of the main criticisms of social democracy. The social democrats think that an epoch of history can be evolved into something different, rather than being overthrown. It is a fundamentally anti-Marxist approach to social change.


Lenin has always seemed very clear to me in both his writings and actions. But assuming that there is a quote lying around somewhere that is not ironclad, I’d say that he was a smart man and an excellent Marxist theorist. He knew exactly what he was up to and the challenges facing the Bolsheviks. I don’t begrudge him any possible doubts he may have had. But neither Lenin nor the Bolsheviks ever wavered from the task at hand. Besides although Lenin was the primary architect of the Revolution he was hardly the only one.

Lenin was an intelligent man, yes. However was Leninism a good enough theory or even a compatible theory which can be added to Marxism or can Marxism "stand on its own."

Also I think if the case was to be made to add another theory onto Marx, it would likely be Luxemburg. She&#39;s a good guide to Marxist agitation and activism and certainly makes good theoretical points.

I get the feeling she was largely overlooked as a theorist because she was a woman. Even the most progressive men in the early 20th century would seem reactionary by todays standards.

Plus, while Lenin was obviously not the only "thinker" during the Russian revolution. I think it is very revealing as to the intellectual scarcity present in the revolutionary "elite." That Trotsky&#39;s hogwash is the only other pseudo Marxist theory to come out of that time.


Its probably a matter of semantics but I do not classify the CP leaders as bourgeois. They did not directly invest capital or steal from the workers, the State did that. The bourgeoisie are capitalists and whatever lifestyle the Soviet leadership lived, they were not capitalists. At least not in the conventional sense of the word.

Most of the early leaders certainly had bourgeois backgrounds.

I suppose you could call the later party leaders as being economically bourgeois (having bourgeois lifestyles) and the case could certainly be made that with the state control of industry, the heads of state were a kind of de facto Capitalist class.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

Again, I&#39;ll carry on tomorrow. I&#39;ve got coursework to do now. :(

[UltraLeftGerry]

I&#39;ll just add my thoughts on anarchists.

In this age of post-marxism and postmodernist reformism/nihilism, anarchists are probably the largest truly revolutionary group out there. I have no clue if there are more Marxist-Leninists than anarchists. Hopefully there are more anarchists. :D Among Marxists there are those authoritarians who fetishize the state and yearn for a dictatorship they can exercise power in. It&#39;s hard to be a ultra-left/council communist. We&#39;re hated by the Leninists and many anarchists attack us because we do not shy away from Marx. I think the anarchists that do attack us unfortunately tend to generalize those who uphold Marx. I blame the Leninist project for this situation. Of course on the anarchist side there are those silly post-left, lifestyle and primitivist types, but I don&#39;t lump in anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists with those groups so I hope to receive the same treatment from them regarding Marxists. :)
I use Marxist methodology to examine the material world. I do not necessarily see, as anarcihsts do the state independently existing from the mode of economic organization. Some anarchists have tried to point out when the state and the bourgeoisie or aristocracy have differed and had an antagonistic existence, but I say that in fact the actions of the state did in fact protect their interests in the long run. (ie Roosevelt&#39;s New Deal which almost caused a fascist coup from some business quarters.) I think in the area of scholarship and studying society, Marxism is most relevant, but in organizing for the revolution, the anarchists have the edge.